Navigating Socialist Strategy and Tensions in the Post-Trump Era with Sudip Bhattacharya

Sudip Bhattacharya joins us to unravel the post-Trump landscape of socialist strategy, wading through the murky waters of political transitions and internal leftist tensions. How can we nurture class consciousness and fight against anti-DEI rhetoric that threatens to strip away essential rights? Together, Sudip and I confront these urgent questions, examining the evolution of the Republican Party towards Western chauvinism and the unsettling alliance between tech oligarchs and Trump's agenda. As we navigate this complex terrain, we provide insights into the dissatisfaction among socialists with elite discourses on identity politics and misleading media narratives about the working class.

Our conversation also dives into the challenges of maintaining unity within diverse organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Drawing on personal experiences in union organizing, we emphasize the importance of staying focused on core objectives like job protection and workplace diversity, even when faced with ideological divides. Sudip shares anecdotes from a DSA town hall event, offering a firsthand look at the debates surrounding strategy and the need for both domestic and international perspectives within the movement. This dialogue highlights the importance of thoughtful public discourse and effective collaboration to strengthen class unity.

Finally, we explore the broader implications of American foreign policy and the potential for global solidarity in challenging U.S. hegemony. By engaging with international perspectives, we uncover the impact of American political actions on global relations and the potential shifts in alliances. From understanding the complexities of radicalization to critiquing rhetoric-driven strategies, we underscore the necessity of addressing tangible issues that people care about. Join us for a compelling episode that navigates the intricate dynamics of socialist strategy and outreach in today's volatile political climate.

Sudip Bhattacharya is a former journalist and will be focused on exploring race in the United States at Rutgers University. He has written articles for CNN, the Washington City Paper, Lancaster Newspapers, The Daily Gazette, and The Jersey Journal. He also graduated from Rutgers as an undergrad and earned a Master's in Journalism from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the Red Star caucus in the DSA, and has recently written an article for From the Academy to the Streets: Notes from a Working Class Think Tank edited by Colin Jenkins (Iskra Books 2025). 

Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to Bitterlake

Chapters

• 0:48 Navigating Socialist Strategy Post-Trump Era
• 9:46 Navigating Political Divergence Within Leftists
• 23:42 Navigating Internal Tensions Within DSA
• 28:48 Navigating Working Class Unity and Differences
• 42:03 Building Civil Society for Socialist Success
• 54:59 Navigating Socialist Strategy and Outreach
• 1:00:11 Navigating Leftist Ideological Critiques
• 1:11:40 Navigating Global Political Perspectives
• 1:20:46 Exploring Collective Solutions in Socialism

Transcript

C. Derick Varn: 0:48

Hello, and I'm here with Sudip B, Sudip Bhattacharya, right? Is that your name? Right? Yeah, Sudip, Sudip, okay.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 0:59

You said the last name correctly. Oh, I'm like practicing, all right.

C. Derick Varn: 1:09

And we are talking about social strategy and we're going to use well, we're talking about social strategy and we're going to use your essay, which is the last chapter of a Hampton Institute reader called Parting Thoughts Attacking Difference, pursuing Unity, as a kind of grounding point for talking about how we deal with socialist strategy post-Trump too.

C. Derick Varn: 1:36

So, returning to the post-Trump era, I'm going to ask you during the Biden administration, we saw a lot of socialists signaling their dissatisfaction with relatively elite discourses around identity politics by pulling away from uh decolonial theory and things like that. Um, some of those critiques I take seriously, some I don't, but we saw a subset of that get very methodologically nationalist and even maybe social chauvinistic in their uh orientation and also fundamentally seem to buy the media narrative that talk about the working class was talking about the quote white working class, which is about 50 percent of quote blue collar workers, unquote and about 69 percent of the population. But, um, it seemed particularly misleading because I mean, particularly when you're looking at working class, by the way most liberals define it, the working class is flip a quarter and it's male or female, and flip a quarter and it's of color or not. Right? How do you think socialists should respond to?

Sudip Bhattacharya: 3:19

this kind of signaling now that we're out of the Biden administration and into a more explicitly socially chauvinistic administration? Yeah, I mean, first of all, thanks for having me back, always enjoy having these conversations. It's like one of the few places you can have, you know, a real in-depth conversation about these things. I think I'm still figuring it out too for myself, to be honest, because it's only been maybe 10 days of actual frontal attack on certain things For me. I think a good example of me figuring it out is also the recent attacks on DEI.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 3:48

There is a lot of good work showing how DEI in many spaces, was really just a way for corporate entities to obscure their class exploitation. I think Costco is a good example, right Like, costco is in some hot water with its workers and employees, but it leaned very heavily recently with DEI and I think Al Sharpton did a buy-in or something which was kind of hokey and weird. So there is definitely truth to that. And it's not like I don't weep for these programs, for some of these programs to kind of be pushed aside, but at the same time, it's the. It's the. It's what they also represent. Right Like with the attack on DEI, there's also been Trump attacking things like birthright citizenship and then, of course, even with the recent helicopter crashing into that plane, trump, I believe, starts talking about DEI in that regard, and clearly DEI, for him and his most loyal supporters, is really just being like, well, there's too many people of color and women in a certain field, um. So I think just socialists being mindful of that, while also pursuing a strategy that speaks to class consciousness, is something that's important.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 5:07

It's a very tricky thing because, I'm going to be honest, like I said, I'm still trying to figure it out, because there's a there's like a moment in the day when I'm really pissed off about something Trump said or what Biden said. It kind of lingers, right, um. But then also there's another moment where I'm, like you know, kind of also like annoyed by, say, the Sharpton attempt at like showing solidarity with a mega corporation, uh, rather than the employees who are getting shafted by that corporation. So I don't know. I think right now, my advice, if anything, is just to like really pay attention to who's really wielding the anti-D discourse, di discourse, and what they're really trying to do with that discourse in the end, because it's really not just about these corporate policies. It's going to be about, you know, stripping away certain rights, feeding the base certain kind of red meat when it comes to identity. On the other direction, because the Republican Party is very identity driven too.

C. Derick Varn: 6:06

Absolutely. I mean, one of the things we can see with the Republican Party is a shift from, say, white nationalism to Western chauvinism view for being right. Nationalists like sam francis actually said uh in leviathan, and it's in its enemies, that trying to be a racial nationalist in north america, in canada or the united states wouldn't actually work. But trying to build up a core of resentment um around uh upper middle elites to replace them with upper middle elites who are angrier and meaner and crueler um would be a strategy for um western chauvinist hegemony that could theoretically be relatively colorblind.

C. Derick Varn: 7:09

And I'm not saying trump has ever read sam francis in fact I'm highly doubt he has. But a lot of the paleo conservatives who were around um the trump milieu, like bannon, undoubtedly have. Um, when you add to that this kind of revenge of the tech nerds thing that we're seeing when the Democrats took the rentier oligarchs in tech for granted and now that they've gotten their monopsony power they've all decided to jump ship and get on board with Trump it seems very clear to me that that one Trump's agenda, for all of its talk of like productivism, is really about growth, because they're not doing productivist stuff here and in fact what they seem to be doing at the moment is risking collapsing the economy.

C. Derick Varn: 8:07

To prove a point, Right to prove a point right um uh, which, if they cared about popularity, they wouldn't be doing which also indicates that they don't care about popularity anymore.

C. Derick Varn: 8:24

Um, so yeah, and I'm with you, I don't have a good thing when people ask me what should we do. I can tell you I'm talking to in a day where it looks like, um, public sector unions just got decertified Wisconsin style in Utah, and while there was some national uh debate about this, it did not go the way of Wisconsin, where the Democrats thought they could use it as a wedge issue and make it very clear to the entire country. It kind of went quietly into that good night, with even some socialists going like well, shouldn't we just defund the cop unions? And I'm like you don't actually believe that's what's going on, but I mean, I hate to say one of the things that I'm thinking about is is how do we keep a relatively open socialist movement that allows for rigorous internal debate but also deal with bad faith actors? Because there are going to be lots of bad faith actors and I'll let you respond to that.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 9:25

I'm just writing it down. Yeah, I mean I think just to also return to a little bit of what you said earlier about the Western chauvinism rhetoric, there's a good book called Producers, patriots and Something Else by Daniel Martinez Hosong and Joseph Lowndes. Some of the new rights ability and capacity to quote-unquote, think outside the box. So they were saying something similar to what you said and as in like the new right is certainly still white supremacist. I mean, it's been exposed as such even with the h1b. Like there was a lot of like, very, very explicit, almost like wow, you're really saying that kind of stuff. I know it's online, but still very on the nose. And then also, who's that lady that trump had on his team for a little bit and she was kind of like I mean, she's very right wing. Oh, loomer, laura loomer. Yeah, often talking about like I don't want to repeat it, but it was like, very like 1990s level of like you know, the white house is going to smell like you know, curry or something which sounded really nice, but, um, it was like oh, wow, we're really doing that. So it's interesting. You said it, but I can already see the contradictions in the gop like they're like the democrats contradictions is that it does want to be a quote-unquote uh popular party, but within it it had the tech bros and it had the people that should not trust the tech bros and trying to fissure them together In the GOP coalition. It's like the Bannonites, which might be more populous in a certain method of thinking, but then they're, of course, you know, they have Laura Loomer types, maybe not not her particularly, but other people who are like yeah, let's just talk about indians, like we're in the 1950s, um, and I think. But then there's the new right that's able to tap into something about western chauvinism. I think in this book martinez and lone, they mention how even have like far-right actors who, like the proud boys who do say that we're not white supremacists, we're Western chauvinists, and they even have shirts that say things like they also appropriate indigenous history in a weird way. I can't explain, but it's very fascinating how they've done that in recent years. So I want to raise that book because I think it's a very interesting book people should read, and they wrote that several years ago.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 11:51

And so your question how do we keep relatively open, I mean, I think, once you have a person in your group, to be really blunt, who is unwilling to organize it with the group but just comes in and out and when they do do they're unwilling to listen or learn and are very contrarian, uh, and also and also then starts to contaminate the group. To be really honest, like I've seen it, where someone it just takes one person and people kind of draw away. You have to make a strategic choice of being like do I, do I want to convert this, even if there is a part of them that's there to convert, or do I need to really pay attention to the other people in the group who, you know, also may have certain hangups as well, but are not contributing to a really weird environment? So that's the physical nature of the organizing. And then the other bad faith stuff. Like I feel that with DSA that sometimes happens, happens.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 12:51

I have criticism of dsa, even though I'm in it, um, but there are some people who have, you know, legitimately good criticism.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 12:57

But there's also some people. Even I am like, no, they're not. You know, the dsa is not exactly, uh, marxist-lionist, uh, yet, but they're also not completely harringtonites. So there's also that element that's happening. And how you combat that, I think, simply you just have to make sure that you have people on your own side being very it's like very simple, just being very normal and not taking the bait on everything, and understanding that at some level you're not talking to that person who's disagreeing with you. You're really talking to all those people who might be interested in your movement and who might be just paying a little attention to be like well, I heard this criticism of DSA. I wonder if it's true and if they see you attacking this person really vociferously who has a critique. That's not going to work out. Well, I'm part of the Red Star Caucus and it's one of our main tenants when you join the caucus is like just be it. Like literally says, be normal. So that's my advice, I guess, which is hard to do because it's not really yeah, I, I think.

C. Derick Varn: 14:03

Yeah, I was about to say it's difficult. What one of the things I find very, very interesting and kind of hard to balance. Um, I am in a union that may have been decertified today actually, I'll actually check after our conversation and find out if we can still collect the bargain tomorrow but I'm in a union that is has a highly urban membership in one part of it, but at the state level scale, for both structural and cost reasons, is actually more rural, and so I have to organize with very conservative people a lot of the time. And, um, what I find interesting is that if you can keep your eye on the goal, that usually goes okay. But what I don't do is something that a lot of people seem to think you should, which is to try to tail their cultural talking points, and I find that like doesn't work. They wouldn't believe me anyway, they're not going to believe that I actually share those values with them, because they're right, I don't and and the other thing is like that's not what we're there for, right, like, um, it does become, and and my union, that tension flares up with the national.

C. Derick Varn: 15:32

Uh, because I'm in a teacher's union, the national does take a lot of very explicit democratic party talking points, di talking points, etc. And it is a. It is a source of division. Um, but when we're just focusing on stuff like protecting teachers, jobs or even like diversifying the workplace through better pay are helping students of color, we don't get the same pushback, except from from a very few very loud weirdos, and we, we do exactly what you say, like if they're, if they're making it where we can't organize, we, you know, start using parliamentary procedures to shut them off right so you know, know, it's not because we don't want to have a debate, it's because some of these debates just get in the way of us doing what we need to do.

C. Derick Varn: 16:22

And you know, I guess my stance has always been I'm not particularly pro-deplatforming, except in very rare instances. I'm not particularly pro deep platforming, except in very rare instances. I'm not particularly pro-censoring people. At the same time, I'm not willing to trust bad faith organizers who are just there to like keep us embroiled in debate so we can't do anything right. And I do think we have to deal with that. And I also think, like, when you're talking about the American working class and definitely talking about the international working class, you really can't be a chauvinist for very long and function like, even if you are privately, you can't actively Like act that way or it's just not going to work. Like people aren't going to trust you, they're not going to work with you. Um, you know, etc. Etc. The dsa is interesting. Um, you know, I'm a pretty strong critic of the dsa, I also. I think I also think, you know, for better and for worse.

C. Derick Varn: 17:31

The dsa is one of the places where the debates around American socialism are happening. Sometimes I get frustrated. I'm like, okay, we've done enough debating, let's do something Right. But the DSA is something that I would want, which is a multi-tenancy group that is relatively democratic. I wish there were some things in its constitution it would fix, but theoretically you could do that at a Congress. I mean a convention excuse me, I'm using classical commie words. What is your suggestion? How do you think the DSA is going to react to this? Because I can see two very different debates happening with what is likely going to lead to a small DSA bump. It doesn't seem like it's going to be like what it was in 2016 in response to Trump, but it does seem like the DSA has been kind of stagnating for a little while and it seems like it's going to be moving out of that.

C. Derick Varn: 18:30

But there's two very different broad orientations in the DSA. There's kind of a. I mean there's a bunch of caucuses. There's many that aren't represented in the NPC, but there's about four caucuses who want more independence from the Democrats and the more radically oriented DSA. There's probably a bunch of working groups and at least two caucuses who don't, and they're, even though there's probably more caucuses on the side of independence as far as numbers of people in the party. They're about split down the middle. It seems like that's the anyway. That's what the npc actually seems to indicate. You got the dsa right and the dsa left and then, like bread and roses in the center, splitting the difference right and even that seems split amongst itself, depending on what's going on.

C. Derick Varn: 19:21

Um, do you see that as, like I, I actually think that could be a sign of a healthy organization, but I'm also worried about it in times where we have to actually act. So where do you see that leading to? Right now, and you can be, I'll give you a second to form your answer and be as diplomatic as possible well, yeah, like I'll just be.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 19:43

I'm in the red star caucus, that's even the terms right and left has been contentious. There's been fighting about that too, like who's who's this, so I'm not going to use that. That's fine. Yeah, I do want to say that everybody, I guess in my mind it's more like some of us certainly feel kind of done with the Democratic Party, probably in most contexts. And then there's those who I think have a point about like I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Democrats are good, that's one thing. Good, that's one thing. So that's one source of commonality across the board. Right, I don't think anyone's going to be like, maybe you'll find a few people who are living a different timeline, who are just like this is great, uh, we've won so much. So that's not what I've seen. I've seen mostly you're right, though, about two sides really. I I've seen the quote, the quote unquote side that I've been on, which has been advocating for a quote unquote real break from the Democrats, and a break that would mean like more, like you said, more of an independent party that doesn't have to work within them or around them really.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 20:48

And then there are people who I disagree with but who are again, not suggesting the Democrats are good, but are just like in some ways realistically saying that in certain contexts, in certain primary settings, like it's hard to develop Mamdani in New York City he's running the Democratic Party and, to be honest, he's one of the few candidates I've been very I like his political agitation. I like the videos he's done. He does seem extreme To what you said earlier. He does seem very authentic, like he's actually been on the street doing these interesting video chats with folks in Queens, the borough I'm from originally, and he talks to brown folks who either voted for Trump or didn't vote at all and those conversations they sound authentic to what you were saying earlier. You need to be authentic with people Like, yeah, you shouldn't be hiding what you believe in moments when people even ask, because that sounds really shady. If you're going to hide something small, like what you think about pronouns, why would someone believe you? On the big things, like you know, working with them for a union contract, and Zoran does seem very authentic in that way. But there's that side too who would argue well, you have to work with the Democrats in that context because for us to do this and this and this, it's going to take years down the road. And right now is the pressure I get that too. I know this is going to sound annoying because I've said this before, I'm not entirely sure yet either.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 22:19

To be honest again, because these debates have been happening for at least the last year and a half, maybe a little bit longer, especially at the tail end of Biden's terms, but also since the Israeli state genocide. I think that's what really precipitated for a lot more people, including myself, to be like, well, whether or not there are people within the Democratic Party who are quote unquote good legislators, we don't have leverage, right, and I think that's sometimes the fulcrum of the debate Like we don't have leverage to do the things even we want to do in the party. How do we do it? And for some people it is still building like a constituency within it, and for some of us it's like, well, what if that constituency gets eaten up? How do you feel about, like, the tensions of that, if it's going to allow for a functioning org? I've still seen it function. I'm in the philly dsa chapter. Um, there's still a lot of interesting campaigns going on tenant organizing, uh, workforce organizing and still palestine stuff. But I do think, with the dsa. I think the one thing that's been a little bit difficult over the last few years with the stagnation in numbers has been, I think the smaller chapters have struggled more in retention while the bigger chapters have slowly kind of recovered a little bit more of the momentum. I think that's been an issue.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 23:43

But I've also seen a debate up close, like I remember one of the town hall events I went to after the Trump presidency was what's the term announced? Or he won. It was standing room only. So there was a lot of energy and there was still debate, like there were people coming to the mic saying things like we don't have time to do this and this and this. We have to like do the essentially the popular front strategy and other folks like myself being like well, don't think of us as being stuck in domestic front only. There's an international world that's really waiting for us to join them. We're not alone. We don't have just these options. I think, as long as people are honest with each other and people are still speaking from the terminology or the framework that we're all trying to build leverage I think therefore it'll be healthy.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 24:38

Where I find it frustrating too at times is on things like Palestine.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 24:42

There was definitely a lot of push and pull on that issue, even though DSA was doing a lot in some instances to really also help with orgs doing that work. But I do think there is still, like this tension between some people who are like, well, we don't want to focus entirely on Palestine because it'll jeopardize, like certain campaigns, or vice versa. That's where I felt a little bit frustrated, but I don't know how it's going to be going forward. I really don't, because the Trump stuff is again very early and we know we've been here before when 2016 happened and or when he's inaugurated, there was a lot of new energy, but it kind of gave way to a lot of other issues that I don't think a lot of us saw, one of which was there was this massive bump, but was there enough infrastructure to A retain that bump and to funnel the people into different campaigns that could really effectively transition them from being like left liberal to socialist?

Sudip Bhattacharya: 25:46

I think that's another issue to deal with, regardless of what side of the fence you're on, and so that's why I'm like not sure how to feel about the so-called divide. Am glad there's debate, by the way, I do think not, like I'm actually not a huge debate person, to be honest. Sometimes I get annoyed just with debate culture. But I think so far the dsa has been doing okay with not trying to develop a toxic enough culture where people necessarily want to split off, because that's also my worry.

C. Derick Varn: 26:14

I don't want people to split off, even if it's justified that's interesting because I, I am one of these people who actually does think you have to have a criterion for for when it's time to split right, um, but I also think you need to have a criterion for when it's time to split Right. But I also think you need to have it way before you go to split that way. Like people and I'm not, I wouldn't be one to tell any group what that should be either but I mean, like you'd have to decide it amongst yourselves, right? Um, I, I would wish, for the dsa sake that that, even though I encourage people not to hide their positions and to be completely authentic and honest, um, it is weird when I see dsa people sniping at each other with massive twitter accounts in public because, uh, um, as a person who will snipe at people on an x account in public, uh, I don't do it to comrades and even when I am implying it, I try to give people the ability to save face because we have to work together.

C. Derick Varn: 27:31

You know, it's only when I think someone's actually been a bad faith actor when I start calling people out by name, and so I'm not saying there's never a place for it, but it does seem like in the spirit of solidarity, criticize, but maybe you know I'm not saying there's never a place for it, but it does seem like in the spirit of solidarity, criticize, but maybe you know, don't go threatening your comrades in public, cause I saw some of that actually. I mean, I saw people basically implying some threats in public and I was like, okay, chill out, like like there are much bigger things to handle right now and I guess that flies under, be normal, but like yeah normal people um well and I also don't uh, to be honest, to be even more blunt don't like uh, what's the word?

Sudip Bhattacharya: 28:17

involve the dsa and certain things are just not good for the org overall. Like you don't want people. Again, like what I said earlier, when you're talking to someone, you're not really talking, you're not trying to convince that person necessarily, you're just sort of people. Other people are watching you and you're trying to convince them that you're more normal than them or more rational and thoughtful than them, and so if you're just being like very, very aggro on something, it's just not going to help even people on your own side. I've been there, though Like I've actually had, you know, like I've never threatened anyone, not saying that, I'm just saying I've been really annoyed with people and I've been, like you know, sometimes arguing with folks about something they said or something they assumed or implied.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 29:02

But I also been the the person being attacked, like I think one person tried to find a tweet of mine, uh, and then like pull it out and then like make it seem like I was contradicting myself. But what was nice about that was like a lot of people, even people I'm not exactly aligned with, were like defending me, but it was my first example of being like, because I didn't even realize that what I said would matter. So I was like, oh wow, like someone. This is what it means for someone to be like trying to like argue with you. And it didn't feel good. It definitely felt. I actually was very pissed off about it and I was like, oh wow. But I tried my best to keep it in check Because at the end of the day, like you're saying, you're not just. You know, you're not trying to win an argument with a singular individual.

C. Derick Varn: 29:47

You're trying to represent a kind of politics, but also a kind of behavior that you want to see other people do in the org, even if one person is being extremely unfair yeah, definitely one thing I would you know and look, I know I'm kind of a hypocrite here, I have threatened my audience outright um, but uh, one thing I would say, though, is I I do think you also have to remember when you're when you are acting in capacity for the org um, and when you're acting as a public figure for the organ, when you're acting personally capacity for the org? Um, and when you're acting as a public figure for the organ, when you're acting personally, and you need to make sure that that is clear to everyone. When that is and if you can't distinguish it for yourself, assume you're acting for the org, right, um, you know, uh, I do that with my union. I'm very careful, you guys, you will hear me say I'm in a union. You won't hear me say which one, because I'm not speaking for my org right now, and I want that to be very clear, right? Um? And I and I don't think it's, I actually really don't think it's good for people to speak ex cathedra for the org when the org does not empower you to do so. Right, like, say, you say whatever you want to for yourself. Keep you, I and I I'm like, I'm not such a democratic centralist that I think people shouldn't like their criticisms or whatever. But ultimately you're in an org. An org requires gives you rights, but it also requires responsibilities and some level of discipline, and it's good to have it right.

C. Derick Varn: 31:20

Um, one thing I wanted to to talk to you a little bit. This came up in your, your, your parting thoughts essays is trying to like acknowledge that the working class will be divergent in its thinking but still has to act in a unified, class conscious way. So, like we will admit that there's going to be reasons, like why white workers and black workers might be weary of one another, particularly black workers, let's be quite honest. But that focusing on class has to be something that we do, and I've always been one of these people. I've always called myself a class first orar, not a class reductionist, because I think class is the first thing, but the other things are real and they're not all just adjuncts of class.

C. Derick Varn: 32:12

Like I don't think race is just somehow a crypto adjunct of class. They're tied in together but they are separate. How do you work with that? I mean, you know, dealing with the racial attitudes of a country like the US, where racism has been the primary way to divide the working class for most of the US's history in a way that has really weakened us in ways that even other white supremacist nations that are not settler colonial have not been weakened and their working class have not been weakened in this way. Um, how do we deal with that? Because, I mean, it is probably the defining thing about, uh, a left in any of the americas, but particularly the united states yeah, I mean the way I see it too.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 32:58

Like and I'm glad you brought up the article again everyone should go to iskra books. That's where they'll find like a downloadable form of it, because it's a lot of great essays in it. But so, just to give background, when I was writing this, like my emphasis here was also on, you know, also demystifying the assumptions about quote unquote people of color in the working class and how they would see each other or treat each other. They would see each other or treat each other, and obviously that's another assumption that needs to be kind of bulldozed about, like oh, they'll just, you know, like it's just white and non-white, rather than being like unpacking the non-white and recognizing that the African-American working people, hispanic or Latinx and Asian and indigenous they also have their own issues with each other. And the way I would frame it, groups of working class people will have sometimes divergent short-term interests. That's the way I kind of see it. First of all, like you know, for some like this comes up in my dissertation work. I've interviewed lots of people and I'm wrapping it up, but, like one of the things I would hear from certain people was like the fear of anti-Asian discrimination, for example, right, it's not necessarily a distinctly class issue, but it affects the class and it's something that is material to some people. And then there's also issue of policing, which is mostly having to do with African-American and sometimes Hispanic and, in some regions of the country, Asian. So that's the way I would first see it, like there is some difference. That's material and short term, because in my mind, the reason of framing it is to also avoid the other pitfall, which is kind of what you hinted, which is to not look at any class unity ever.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 34:38

Because the reason why I wrote this piece and the reason why it's coming from my dissertation work and I've been thinking on it, like you know, capitalism is a universalizing process. Whether you be a white collar worker, whether you are at a register or whether you're, like me, at a desk all day, um, whether you are african-american, asian, whatever, uh, you are, under marist terms, being exploited, right? So there is this universalizing function that happens when you're living under a capitalist economy. That is like the final boss that you need to get rid of forever for everybody, otherwise there's no humanity that will be actually thriving, you know after that, yeah, so that has to be the end result building that unity to fight that. But in the midst of it you need to also recognize there are these material, short term interests that need to be sort of dealt with. For the working class to be sort of more and more unfettered, helping them gain not necessarily citizenship but maybe more political rights, will make them feel more emboldened to take on this final, bigger challenge of fighting capitalism.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 35:49

That's the way I see it, and on one level it's like this, because I also don't want to be like difference on everything, because that also annoys the shit out of me. Uh, this idea that you know everyone's different, there's difference everywhere, you know. Uh, therefore, there's no unifying factor. You know, I feel like sometimes there's like two poles that I'm caught between. There's one that you know suggests that there are certain distractions, issues that are distractions, and there's another pole that suggests well, class reductionism is bad. I even don't even like the phrase class reductionism because I think if you don't talk about these other things, you're not even talking about class, if that makes sense.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 36:28

But I also get annoyed when people say like racial capitalism as a term to bring people in, because I'm like, well, it doesn't have to be racial capitalism, it's just capitalism. So that's why I frame it as short-term material interests that divide us, even based on region, right. That thing like it's also kind of funny to imagine that there's a working class that has no regional difference about what they might need in the moment, right, uh, that's another way of looking at it. So it's not always purely racial eitherwise, like there are workers in certain areas, like garment workers, and there's workers in the middle of the country and de-industrialized, like hubs of the country, that will have at times, very divergent immediate interests of what they want to see. That is a function that also needs to be dealt with to build up the unifying force of, like, fighting that class war. So that's the I think the short-term versus long-term thing for me helps frame it in a particular way.

C. Derick Varn: 37:23

Yeah, I think that's actually really important the regional and the sectional differences.

C. Derick Varn: 37:28

I'll give you an example, I read a lot of Kim Moody in labor organizing and there's a focus on logistics workers. But I also will point out that, for reasons that I think are even material, and due to the individualized nature of trucking and the work, that truckers tend to have legitimate interests that are often not in the interest of the broader working class, even though I will actually defend that a lot of time, they are actually defending their own interest. I was thinking about the, the trucker convoy in Canada and what that was about, and I was pointing out to people. Well, you know, truckers aren't as in danger of getting COVID by doing their job as factory workers are or as off-road workers are, so they're not as concerned about it legitimately, and so you know.

C. Derick Varn: 38:24

But their lack of concern can risk whole populations that they're going through right right, um, and trucker strikes, not just during covet but like during dealing chile, were often used as as ways to break up other kinds of working solidarity. And it wasn't because the workers were all just like ops, it was just that the truckers had remarkably different interests, and I think some of it has to do with the material nature of trucking, right, um, yet I also do think you try to have a, you try to stop production in america without logistic workers. You don't win, right like um. And this brings me to something that's going to be a real challenge today. Um, someone asked me why sean o'brien seems to be more willing to case the trumpist wing. They pick up anti-immigrant rhetoric, etc. Um, and and I was pointing out, um, it's harder for for undocumented immigrants to have a CDL, so it's not really a concern for them, right, and see what I also said about trucking being a relatively solitary act, even though it's not always. I know UPS has people who work in distributors, et cetera, et cetera, but it seems like that would make a lot of sense for them to also be a little bit more reactionary in that. But I also wanted to point out that that also indicates in some ways when the trucking industry is willing to not just kowtow one party, it's also because they're more powerful than, say, the auto workers union, because the auto workers union is very dependent on the policy of one party to adjust the Democrats their production methods because, frankly, without tariffs and some kind of just adjustment, the Chinese EV market would totally kill them, like if we did not have a huge adjustment, the Chinese EV market would totally kill them. Like if we did not have a huge tariff on Chinese EVs, the American auto industry would be in even worse shape than it is. And I'm not saying that to justify the EV tariff Actually it drives by the law. But I'm just saying it makes sense why the other Sean might think it was smart to cozy up to Biden, to Biden even a little bit prematurely, before he even had to Right.

C. Derick Varn: 40:50

Which puts us in an odd situation, because a lot of leftists have immediate attachments to these labor figures, but they're not in areas that often are unionized or they're in government unions which have a very different dynamic, are there, and this is particular to the DSA, and I don't say this only as a critique because thank God someone actually started working with labor but their labor staffers, not rank and file. Are their rank and file in the union of labor staffers? They're rank and file in the union of labor staffers. Um, so it's, it leads to this interesting dynamic um for us to deal with, um when it comes to approaching labor.

C. Derick Varn: 41:34

Because we can't assume and I think it's a little bit crazy to assume that, like, every working class person is already, even is already a communist or even all that particularly progressive, and I don't think those two things, communist and progressive, are the same thing anyway. But we can't assume that right. But I think those regional differences are going to be huge to understanding that One of the problems that socialist groups like the DSA have is they tend to be concentrated in particular regions. The DSA have is they tend to be concentrated in particular regions. The DSA at least has the advantage that it's big enough it's over 50,000, that it is got something in almost every region in the United States.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 42:15

Right.

C. Derick Varn: 42:17

Although it is still disproportionately urban Right Right, but it is concentrated in New York, California, Chicago. You know areas that we would expect to be downstream from the Democratic Party Right.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 42:34

How would you suggest we started to deal with that, Because it seems like that's a major strategic weakness in a federalized country like the United States strategic weakness in a federalized country like the United States, right, I mean, I think, to be honest, it's to be a successful DSA would have to be even moving, you know, beyond. Like everything that's happening. Dsa is reflective of the broader issue with the left that is, I mean, it's some, it's an issue you've been talking about a lot, which is, yes, we've seen a lot more labor unrest compared to maybe the 90s, I guess, but we haven't seen a higher rate of unionization, for example. So there's other things that need to happen, like for DSA to succeed, which is obviously bigger than the DSA, it would need to help build a broader civil society, which is very, I know, easy to think about. Maybe I'm just joking.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 43:32

Obviously it's difficult, but I don't see any other answer really. You know, like, because the thing is like, even when talking about consciousness and workers' consciousness, like it's still very material regardless. Like, even if a worker, like you said, doesn't have, whether it be white collar or blue or whatever, doesn't have like a radical consciousness, it's because the material landscape has been shaped for decades by which they don't have, like, say, interactions with a left-leaning or progressive leaning group that happens in their life in a material way. Again, like you don't change people by rhetoric alone, like that's actually hella annoying. Like you know, like you change people's rhetoric, even people who might be sympathetic to you, because I really believe a lot of people are the people I know where I live. Many of them are older, they are pretty sympathetic to a lot of different issues. They're all upset about rent, they're all worried about it because they are older. So they would be very open to talking about certain politicians and whatnot, whatnot, right, but there isn't other than me, there isn't really, you know, a presence here when it comes to like a real left-wing alternative. That's not just even speaking to people, it's more like hey, I'm here to give you this thing that you need and also talk to you about this other thing, and I think that's a material question.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 44:57

You know, we're living in a landscape shaped by decades of neoliberal rot, of some bad left-wing strategy, frankly, from that neoliberal rot and, of course, state repression, and even after 2016,. Thankfully, we haven't dipped below 30,000. We're still at 50K or even, I think, around 60K. We're still trying to again learn to manage retention and learn to manage even ourselves and how we can also not have burnout. So, yeah, I think the answer is the boldest one. It is really like the DSA or the socialist movement or the progressive movement needs to think about building a civil society that can really build a constituency. I know it sounds very big, but I don't see any other thing that wouldn't work, because what's happened in the last several years is the lack of that.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 45:50

Like what happened to DSA, even though it's maintained a presence in these larger areas has been attaching itself to Bernie Sanders, rightfully or wrongly. I mean, I was motivated by him and you know other politicians to join DSA, but we didn't really expand beyond it. So when he kind of flamed out and then began to be really blunt, kissing Biden's butt, it, it exposed us right for not having our own ground to stand on, and I think that's another thing that contributed to a little bit of confusion. Right, like what do we do? You know, like even the last election, people were hoping and I think friends are also saying this who are very well meaning like, oh man, I really hope Bernie runs because you know like Biden's not going to work.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 46:37

But it felt really kind of sad because it's like well, is that really all we got from for whatever years it's been since 2016, that we just hoping for this one guy who's actually older than Biden I like Bernie, I'm not saying but older than Biden to keep running forever until maybe one day he wins, I guess. So what's the other option? It's to do all the other things of building an actual front for socialism, not just progressivism of the first Obama term For me.

C. Derick Varn: 47:23

I was leaning radical before then, but then I was like you know. I got convinced during that time period that that Obama was a moderate, anti-war solution and I should throw my weight behind him. Right, I was wrong and realized I was wrong very quickly and it radicalized me. However, a lot of people haven't been in this game that long and I will tell you that it is very hard to not burn out and also to constantly grow, because the one thing I think you have to do as a socialist um, like my basic values I mean some of my basic values even come from before I was a socialist. I hasn't changed.

C. Derick Varn: 48:03

I tend to be skeptical of war. I tend to be a fairly internationalist. That's always been true. I don't like large corporations. I didn't even when I was a conservative teenager. But I do think you have to grow and learn. I mean, there's been time periods where I would have been very ultra-left. There was one time period where I was very much, for about a month and a half, a popular frontist with the. You know, I even canvassed for fucking Obama, you know, and I tend to be a classical pre 36 United frontist.

C. Derick Varn: 48:49

Uh, but uh, that's, you know, such an arcane position and normally only take that taken up by annoying Trotskyist that I, I get like why it's hard to argue for Um, and so you know, I, I, I think we have to learn, and another thing I think we have to do is there's all these to use a lacanian phrase names of the father that we invoke, like stalin or trotsky or mal, and I think we can learn from, I actually think we learn from all these people even start um, but I don't, I don't think we can just like try to replicate them or even like new, synthesize them. We have to learn from them and move on and realize we're in our context. Those names don't mean the same things to people who aren't weird sectarian nerds like ourselves. Um, and so what would a working class mass line look like in the United States?

C. Derick Varn: 49:53

That's something that we have to deal with and I don't think we, and I think I think one of the things that means is trying to understand rationally, but not condone or accept in our rhetoric, why social chauvinism might emerge in different groups right um, you know, one of the things I always tell people, you know the obvious ones, like the white working class, but one of the things I always talk about is, like, I don't like ados, but I do think we need to understand why it is an ideology that would make sense for a certain kind of black worker or black intellectual to adopt, right, even though I think it's anti-solidaristic and has all kinds of major problems in it.

C. Derick Varn: 50:38

I'm not even sure it's particularly popular right now, but I want to have compassion for why people would adopt that but not adopt it or make excuses for it, and that's a hard ask. It is, admittedly, a hard ask to be like. I want you to understand this thing but also fight it, right. But how would you go about it? Because I think this is one of the things you think probably the most about is how to respect these differences that come up within the working class racially, genderly, regionally, ethnically, sexually, etc. Deal with the fact that maybe intellectuals like ourselves whether we're formally intellectuals or informally intellectuals, or someone like me who's been both sometimes need to step back and listen to working class people and shut the fuck up. But, at the same time, how do we do that and not validate things that are anti-solidaristic or destructive.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 51:40

Yeah, I just want to plug Black Liberation Media. They do a lot of really good stuff on ADOS. If people don't know, it's African Descendants of Slaves.

C. Derick Varn: 51:49

Only pain because they want reparations.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 51:50

Again, a valid thing for everyone of the diaspora african diaspora, but they want it, particularly for people who, quote-unquote, descended from enslaved africans here, versus africans from the continent still, or africans in the caribbean, yada, yada, yada. So, yeah, it's a very social chauvinistic point of view, because it also runs counter to the actual history of, like, african american radicalism, which is very inflected by caribbean folks and people who've been here for, uh, for a minute, like, um, the person who's influenced my essay is claudia jones. Right, I just want to reference her too, and she was, you know, from trinidad and she was born there, but she was raised here and she became a leading theoretician of the communist party usa and she's the one who was also dealing with these very similar questions and, I think, had the really right attitude of being like, listen, uh, the working class, the class war, needs as much of the working class as possible. Hence, you need to find ways of appealing to them in different ways. But you also, like you're saying, or you're saying I'm saying, you have to still fight. At the same time, the, the impulse to suggest, therefore, difference is where we lay right.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 53:12

This is like, because she would argue, like she even went even deeper with certain kinds of feminism, like what you'd call bourgeois feminism as being distractions completely. So she was like all in. She was, was like you know, to some fault, like well, the context of it being so different. She was a Marxist-Leninist but a Stalinist at one point, so she was all there like, being like there is still a class war that people need to take seriously. But, yeah, it's an interesting conversation because, like Ados and other examples I can think of among people of color too, who might be like you know, recent immigrants but who got citizenship and all suddenly, like I got mine, screw everybody else, you know that kind of thing which still pisses me off because that's very selfish.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 53:58

I still would argue with people being like well, it's because again it goes back to what I said earlier the material landscape we're in. There are very few alternatives for people to really feel seen politically. So take, for example, the immigrant of color who's now a citizen, who might not be anti-immigrant but who's like I'm not really caring about all that quote, unquote, undocumented stuff. I just want to focus on a candidate who's like bread and butter for me, who could ultimately be very anti-immigrant on their own or law and order, and such I would be able to say to someone be like. Well, the reason why they're supporting this way which is still annoying, but supporting this way is because American society is very do or die. American society is very like dog eat dog and you are competing against people. You're competing against recent citizens, old citizens, whatever, so it's going to be producing a kind of person who's not maybe awful but becomes awful because society here is pretty awful. So that's one way of identifying also the material reasons for why people are the way they are.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 54:59

And there it goes back to again the other thing I said when you're doing outreach, you have to lead with material stuff followed by the rhetoric. So they're both in tandem. But I would argue you don't lead with rhetoric followed by material. You need to have a campaign that speaks to something that people would want to see change, followed by the poly-ed stuff that needs to happen. Because I feel like sometimes people have this there's like two camps. There's one camp that's very, very in the weeds again about polyad, changing people's minds, but it becomes like you know good, but it becomes more like glorified reading circles and you know people not really getting to the heart of what maybe is affecting somebody. But there is also another extreme which I'm also frustrated by which is we'll lead with the campaign but we'll never get to the part of talking about stuff and learning about stuff together. Right, like you mentioned Mao, stalin and Trotsky. To be honest, if only we had more people even knowing what they said.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 56:00

I've come across many socialists or progressives who also don't know the history of civil rights struggle in this country. Right, they know the romanticized version of it. King gave a speech. You know things happened, people took freedom rides, things changed, but they don't know like the material consequence of it. They don't know like what led to changes in the North or the South. Those are things people need to learn, regardless of their context.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 56:25

But again, it leads with the material go into rhetoric, and I still believe that's the way to go.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 56:32

But then that requires still a ton of dedication and commitment. And that's where I feel like I have a ton of questions myself of where that might come from, because I don't know, because I also am like really burnt out where that might come from. Because I don't know, because I also am like really burnt out. You know, I teach and I study and I do my attempts at organizing, but I I wonder where it's gonna, because right now the the stakes are pretty high. We do need to take advantage of this moment again and not make the same mistakes as we did last time, because if we do, I really do believe it's going to be another, not just another round of elections. It's going to be longer than that to really galvanize people to feel like there is an alternative or get them connected. So in some level I know what the strategy is, but at some level I'm also like there's so many unknowns on how to make that strategy real, if that makes sense.

C. Derick Varn: 57:26

Yeah, sense. Yeah, in the dsa there's a lot made about a 2018 or 19 pew poll that actually indicated that young people under 35 were more sympathetic to socialism than we've seen since before world war ii. But there was a follow-up and I've mentioned this a few times in 2022. That indicated two interesting things socialism was becoming much less popular in america than it even was priorly, but capitalism was more unpopular than it was. In that, that 2018 survey, which tells me we're in a period of contestation, um, where we could intervene, but, for whatever reason, we've been associated with a very status quo regime. Um, that yes, yes, uh, how how do we deal with that? Because, because I I do think most workers can be won over. I also do think there is a point of no return. Like yeah, I'm a former reactionary. I want people to know that.

C. Derick Varn: 58:30

Like, um, you can't come back right it's right there's not a lot of me's um, and usually it's because they're religious and that's not why I happen but like, right, um, so you know, people can change, but it's pretty rare for them to change. And I will also say, like, nobody de-radicalized me, I de-radicalized me. If you tried to de-radicalize me, you probably would have pissed me off and made me more reactionary. Like, um, you know it's not, uh, and in fact I mean anything. I I went through a period of radical radicalization, de-radicalization, re-radicalization in a different direction, but I do think it's something we're going to have to deal with, with digging into the working class, particularly when I, when I remind people that, like, you can scream, abolish the Senate all you want, but unless you either have a military or control of the senate, you're not going to get rid of it, right? So, um, uh, I think it's important to think about these questions, but I, I like your attitude here, because I actually don't know that I would trust anyone who's told me right now they had an answer to these questions, because I'm like, well, if you did, why the fuck aren't we winning right, right, like if it was just something you could tell me. Why have you not told me a already? And be like, why aren't we running already? What's the? What's the actual reason? Um, it's just like when someone goes, I was talking to someone like oh, there's all these neo-stalinists, and I'm like, okay, sure, but in my back of my head I was thinking, but why are there so many quote neostalinists like ideology doesn't come out of nowhere?

C. Derick Varn: 1:00:11

What are they responding to? Right, like like, what part of that's coming from a legitimate place and why are they going there? And if you can't answer that, you don't have a pro. You don't have an answer to the problem that you're posing. Now. I don't think neostinism is actually the primary problem that we have. If I'm quite honest, there are things that are way more important to deal with.

C. Derick Varn: 1:00:34

Um, but, and I'll also tell you, I'm not sure I know what neo-stalinism is. I kind of know what marxist leninism is, sometimes depending on who's talking, right, um, but neo-stalinism is only an epitaph for people I don't like. You know, sometimes I will call someone as stalinist, like if they're a hojist or something, but that's like, even for me, that's a very specific subset of people, right, um, uh, how do you get people to to like deal with that? Because you know another thing that happens. I get it all the time, people, when I real quick wake a mild critique of the soviet union, people just scream like, oh, you're a trotskyist.

C. Derick Varn: 1:01:13

And I'm like, well, I've actually never been a trotskyist. Um, I've read a lot of trotsky. I've read a lot of mal and stalin. I don't really know what you want me to do with that, but like, um, uh, I'm just telling you my opinion. Why do you assume that my opinion attaches to this ideology which, by the way, you know, for me, when I deal with trotskyists, they're also all over the place. Like, if you find I have a map of trotskyist organizations and, like, pointed out what stance they took on things.

C. Derick Varn: 1:01:43

And then I was trying to make a map of malice organizations and point out what stance they took on things. And and then I was trying to make a map of Malice organizations and point out what stance they took on things and point out there are Malice organizations that actually agree more with this group of Trotskyists than they do with other Malice. So like, although they hate each other, because the name Trotsky Mal pisses each other off. How do we deal with that? I mean, because in the DSA this comes up probably more than in most places, because you have all kinds of groups within the DSA.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:02:06

How do we deal with these names of the father Sudip you know, again, I Give me a moment because it is like, to be honest, sometimes I even don't even care, because sometimes I'm just so my view, I'm like a marxist, leninist, um, and my focus is on ending the us empire and my focus is on, uh, class war, class unity, ultimately class reductionism thing. Sometimes I even take that because I'm just like I don't even think you know what class is. I'll take that for me. I don't really care, because I've got it from both ends. I've got it from people who are, like you're too focused on identity, which is kind of ironic given what I actually talk about. And then there's other folks who are just like you're too focused on class and I'm just like I guess whatever. So that's one thing that I've seen and, of course, the other things you mentioned, the different factions, or rather the factions within the factions. My only thing is, when I've come across it, it's more like a Actually, it kind of echoes what you said earlier a little short while. Is this reflecting a legitimate conversation? Right? If it is, then sure, let's talk about it. Right, like so if there's like a Trotskyite, you know, having critiques of China, and then there's someone who's defending China, and it's a legitimate policy thing that's actually, you know, both interesting and maybe a little bit necessary to talk about, then let's go for it. Then it's coming from a place that's really necessary because it involves a large economy that is taking on the US in many ways and also kind of wanting to work with the US too, and it's very. I find it very fascinating how China also gets critiqued so many ways from the American focal class, when it's also like trying not to upend the system really as much. But then you have other people who call Stalinists, whatever, so let's talk about that.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:04:11

Then there is a legitimate grievance there. That's the way I look at it. If there is a core to what's being argued that has a legitimate thing to it, then let's talk it through and it's fine to have sides. But if it's coming to a very and I'm a nerd I'm proud of it. But if it's coming to a very um and I'm a nerd I'm proud of it. But if it's coming to a very nerdy disagreement that is extremely in the weeds about so and so and so and so and so and so, then it's like it's still legitimate. Actually, maybe it speaks to a sort of alienation that people are feeling about the current. So there's like you know, but that's for someone else to deal with, like another friend group to deal with, but for the org to deal with, it has to deal with like legitimate concerns that might be reflected in maybe caucus struggles or factional fights, um, and in terms of the, even the disagreements when it comes to like who's right or who's wrong.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:05:01

Like I said, it's the boring answer. Let's just read them together, like if it's coming up in a chapter I haven't seen it as much to be really honest, but if it comes up in the chapter, that's the way I've seen other smart people deal with. They're like, okay, let's read them together, let's do the most boring thing but the most necessary thing. Let's read them together and actually just talk and answer questions together. And that's why I think it's important to have Paul Ed, and I think sometimes it gets missed too, like there are people who legitimately get worried about too much Paul Ed because it's like that's what the left has done for a long period of time after it's been repressed. It's like retreating into a safe space of like let's talk about our feelings through these texts.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:05:45

But learning does matter, like lived experience, like I've said this a billion times and this is why I find so fascinating Some critiques of me as being identity focused. Lived experience is meaningless at a certain point, you know, shafted in life and yet end up in the weirdest political, you know positions, like somebody could be screwed over by their boss and what they take from it is not to be solidaristic but rather be like I just learned I should get mine. You know, I learned that I'm never going to be shafted again. So if I see another comrade or not comrade, that's me. If I see another coworker, I'm just going to be like trying to learn their position so I can take over for them faster, or something like that. Like that's the American dream baby, like that's how it is.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:06:30

So lived experience has a very limited consequence. So again, there is ways of dealing with this, with a like recognizing this legitimate struggle and also not dismissing the people, the names of the father behind them, if that makes sense. I don't don't get led by the people who sound very cranky than then to be like we don't need to read any mal, we don't need to read any stalin or lenin because they're distractions. Still read them, but do it collectively and do it again in a very honest and authentic way. I like reading. I think it's important yeah, me too.

C. Derick Varn: 1:07:04

Um, well, I was thinking about this the other day, like, uh, I'll pick a controversial topic. Um, I have critiques of dominica lucerto but I actually like a lot of his books quite a bit, um, and even the books. I don't like the stalin book, which I am mixed on. I actually don't even totally dislike it because I think the basic argument is actually true that, uh, we use stalin as like a figure to just not deal with things, like we can just deal with stalin's personality and just like never talk about the problems. Are the good that came out of the ussr, why it failed, why it didn't stalin's? Just a way to avoid that whole conversation because big mustache, man bad, we stop right. Um, I'm not, you know, and I'm actually sympathetic to that point of view some of the specific arguments in that book I'm less sanguine on, but, like um, I I think I think that's actually a valid point.

C. Derick Varn: 1:07:57

Uh, his book on western marxism I am mixed on on particular chapters, but I do think he's right in the broad sense that academic marxism really doesn't have a lot to show for itself, um, at the end of the 21st century, and that perry anderson, even if he had a critique of western marxism, themed to see it was better than soviet marxism, and now I'm like, well, neither one of them seem to have one. So maybe we should just be honest about stuff, and so I think we have to deal with that and be more than fanboys to these figures, and particularly when it comes to people who actually have power. I think that's fair. Uh, I, I think that's fair. Um, I call myself like I just call myself a marxist, but I tend to be a big fan of linen. I'm not an anti-linenist or pro-linenist. I think you kind of have to dig in into it as best as you can. Yeah, um, and, and I'm.

C. Derick Varn: 1:09:00

The other thing you said I think is important is having a critical but collective group to do this with right because it will make you smarter, right, like I can read a thousand things by myself and think I understand them, and if I don't talk to someone about it or try to enact it in a collective group, right, it doesn't fucking matter. And a lot of times I have come to the conclusion when I actually either go to enact this stuff or to talk about it with someone else, I'm like oh, I didn't actually understand that. I thought I did, but I didn't really.

C. Derick Varn: 1:09:36

And that's not just with, like, political stuff, that's even like right instructions like like you know boring shit, like like airport manuals and what like you know boring shit, like like uh, like airport manuals and whatnot um well, you know, right, uh, and so I think it is important to and this is why I think it's important to have a diverse but serious set of of comrades who are like-minded enough that you trust each other, but like diverse enough that you can actually work out hard things with and not just go yes, that's correct, comrade and never, ever, ever questioned anything like like I really like your attitude about that. That seems to be pretty healthy. Um, uh, you know we've been talking for about an hour and I want to give you a parting shot. I know it's late where you're at. You know we've been talking for about an hour and I want to give you a parting shot. I know it's late where you're at. What would you? You know things are going to get hot.

C. Derick Varn: 1:10:37

The one thing we can say is the status quo is not statusing or going at the moment, as we say, the end of January 2025. It's not even looking like the last time we saw trump in power. It looks weirder and more clown, showy and yet actually also somehow more effective simultaneously, right? Um, that leads me to the question like where do you think people should go? Because a lot of people are gonna feel hopeless. There's gonna be. A lot of people are going to feel hopeless. There's going to be a lot of liberal tiers uh, in fact, I already have seen a lot of them and, uh, you know, we can make fun of them if we want to, but I'm more interested in the ones that aren't totally like utterly elite. Winning some of these people over, um, how do you think we should do that?

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:11:25

no, I've had the same I mean there's um, like I don't know if you think we should do that. No, I've had the same. I mean there's like I don't know if you saw the recent poll that came out showing like I think it was a third of people who didn't vote for Biden, who did or didn't vote for Harris, who did vote for Biden, said it was Gaza. There's always a feeling of like told you so kind of moment, being like, yeah, it's not just Democrats didn't want to just not vote for harris, there's actually legitimate concerns that they had on the democratic side where they just felt completely betrayed. Yada, yada, yada I. But other than that and there are some liberals and conservatives who may have backed harris that I do have this feeling of like you know, here you go, here's the facts like you can just, you know, live with it because, like you said, there's a point of no return, even for some liberals there's a point of no return, right. There's like a point where just it's going to rationalize everything in a certain way. That's sometimes disturbing, right, and sometimes weird, and you're just like, all right, I actually don't want to go with you on this journey because it's going to mess me up mentally, of like going there with you.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:12:23

But I do think, like I have a lot of friends who are progressive-ish or liberal-ish but who have, who, in my opinion, are more like socialist or social democratic than they know, but at the same time they still are liberal-ish and they're. And they ask me questions about what to say and usually what I've told them. Friends, I know people, I know who I care about deeply and usually what I've told them. Friends, I know people I know who I care about deeply. One I obviously tell them to look into the DSA to see if there's a chapter around. I also tell them to check out other chapters on the left, like PSL. I know every group has their own like, say, issues and stuff, but it's worth just checking out if there's a chapter here and there. You know there's like other civic groups they can look into and, of course, unions.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:13:17

If they don't have one, I know it's not easy but just make one but still, like, look into it, like, and if they have questions, left-leaning folks, they need to know that America is not the source of everything in terms of politics, right, like there is. I mean we are, unfortunately, we dominate the world, but there is an internationalism that's there. Like you know, like I tell people there are, like I said earlier in this conversation, the way I frame it, like there's a whole world of people that's waiting for us to join them, and when I frame it that way it's intentional because I want people to know that there is, yeah, there's a world out there of people who aren't just out to get you or something right, because American politics feels like that, that right, like it's like everyone for themselves sometimes and you're just trying to win at every cost. But there are like I don't like mexico, I know it's not perfect morena or shine bomb, but you know I do tell people like there is a country with the leader who's telling trump you can't use our air, space or air for you know whatever to get migrants back to Central America or whatever. Petro Gustavo Petro. I know he kind of backed down from the recent tit for tat because Trump scared the shit out of him with tariffs, but he did tell the Colombian people that they should be ready to try to develop some sort of economy where they can really not have this happen again, which is good. There's the Palestinian cause very depressing what's happened, but the fact of the matter also remains that there's a lot of people returning home who are insistent on staying home, right, and the list goes on right. There's a lot of different countries and people who because the other thing that's interesting, that is unknown but different, is that America shot itself in the foot by being so crazy about supporting an apartheid regime this time it really did like created such a gap between some countries, elite and the people on the ground, including in places like egypt and other places.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:15:20

Saudi arabia, muhammad bin salman, said recently I think that we're not interested in working with, you know, the. What was the course they were trying to do before? What was it called Something? But they were trying to do some kind of like you know, normalization further with Israel. That's off the table and he's a crazy person like, so I, so there's like, like, is he honest or is it the bottom up pressure of keeping a royal kingdom in place where you can feel, maybe, things being tenuous? I rather think that's what's happening, because he's a crazy person who should also be a work, you know, at tribunals for what he's done.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:15:59

But but I tell people this and china, again, this is my thing. Like I am not, like, like you said, fanboy of china either, like I definitely feel like people pour a lot of hope into a country thinking it's the ussr, in terms of its oppositional nature to america, but china's work with the us is actually very willing to try to do business with the us. It's because of our own craziness and our tech bro sector that can't compete with china. That's pushing us in a certain direction with China, but it's not like China's like F the US or anything. They're actually trying to be statesmen with the US. But, with that being said, the fact that China has also done a lot of foreign policy work while America has been dropping bombs over the last 30 years is also putting a lot of screws on America. So I tell people again the situation is unknown.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:16:51

I don't try to hide, sugarcoat it, I'm not trying to be like revolutions around the way because it's scary, but I also try to tell people there is this international scene that is not necessarily as closed off as you think the American scene might feel like, and if we build this internationalism with not just the working class, but with people who want to dismantle US hegemony and also bring forth a chance for something better, there are people out there who not only want that, but who really need it, based on their own material interests, right, who are really struggling to breathe and want something different.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:17:27

So that's the way I've kind of said and it kind of sometimes works with people because you know, it's a really heady time Biden sucked. It's been burnout from that horrible time to lead to this craziness. To lead, I mean. The other thing is also there's a lot of contradictions at work for us, right, like the contradiction of the democrats saying fascism, fascism at the end, but then welcoming trump and being like welcome is an easy talking point for people who are on that side being like what the fuck you know?

C. Derick Varn: 1:17:55

right. Yeah, I mean the fact that the democrats seem to call trump a fascist but then not believe he would actually act right, uh, like even a bonapartist, much less a fascist, right? Um is actually, you know, kind of hilarious to me democratic leader, like I say this often with people.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:18:14

They treated palestinian activists with such contempt that they never did with trump or with the tech bros or with all these other nefarious people within and outside the party. I mean, the Democratic Party is a joke, to be really honest. They are a party that is also in a lot of problems. Even with the recent federal stopping, which got stopped by the judiciary, I think, chuck Schumer, there was a message saying they're going to convene the next day and talk about so. There's a lot of opportunity here. And I do want to add one more thing really quickly.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:18:51

If you look at also data points about the middle class, there's a lot more people of color in the middle class, but it's also very precarious to be in the middle class, and the reason why I say that's important is because I tell I don't tell people this ominously, I don't even tell people I really trust our friends. There is no, there is no safety point for most of you, most of us Like there is, it is, it is truly at a such a. There is no new, new deal right. There's no capacity for capitalism to rework itself without ruining the planet, for instance, or like to be middle-class even is such a vacuous thing, it doesn't really explain a lot about your class position. Really, in the end, if you're a white-collar worker in your middle class, you're still living in a society in which the private goods are all concentrated. All the goods and services are concentrated in a private way. Just keep yourself going through debt maybe. So there's just a lot of opportunity that people need to speak to and also address. But this is also where the unknown is.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:19:53

I'm also very honest with people and I tell them I don't know enough, but I think that's why you should join and we could figure this stuff out together rather than alone or apart. But I don't know Like I agree with you when I hear people say things like this, this and this. It doesn't make me seem very skeptical. It just makes me kind of annoyed sometimes, Cause I'm just like we're.

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:20:18

Like we're in a moment where you don't know it's this and this and this, like there's never been a time in history where you can have human extinction on the menu in terms of climate change or global warming or other issues like we don't know. But you, authenticity is key. If you tell someone you know everything too, they're gonna be turned off and be like well, I don't know. I see all this stuff that's happening around me. I don't know what's going on, so you know everything. So, yeah, I think those are some of the key things that I work through Internationalism. Opportunities are there and also I don't have all the answers, so let's try to figure it out together, I guess.

C. Derick Varn: 1:20:55

Yes, I would. I would agree with that. Let's try to figure this out together and try to be good faith actors. And yeah Well, thank you, sudip. Yeah Well, thank you, sudeep. And people should check out your essay and all the essays in the Hampton Institute Reader that is available from Iskara Books. Is that already out?

Sudip Bhattacharya: 1:21:19

or is it coming out? No, it's already out. I have a copy here, so you can order a copy from Barnes Noble and from another website, I forget, but you can also. You can download a PDF and from another website, I forget, but you can also. You can download a PDF version from the website Cool.

C. Derick Varn: 1:21:31

All right. Well, I think people should check it out, and thank you so much, sidi. Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you.