Members and acolytes of the Democratic Socialists of America are making inroads into the Democratic Party, so it’s useful to see what they stand for. They may not enact all these pledges, but they will try. Click on the screenshot below to see their recently published program.
No capitalism and NO BILLS!
But what if you want a different house from the one that the government gives you? Too bad! But who’s gonna pay for all those free houses, medicine, and transportation? I suspect they’ll just say “tax the rich,” the common DSA answer. But there’s not enough money there to begin to pay for all the stuff promised above.
And no more law enforcement. Eventually, everyone will be law-abiding!
There’s this of course; a major plank of the DSA is the elimination of Israel (and, not said explicitly) and of Jews as well. Invoking the “right of return” of all descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 would lead to the elimination of Israel. Not a word about the actual genocide of Hamas and the terrorism of the Palestinian Authority.
. . and here goes the separation of powers carefully confected by the Founders:
This comes pretty close to Communism:
And some cant:
To achieve this future, our class must organize. The Democratic Socialists of America is building a party whose goal is a democratic society of the working class. Our enemies are not just individual bosses, but the entire global system of capital; not just this or that cop, judge, or president, but the entire anti-democratic structure of our society. We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.
DSA has written this program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy. Some of these demands may be won under our current system, but we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up. We push these demands to their furthest extent today, so we can fight for their fullest realization in a socialist future. Join us.
But is that real democracy. What if people don’t want to run the big corporations or get rid of capitalism?
I don’t usually quote the conservative op-eds of the WSJ, but a new editorial-board op-ed describes the unconstitutionality of the DSA program:
The left has long targeted the Electoral College because it thwarts the ability of the most populous states to dominate presidential elections. But in its latest manifesto, “Workers Deserve More,” the DSA says it wants to “replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” It also wants to “abolish the Senate.” James Madison, call your office.
It’s important to understand how radical this is, essentially blowing up the Constitution’s separation of powers. Letting Congress choose the President means adopting the parliamentary system that prevails in Britain. It would essentially remove the presidential veto power that the Founders designed as a check on the legislative passions of the day.
Ditto for ending an independent judiciary, which is a check against legislative and executive violation of individual rights. Third World dictators seek to make the judiciary subservient to the ruling party for this reason, as they did in Venezuela, and as Mexico’s Morena party is now attempting to do.
The left loathes the Senate because it is also a restraint on temporary majorities. The Senate’s design, with two Members from each state, gives an equal voice to small and large states. This prevents dominance by California, New York and Texas. And it buttresses the federalist principles at the core of the Constitution’s design, which preserves certain powers to the states as a check on Washington, D.C.’s commandments.
The Senate’s six-year terms are another check on momentary House majorities elected every two years. The Founders’ original design that Senators be elected by state legislatures has given way to direct election. But the 60-vote filibuster rule has developed as an alternative check on radical change by narrow majorities.
Article V of the Constitution says “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” This means the Senate couldn’t be abolished without the consent of every state, assuming the DSA doesn’t ignore the Constitution, as some on the left might want to do.
. . . . The common denominator in all of these DSA proposals is eliminating barriers to rapid, radical change. The socialists want a single-branch legislature that can sweep into power in a single election, dominate the President, and neuter the judiciary as a check on that power. With those checks gone, they can impose their agenda that will be nearly impossible to undo.
The job of Republicans now, and Democrats who have the guts, is to educate the country about this agenda. Not by doing what President Trump does and call them “communists.” That general attack won’t resonate with young people who don’t know what communism is.
Well, read the platform and get yourself educated. Sadly, young people may still learn what communism is, but they also have to study history to see how it worked out. They can’t do that on their phones.
Thank you, PCC(E) – and, bolded :
“And some cant”
^^^accurate.
On more than one occasion I have been in debates with some self-proclaimed socialist who insists that calling the DSA “Communist” is some kind of libel. So I go to the DSA home page and show them the DSA’s own words. Suddenly they have nothing to say.
It’s good to see that the Press is actually reporting on this. They need to do go deeper, though, and start asking real questions like “Why?” Why abolish the Supreme Court? And they need to ask, “And then what?” Once the Supreme Court is abolished, how will the appeals process work? What is there are conflicts in rulings in lower courts, how will those be resolved? And why abolish the Presidency? How will executive functions be managed? We’re starting to hear what the DSA doesn’t like; it’s time to hear what they would like. Like their predecessors, I suspect that they would be better at destruction than creation, and probably have no real plans for how to govern. Single-chamber legislatures have a very poor track record at governing.
I’m actually sympathetic to these proposals, but one wonders if the real problem DSA supporters have with the president and Supreme Court (both far too powerful) is that they are presently right-wing. Likewise with the electoral college system, which is thought to favour Republicans.
My view is that they view them as institutionally conservative, and object to the idea of a balance of powers as causing unwanted friction in getting things done as they want.
If you’re sympathetic to abolition of the Supreme Court and Presidency, could you answer the questions above about what would replace their functions?
A thing that puzzles me is that in our own primary election, the numerous campaign ads from Haley Stevens (current holder of a Senate seat, and I like her) say nothing about the especially crazy positions of the DSA and its local candidate (Abdul El-Sayed), who is running against her in the primary. He is attacked on other issues that are decidedly less alarming. I don’t understand the reasoning.
It’s simply avoiding pissing off the far left, and keeping most of their votes in the election, in a contest her opponent has little chance of winning.
I had thought that. But the polls show they are very close, and it is time to bring out the real issues here. Many on the farther left (more left than I, but not crazy far left) are probably persuaded by the populist messaging from this charming outsider, as he floods the airwaves with not at all crazy sounding messaging (do away with ICE. Say nothing about abolishing the police, for example). Many supporters probably don’t read the DSA platform. Meanwhile the republican campaign can paint the more moderate incumbent with a DSA brush, targeting swing voters.
What is the meaning of the circumlocution “holder of a Senate seat”? It can’t mean that she’s a senator, mainly because she is not a senator.
This is delusional. As E.O. Wilson (expert in eusocial insects) remarked: “Nice idea; wrong species”. There is this thing called “human nature” that the DSA completely fail to factor in.
If people don’t need to work (or if working makes no difference to their standard of living) then they simply won’t. Obviously!
So everything is centrally funded, but who is doing the work or paying the taxes to fund everything? No-one.
OK, so you “soak the rich”. But, firstly, there aren’t enough rich people to soak (seriously, even if you confiscate all their wealth it doesn’t get you far).
And, if the rich cannot “exploit the workers” (aka, offering a fair wage for a fair day’s work) because no-one needs to work since all their needs are met, then the rich won’t be rich, and so can’t be soaked.
The whole thing is based on the delusion that people will spend their lives working hard at jobs just for the warm and fuzzies of helping society. Only an idiot with no clue about human nature would think that this will work in practice.
And the legal battle to deeply restructure How Things Are Paid For will go nowhere. The rich have rights of ownership and lawyers, after all. So the platform is a hallucination, made up by the most vocal members of the DSA.
That’s pretty much how I see it as well. Who are the dense people who believe these ideas?
I suspect, or at least am wondering, if this is not lovely candy wrapping to push an agenda to support and raise funds for Palestine/Hamas and continue to further ratchet down Jewish support.
I will mention one detail that I had heard about (not sure if it’s true). The DSA is on track to gain traction in these mid-terms, and if the Dems have a lead in congress it will only be a narrow one. The plan of the DSA is to hold democratic voting hostage until they cave on putting forward their issues. So even if we get back narrow control, we won’t be able to make good on it. They will still be a minority in the Democratic Party, but with out-sized influence.
Karl Marx: “…while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind,”
In general, the people who think that people will perform hard physical labor for the glories of helping society are people who do not do, and have never done, the hard physical labor themselves.
It is easy being a sociology major studying for a degree for seven years proposing that others will make their bricks, work the ground to plant the vegetables, process their sewage, tend their animals (including, by the way, dealing with the sewage of the animals), mining their minerals, etc. And yes, I have done some of that work myself. One thing that I can tell y’all is that it is difficult to find a socialist among those workers. Sure, they want better health care, cheaper rents, etc. But they are not naive about the work that is necessary, and they do not believe that anything—anything —— comes for free.
There’s also the little problem of where the innovation will come from. New discoveries and inventions take a lot of hard work. Entrepreneurs are unlikely to extend themselves if there’s no profit.
Fidel Castro used to say that Cuban socialist democracy was so pure, so direct, that it had no need for cumbersome formalities such as voting. The true will of the people rose up spontaneously through the incorruptible spirit of the people’s guardian, Fidel.
The DSA seems to be promising an extension of the college life, a new “campus” where everything is free and you don’t have to worry about anything other than whatever activism you are into that week.
Perhaps that is the appeal of the DSA to so many young and often affluent people.
Not a model of Nordic socialism, is it?
BTW, while the DSA is a left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, there are factions within the DSA that are even further left.
The Springs of Revolution, for example: “Our platform is focused on transforming DSA into a mass revolutionary force…”
https://sordsa.org/
The Liberation Caucus: “A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Caucus in DSA. Forward Ever, Backward Never!”
https://www.liberationcaucus.org/
The DSA has a security organization called the Red Rabbits. An attempt earlier this year was made to kick Christopher Winston, a Maoist, out of it due to his extremism. But he won enough votes to remain.
Here’s a short video of some of this guy’s thoughts:
I read this creepy thing the other day when I first saw it. Quite ambitious! And yet it seems to be written to attract people with no ambition at all: grievance studies majors who have no prospect of getting a job and no desire even to try. Can it really be the case that we have raised so many young people who aspire to so little?
(1) Largely because of Trump’s election, the DSA membership has “soared” from about 6,000 in 2015 to about 120,000 today. That is less than 0.04% of the US population.
(2) Despite some evidence of affiliation, I know of no prominent political leader who advocates for all or even most of these extreme policies.
I think that the United States is safe from this “threat” for the time being. Now, back to the impending threat of fascism . . .
Agreed, and none of these proposals are likely to be adopted by the Democratic Party platform. Unfortunately the DSA is giving the MAGAs ammunition.
The best solution would be for the DSA to split off and be its own party.
I see the DSA as the political branch of critical theorists.
As such, their strategy is not to be their own party. They state very clearly their intent is to infiltrate established organizations and subvert them to their cause.
It has happened in Christian religious organizations and typically occurred at the end of conventions where a “diversity board” was proposed as the last item. Being last was by design, so there was no time for discussion.
To be clear, I couldn’t care less about the southern Baptist convention or the united methodist church.
I do think it is instructive as to the methods of subversion.
How we combat it in the Democratic Party is a question I think is the important aspect of this.
One interesting point in the DSA Platform as posted is that they mention “What do you do on your day off?”. No where does it reference more than a single day off, so apparently for those of us who would choose to work, we would only be allowed a single day of rest. They also mention a 32 hour work week, so I guess that means 5.5 hour workdays? They also reference the Green New Deal, and the initial iteration of that plan also included the same idea that you are paid whether you choose to or not.
I’ve paid a little bit of attention to this over the past couple months. The DSA members that I’ve heard state explicitly that they are using the Democratic Party (as their “useful idiots”) to get them the power they need in government. They are leveraging party politics.
The platform overall is beyond utopian, it’s childish. However, the DSA is acting very intelligently when it comes to electing their candidates, especially given that this midterm year will be a down year for Republicans. Primaries typically have low voter turnout, so it’s easier to energize a strong DSA contingent to put those candidates over the top. Then in the general election it’s a simple matter of downplaying the extreme portions of the platform so that the result is voting D over R as a mindless lever pull by the general public who just see Orange Man Bad.
Should the kulaks be worried yet?
I’m halfway through reading “Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives” (Alan Bullock) and this all looks quite familiar. Detailed comparisons are left as an exercise for the reader.
The DSA is the pop-Left’s greatest gift to the Republican Party since the Prairie Fire Collective in the 1970s. For younger campers, let me explain that Prairie Fire was the product of Dohrn and Ayers, those geniuses of the Weathermen faction of SDS. After some difficulties occurred involving bombs, these brilliant theorists conceived the tactic of bringing the revolution above ground, and then practicing, at least in appearance, normal “democratic” political discourse.
How very Khmer Rouge style.
They might not have to “EMPTY THE CITIES!” like the K.R. did b/c in the city where they’re most in control of, mine actually, they’re working on wrecking it so people will leave by themselves. Particularly wealthy people.
D.A.
NYC
Sure—those who can afford to leave.
On the other hand, the “bourgeoise” – the bodega owners and the other middle class people who will be driven out of business by the glorious socialist evolution —they may not be able to afford to leave.
And the KR? Well, those who glorify Mao should have no problem with seeing Pol Pot as a hero.
I don’t think that most of America will support this crap. The only issue is how much damage the DSA supporters will do before people wake up.
Trump calls all leftists “communists”, simply because it makes it rhetorically easier for him to demonize them all as bad and evil people.
However, as for “getting yourself educated”, lesson #1 is that there is a relevant difference between totalitarian (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist) communism and democratic socialism, and a fortiori between communism and social democracy.
Here are two official statements that I found on the DSA website:
“We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.”
Source: https://www.dsausa.org/strategy/where_we_stand/
“The subjugation of authoritarian collectivism has little to do with the liberty of democratic socialism. ”
Source: https://www.dsausa.org/strategy/toward_freedom/
“True communism has never been tried.”
Communism/Socialism is *necessarily” authoritarian because the economy, and thus people’s livelihood, is centrally controlled. Necessarily, everyone is subject to the decisions of that central controller. In a capitalist economy, if you don’t like your employer you can look for another job or set up your own enterprise. Under communism/socialism you can’t.
Now, it could be that that central controller is democratic, in that decisions are made by majority will, but that leaves no freedom at all to anyone who disagrees with the majority. “Tyranny of the Majority” is still tyranny. Hence “democratic socialism” does not give a liberal democracy, where people have individual rights and freedom of action, where much of our lives are not under state control.
And that, of course, is even presuming the ideal, where the central controller really is beneficent and acting in the collective interests. In practice such power corrupts, and the outcome is disastrous.
I overestimated the Democratic Socialists of America. I thought they had advanced to the level of the Russian radicals known as nihilists in the 1860s.
But they are actually still at the earlier stage of the utopian socialists, in the mold of Saint-Simon. They are so ignorant that they do not realize that, as Wikipedia puts it, “Later socialists used the term [utopian socialism] as a pejorative in order to dismiss the ideas of the earlier thinkers as fanciful and unrealistic.”
“… we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up. We push these demands to their furthest extent today, so we can fight for their fullest realization in a socialist future.” The DSA’s agitprop makes it easy and by no means inaccurate for the Republicans to dismiss them—and anything they are connected with—as Communists. What the DSA’s agitprop makes laughably clear is that their primary concern is posture and costumery. Michael Harrington never intended such a kiss of death for the Democratic Party.
Quote from former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison: “I say this with no ill will or animosity: if you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination. Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign. Focus on building the party you actually support.”
OK, this is at least recognizing that there’s a problem, but it isn’t nearly enough. It may require some ill will or animosity–and corresponding action–or they will just keep trying to leverage the party. And ultimately destroy it.
Democrats, please learn from the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party. You have the advantage of not having to fight against, at least for now, any cult-like leader like Trump. Thank Ceiling Cat that at least Mamdani is disqualified. These people may all but assure that the nightmare of President Vance becomes reality.
This stuff is much more frightening than anything Trump or MAGA has done.
When thousands of DSA supporters storm the capital, conspire to overturn a free and fair election, call for the execution of members of Congress and the Vice President, and beat defending law-enforcement officers into submission, give me a call.
Comment #17 notes that the Democrats at least have the “advantage of not having to fight against, at least for now, any cult-like leader.” Don’t count out the US pop-Left in this department. The Revolutionary Communist Party has had Bob Avakian as its “precious leader” since neolithic times. Maybe Precious, who is only 83, will send his groupuscule into action in the Democratic Party alongside the
foot soldiers of the DSA.
If you believe people are born as blank slates then you can hope to write any dream you like on the slate.
Unfortunately people are not born as blank slates so the hopes for a glorious socialist utopia are doomed from the start.
I think that the perception of society getting worse is driving massive dissatisfaction with the status quo and a drive towards both populism and political extremes.
Capitalism does seem to be failing, and it needs significant reform – not abandonment. Inequality is a phenomenon that most people will readily accept, unless they see their personal conditions declining. A recent study here in the UK showed that the prospects for school leavers getting jobs is worse than it has been for decades. Most people are suffering a cost of living crisis, while at the same time millionaires are becoming multi-millionaires, and multi-millionaires are becoming billionaires.
Everything in the current economic doctrine seems to point towards helping the supply side of the the economy. If wealth was better redistributed it would, ironically, create demand, improving trading conditions for businesses generally.
I think you are right to have deep concern about the DSA agenda, but it would be a mistake to throw socialism completely under the bus. The two most beloved institutions over here are the BBC (funded by a licence fee) and the National Health Service (funded by a compulsory, universal National Insurance scheme). Both of these institutions therefore are, in essence, socialist in character.
They do have one or two good ideas IMO. Certainly healthcare should be provided by the state, although I wouldn’t go so far as to ban private healthcare. Also the president should be the person most of the electorate want. Your system gives some people a disproportionate say in who the president is, just because they live in a small state. Get rid of the electoral college.
Other ideas are deeply naive. It’s almost adorable how they think everybody will have a job that they like and that none of them will be slackers. They need to take a look at Western Europe. It’s quite possible to institute laws that protect workers’ rights whilst still operating a broadly capitalist economy.
Also, your supreme court is utterly broken, but making it even more political is not going to fix it. Its current problem is that the selection process is partisan and the people who get selected are partisan. The judiciary should be interpreting the law as far as possible without political bias.
I’d like to say that much of the DSA agenda is naive and impractical but a beautiful, idealized vision.
Unfortunately, the ideas are just too stupid to be taken seriously. Even if the “democratic” part of democratic socialism works, the loss of freedom, of agency on an individual level is profound.
Also, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is an old adage that remains true to this day. Even democratic institutions can be corrupt and abusive to the individual they have power over (think slavery).
Honestly, no adult should need someone to explain why the DSA’s ideas are ridiculous.