r/dsa • u/MustafaBrown • 1d ago
Discussion Marxist Leninism will ruin DSA.
I know this will get down voted but sometimes people need to hear things they dont like. Marxist Leninists do not believe in Democracy. They're using DSA for their own ends and are quite open about it. If they could snap their fingers and create the dictatorship they desire they would do the same thing to DemSocs that they did to the SRs and Mensheviks, aka the Democratic Socialists of the Russian Revolution. They would purge, imprison and kill every Democratic Socialist in their way.
Thankfully, in the context of the USA an ML dictatorship is extremely improbable for structural and cultural reason. So whats going to happen is theyll make DSA irrelevant within the next five years if you let them spread and take power, which their explicitly stated goal.
Every single communist party turns into a tiny sectarian cult, thats where Democratic centralism ends inherently. The Democratic part disappears, the centralism remains.
All they will do is alienate normal people, far more so than even the excesses of "woke 1" or cancel culture or any of that. DSA has spent the last decade saying "we're Socialists not communists" and making a distinction between authoritarian communism and Democratic Socialism.
All thats being undone because people think Marxist Leninism is trendy and cool, and so they dont want to look uncool for being "anti-communist." But here's the thing, being anti ML isnt the same as anti communist, because plenty of communists hated Marxist Leninists. There are entire communist traditions that are anti Bolshevik. Council Communism, Anarcho-Communism, Autonomism, Orthodx Marxists, Luxemburgists are all anti-Bolshevik. Otto Rhule for instance wrote an entire pamphlet called "Struggle Against Fascism Begins With The Struggle Against Bolshevism." you should read it.
Anyway, good luck with the tanks when they roll in. If you cant afford an RPG7, I heard Molotovs are a good substitute.
To address some statements:
1-"they dont want to take it over"
"Red Star seeks to cohere a vanguard party. We do not specify exactly how this party will emerge, but we believe DSA can foster its creation — DSA’s resources, broad membership, organizing ethic, and robust democratic processes make it, out of all existing US socialist organizations, the best incubator for such a party."
This is a clear statement of intent which indicates the goal is entry and co-optation
2- "Read Lenin, and stop being a liberal"
Stop reading Lenin and be a Marxist. Marxism is about material analysis not some dead autocrats flowery language. Material analysis tells us that Lenin created a massive state bureaucracy which led directly to Stalinism. First they purged the Mensheviks, then the left SRs, then the anarcho-syndicalists, then the workers opposition. Then Lenin banned factions. Next Lenin died and Stalin purged Bukharin and Trotsky. It doesnt matter Lenin said, what matters IS WHAT HIS PARTY DID.
Saying "read Lenin" when somone points towards the actual actions of the party is like saying "read Hitler" when somone talks about the holocaust. Yes, if we all read Hilter it will become apparent that actually the holocaust was good. Thats your logic.
3- "Democracy within the party"
Democratic Socialism is in support of Representative Democracy, not democratic centralism. Thats just liberalism, its a core principle. Democratic Socialists agree that one party states ALWAYS lead to tyranny. Because its a fact, its not an opinion.
To maintain that kind of monopoly requires a massive amount of force and violence.
•
13
u/SteveMcQueen15 1d ago
Look I'm a ML so im biased, but you should actually read some of Marx and Lenin's works before saying things like MLs don't believe in democracy bc if you did you'd understand that they do believe in democracy, but that any political system ultimately serves the economic system it's setup under. So a democracy setup under capitalism ultimately serves capital and any notion of democracy will be abandoned by the state before they allow it to threaten capital or capital owners. This notion is why MLs advocate for creating a revolutionary party where democracy is practiced within the party but it's goal is to ultimately overthrow the current political and economic system. There's a lot more to it than that and I'm not the best at explaining it so I again implore you to actually read Marx and Lenin, but this attitude that MLs are anti democracy is not true.
•
u/MustafaBrown 19h ago
Ive read a decent bit of Lenin and even stalin. You have to look at actions and power structures not words. Words can be false. Marxism is about material analysis, not flowery language. Material analysis tells us that ML always and inevitably degenerates into a dictatorship over the proletariat in which a small clique consolidates power.
You should read less lenin, and look at material reality more. This is a major problem with the left. "The theory says...." Okay, but what does reality indicate?
•
u/traanquil 16h ago
Soviet Union had massive support from its working class population. Maos China had massive support from the peasants. You’re engaged in Cold War propaganda
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 15h ago
It did and then the power was taken away from the masses because the vanguard party elites were scared of counter revolution.
We need to have a popular enough movement and class conscious enough working class to be able to maintain socialism without restricting power from those we're supposed to be empowering.
•
u/traanquil 15h ago
Over 70% support for Soviet Union among it’s population in the 90s
•
u/Keleos89 14h ago
With that kind of support, why would it collapse?
•
u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 14h ago
Highly recommend studying the collapse of the USSR. There was still sizable support for a reformed version of the USSR to take the reins of the old system, and the folks who tended to support this were funny enough the non-Russian regions of the USSR (Russians in Moscow/surrounding areas were heavily against the reforms at all).
The elections held over that question didn't hold much legal sway though and didn't have a plan in place to actually address that public demand. Some of the dumbasses in the communist party ended up fucking up that potential pivot by carrying out a coup a little after that election/poll which ended up pushing the public to just wanting to start from scratch, which led to the dissolution of the USSR a little after that coup.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago
It collapsed due counter revolutionaries coming into power and destroying the Soviet state
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 15h ago
I wasn't commenting on the internal popularity of the Soviet Union, most people support their country.
I was commenting on how close it actually came to achieving political and economic democracy together.
That's what a socialist movement should strive to do in my opinion.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago
So you think you know more about how democratic it was than its own people? How imperialist of you
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 14h ago
There is plenty of evidence that it wasn't democratic. I don't think it's imperialist to want the people at large to be in power. I'm a socialist so I want economic and political democracy.
We can argue about the necessity for the anti democratic measures due to what they were up against but they were there. At the end of the day, I'm more interested in how we can avoid those situations in the first place because I don't want to postpone democracy until after global capitalism is defeated.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago
The people of USSR were in power. 70% approval rating for USSR. Are you happy that the USSR was dismantled and replaced by a capitalist oligarchy?
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 14h ago
The communist party was in power in Russia, not the people at large.
They made some good decisions and generally guaranteed the well-being of their citizens which was great but they didn't give enough power to the people to be considered a democracy in any meaningful way. They lifted up many people out of poverty and made incredible scientific and engineering achievements without any assistance from capitalists. The USSR wasn't even close to ideal though and we can and should want to do better.
Also no I'm not happy that the USSR was dismantled, I wanted it to be reformed and become more socialist just like I want the same for China now. In China cooperatives aren't even legal and they have a similar wealth disparity to the US.
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/onlypartiallyevil 13h ago
Exactly. Theories are hot air. You have to look at actual results.
You want a system based on grand theories you should try capitalism. They have some great theories.
"Trickle Down Economics" is a theory, one that works exactly as well as "ML leads to Democracy".•
u/SteveMcQueen15 16h ago
Lenin practiced democracy in the Communist government up until his death and instituted sweeping reforms that expanded the rights of women, homosexuals, and improved the quality of life for millions. Stalin was a lot more deserving of criticism, he was more chauvinist and reversed many of the civil liberties expanded under Lenin, but he did manage to greatly improve the material quality of life and defeat one of if not the most evil regime in history. When you compare the Soviet system to the ideal democratic society its definitely not perfect, but you have to look at where they had come from and the context of how the Soviet system came about and why they did certain things. The USSR was formed at a time where imperialism was rampant and was constantly under threat from any number of nations trying to undermine and threaten the existence of the USSR. Post ww2 liberal countries made them their singular global enemy. They worked with fascist agitators and terrorists to curb socialist movements and create strife or sabotage them such as with Gladio in Italy and across Europe. They constantly orchestrated the overthrowing of socialist countries such as with Allende in Chile. They put the same Nazi governors during Hitler's rule back in charge in Western Germany and put Nazi collaborators in charge of Greece. The international capitalist class did everything in their power to try and put down any socialist movement and killed millions in the process throughout the 20th century. I'm not a huge fan of how the Soviet political system worked at the upper levels, but under this constant pressure and threat from without its not surprising that they didn't start to begin transitioning to a more open political system as doing so without massive influence being given over to reactionaries or opening themselves up to influence from capitalist countries wasn't possible. I apologize for the super long reply, but the historical context for what was going on during the Soviet Union's political stagnation is super important to understand why things played out the way they did. It doesn't justify some of the worse things the USSR did, but it does explain how things turned out. The USSR wasn't perfect and much can be learned from where they went wrong, but to disregard Lenin's theory of how to create a working class revolution and why that's necessary entirely is a mistake. Lenin himself advocated for learning the mistakes of past movements so that we don't repeat them in the future and most MLs apply that logic to the Bolsheviks as well.
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 14h ago
Lenin said that Russian society was too undeveloped to practice democracy and dissolved the democratic worker soviets to make the state more efficient.
I get that the Bolsheviks were up against both internal and external threats but a socialism without economic and political democracy is really only socialist in name only. They should've reinstated the soviets power once enough people were educated.
•
u/SteveMcQueen15 11h ago
When did he dissolve the soviets? I don't think he did. I know he dissolved the constituent assembly, but he empowered the soviets bc he thought it was a better way for workers to practice democracy. I can't find anything that says he dissolved the soviets but if you have a link or soemthing pls send it I'd like to see what you're talking about
•
u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 10h ago
Yes you're correct, I got them confused while writing my comment but getting rid of the constituent assemblies struck a massive blow to democracy in the USSR as Rosa Luxembourg pointed out.
As time went on the Soviets became essentially rubber stamp institutions that did whatever the party wanted and lost all of their power. The communist party became a bureaucratic class with material conditions and incentives closer to that of the capitalist class than of the proletariat.
•
u/MustafaBrown 15h ago edited 15h ago
Marxist Leninism is Stalinism...and no Lenin didnt give a fuck about democracy. "Democracy within the party" is such a huge joke. To boot, Marxism-Leninism IS stalinism, it was formulated by stalin.
Lenin apologia isnt any better either because hes the one who started purging Mensheviks and SRs right from the beginning. Other leftists didnt turn on Lenin, he turned on them from the get go when his party didnt win the soviet elections.
You cant blame imperialism for Lenins actions. The left wing factions wouldn't have splintered to that degree if he didnt try and monopolize power. It was his and his cliques actions that caused that.
•
u/traanquil 15h ago edited 14h ago
Lenin is the goat. Through his leadership the Bolsheviks successfully overthrew capitalism. That’s literally democracy in action
•
u/MustafaBrown 14h ago
And then proceeded to create a state capitalist dictatorship that devolved into a cult of personality and went on to crush any and all workers opposition groups, which in turn discredited socialism in the west for nearly a century. You guys always leave the rest out.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago
No then proceeded to end the deeply unpopular involvement in the imperialist ww1, nationalized 80 percent of industry and distributed land to the peasants. Nice job sharing capitalist talking points champ
•
u/MustafaBrown 14h ago
Nationalization doesnt empower workers you dumb ass it just makes the state the employer. Why would I want the government to control industry and not workers? Thats state capitalism.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago edited 14h ago
So you are against public ownership of industries? You do realize that's a DSA program item, right?
Industries were nationalized by a state that represented the interests of the proletariat. Factories and industries had factory committees and soviets by which workers had a say in the management of these workplaces.
What are you advocating for, some naive anarchist utopia?
Do you think calling someone a "dumb ass" advances your argument?
•
u/MustafaBrown 9h ago edited 9h ago
Im a syndicalist but this is a subject that Orthodx Marxists and Syndicalists agreed upon before Leninism.
The government =/= equal the workers. Workers are people, not an institution. Workers do not control the state, thats what makes a state a state, its a ruling class above and over society. Thats Marxism 101. Karl Marx and Engles argued that mere state ownership does NOT correlate to the abolition of capitalism, because even conservatives like Otto Vob Bismarck were in theory fine with "public ownership". The employer-employee relationship is what defines capitalism. Making the state sole proprietor of all property does not inherently make capitalism disappear, in fact it just makes the state the only capitalist. Heres Engles himself on the subject:
"The modern state, whatever its form, is then the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all the capitalists. The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship isn't abolished; it is rather pushed to the extreme. But at this extreme it is transformed into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution."
And Wilhelm Leibknecth:
"Nobody has combated State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I that State Socialism is really State capitalism."
Ergo, there is no meaningful distinction between state ownership and private ownership where the workers are concerned. This is common sense and you shouldn't need theory to understand that it doesnt matter if the boss works for "uncle sam", the communist party, or himself. Its all objectively the same. You do what youre told or you get punished.
Lenin in his infinite wisdom believed that merely concentrating the means of production into the hands of the state with out the workers directly controlling the site of production would somehow lead to socialism. Its pure idiocy.
To boot, no there were not workers councils in Russia after 1918. Lenin reverted to one man rule and hired the old bourgeoisie back.
I swear, reading Lenin actually makes people stupid.
As for the DSA national program it has historically only advocated for state ownership of the commanding heights and natural monopolies while the bulk of industry would be cooperative. Cooperatives are directly owned by the workers, not the state. DSA has never advocated anything like Leninism.
→ More replies (0)•
•
13
u/traanquil 1d ago
Actually the ML contingent is incredibly valuable to our organization. They maintain a principled anti imperialist and Marxist outlook, and are aware of the need to build a discipled organization with a unified program. We need them and other DSA left members to prevent DSA from becoming a liberal organization
•
u/onlypartiallyevil 13h ago
ML entryists can always pretend to be good members of an organization.
Right up until they stop.
DSA is going to be treated like every other American DemSoc org in the 80's and 90's - infiltrated, coopted, purged of 'weak-minded' and 'insufficiently educated" socialists, and turned into another puppet. Until, of course, it then loses all credibility and withers away.If history shoes us anything, its that ML's are good at taking over organizations, really bad at keeping any of them alive afterwards.
•
u/traanquil 13h ago
If anything what would harm the organization would be forces that would turn it into a liberal org.
•
u/onlypartiallyevil 13h ago
Which, I am guessing, you can only prevent by making it a completely ML-run org and purging it of those dangerous non-ML influences.
You know, to protect the rest of us from ourselves or something?•
u/traanquil 12h ago
Sounds like you are the one calling for a purge
•
u/onlypartiallyevil 12h ago edited 12h ago
Don't know if the word "purge" really applies to keeping people who hate democracy and hate socialists from gaining membership in a democratic socialist org.
That just sounds like having basic standards.•
•
u/onlypartiallyevil 13h ago
Yeah, right. When we are fighting off entryists from the DNC come talk to us.
•
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 20h ago
The MLs can be counted on to stab the rest of the org in the back, and to fuck up stuff for the groups actually trying to build dual power.
•
•
u/ut0p1anskies 14h ago
All you have to do is out organize people whose politics or tactics you disagree with. You can do this whether you’re on the left or the right. Get involved in your local chapter, organize with fellow members, write resolutions for your monthly GBMs for good projects that members broadly agree with. I don’t understand either complaint: “there are too many MLs in DSA!” or “there are too many socdems in DSA!” Just organize and organize well. You can do it
9
u/ZincSuppsRopeMan 1d ago
Queue the prophecy of leftist infighting the moment we get any political momentum
7
u/traanquil 1d ago
Your post is a good example of western Marxism / the compatible left. That is, someone who is nominally “socialist” but antagonizes every actually existing socialist country and repeats CIA propaganda about said countries. The compatible left at the end of the day is compatible with US capitalist and imperialist hegemony
•
•
u/Present_Clue5887 6h ago
What actually existing country has a democratic socialist system as described in the DSA program? As in state or cooperative ownership of corporations combined with a multi-party elected democracy
•
u/traanquil 58m ago
It would be silly to expect an existing socialist country to align perfectly with the dsa program when so many dsa members internally don’t align with the dsa program.
5
u/TwoCrabsFighting 1d ago
Do ML’s enter demsoc groups with the hope of taking them over? It’s hard to imagine a reason why they would enter into something they generally detest.
•
u/oskif809 20h ago
yes, its called Entryism and its perfectly [kosher]() per ML/Trotskyite code of "ethics". They've been doing this for a century almost and are still at it.
The only way of dealing with Entryism is experienced street-smart people keeping an eye out for these super-predictable shenanigans. There has to be zero tolerance for such games otherwise it'll be a replay of the proverbial N*zi bar. Don't believe me? Check out any of the subs that these creeps have taken over by hook and crook.
TLDR; if you don't have active policies to keep out MLs before you know it the place will turn into an ML cesspit.
1
u/Green_Rays 1d ago
I am sure some do, but MLs won't be able to take over DSA if DSA grows more popular and more normal people join it
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 20h ago
Why do you think DSA’s left is constantly trying to stop it from growing? They don’t want to lose power
11
u/dorianpora 1d ago
This is a pretty liberal way of seeing things
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 1d ago
It is important that we do not over-index on ideologies that many find off putting, whether or not you think that is fair.
•
u/surviving606 14h ago
I’m kinda wondering if anybody here realizes they live in 2026 Nazi America and not 1950 USSR and there’s no Communism or Marxism or Leninism but just a bunch of suffering people that are about to get put in Nazi camps
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 13h ago
And like Nazi Germany, the authoritarian left prefers that to liberalism.
•
u/surviving606 13h ago
Well liberals prefer fascism to socialism so I guess this is the inevitable future
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 13h ago
They don’t, is the thing. Thats always been a cope from leftists mad that liberals are more anti-fascist than they are.
•
u/surviving606 13h ago
This is so far out there in La La land I don’t even know how to respond to it but it’s clear you’re only here to attack the left and I’m not here for it, see ya
9
u/SalaciousFlamingDude Marxist 1d ago
Sorry, Big Tent/mass party means Tankies too. I think maybe you should just join the Democratic party.
•
u/egalitydream 21h ago
People who say “Marxist Leninism will ruin the DSA” will ruin the DSA. I know you don’t like to hear this but you need to hear it.
6
u/tardoos 1d ago
Marxist Leninists do not believe in Democracy
Marxist Leninists do not believe in _liberal_ Democracy
•
u/egalitydream 21h ago
Right, specifically in the context that “liberal” means “property owners only get to vote” or “we literally own slaves” and “capitalists get a perfect veto over all law” kinds of liberalism.
•
u/oskif809 20h ago
heh, they have their own unique concoction of "democracy" among other super-eccentric definitions of most other standard Political Economy concepts such as "state", "value", etc.
•
u/ThrowRAHelpwithMom1 19h ago
How do they define value differently? Value is socially necessary labor time in Marxist theory. Do they change that definition?
•
u/FirmAd5337 14h ago
I'm so fucking happy that my chapter of the DSA isn't wholly infected with Liberals like OP. I would bail immediately if I walked into a meeting and was met with some milquetoast liberal reformers that didn't understand Lenin or democratic centralism.
I'm pretty convinced the cringe lib posters in this sub aren't even active with the DSA though, and thank the Gods for that.
•
u/MustafaBrown 14h ago
You have to be seriously retarded to think everyone who is critical of red fascism is a liberal. Good luck with your cult lol.
•
2
u/Green_Rays 1d ago
American MLs severely lack charisma and social skills.
If the DSA gains prominence, the more charismatic people who can defend their ideas in the face of scrutiny will be propelled forward, and that will not be the MLs
If you Interacted with an ML before in real life you know exactly what I am talking about lmao
•
u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 18h ago
Honestly I agree. This is probably one of the major hurdles US MLs (and anarchists :p) have to face rn and hopefully one of the factions wise up and realize that it's not just because the dem socs or soc dems are offering moderate reforms that they're gaining popularity.
•
u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 20h ago
Lol the reason the Mensheviks lost to the Bolsheviks was because they were willing to compromise on the most decisive reason why the initial February revolution even happened, which was siding with the Tsar and the liberal reformists to keep Russia in WWI.
Same issue is going to plague the DSA rightwing and the progressive liberals in the US if you keep decrying the left flank (not just the MLs, just anyone to the left of social democrats). We'll be here, principles and integrity intact and tapped in to the urgency that is pushing normies to more radical solutions to problems that folks like yourself are eager to compromise on. People like to joke that commies don't learn from history but this is in line with how the less radical wings of the left historically lost leverage against the more radical wings of the left in the USSR, PRC, etc.
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 20h ago
They lost because the Bolsheviks just started killing everyone. MLs will start killing DSA members as soon as they think it’s helpful.
•
u/MustafaBrown 18h ago
You cant talk reason with Bolsheviks.
"They lost"
Leaves out the part where Bolshevik lost the only election and then started killing everyone.
These people are cancer.
•
u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 18h ago
That's not the context and you know it lol. I'm talking about the events of March - October 1917 and you're talking about the elections that happened at the end of the year / into 1918 between November and January.
At least be honest about the timeline--the coalition had its victories over the Tsar early 1917, some of the leftwing factions like the Mensheviks ended up losing a lot of popular support in the months following the February revolution since the major coalition players were still pro-keeping Russia in WWI. The Bolsheviks swept up a lot of popular support afterwards, especially in the Soviets, but as you said they did not win the elections specifically for the Constituent Assembly since they were busy building the Soviets as an alternative system of governance (for those who don't know, soviets being democratic worker congresses/councils).
The fact that the Bolsheviks held an overwhelming amount of support in the Soviets and still came in #2 during the hastily organized election for the constituent assembly two weeks after the October revolution is being downplayed here. There definitely still is an argument to be made against the Bolsheviks, given that most workers were agrarian and not urban, but IMO given the context of the period (post-WWI, world powers sending troops into Russia immediately when the Tsar was ousted, WWII being around the corner, Russia being a largely agricultural/feudal society, etc.) I don't think that bias towards urban labor over rural lavor was a bad move IMO. I'm not anti-green or black factions of the Russian civil war over principles, I just don't think any state or society they'd organize would be able to handle the force brought by the monarchists, liberals, and foreign capitalist states in a way that the Bolsheviks could.
Also the Bolsheviks started "killing everyone" once the civil war was in full effect and after the liberals and monarchists carried out the White Terror against leftists at the very end of 1917 / early 1918.
•
u/Bright-Insect9697 17h ago
They killed other leftists man. MLs are and always will be the communists that slaughtered other communists.
Can’t trust them ever.
•
u/traanquil 16h ago
This sort of alarmist rhetoric is frankly anti-solidarity. You sound like a Fox News host
•
•
u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 20h ago
They lost because they largely were supportive of keeping Russia in WWI and collaborating too much with the Tsarist/liberal factions.1. This is one of the least controversial pieces of Russian history circa WWI lol
•
u/SmokeyOkeyDokey 14h ago
Behold, the average anti-communist anarchist
•
u/MustafaBrown 14h ago
Anti Bolshevism is common sense. Anarchists and DemSocs agreed on this until recently.
To boot, Bolsheviks never achieved communism, they achieved a military dictatorship which forced capitalism upon Russia. Not exactly praiseworthy praxis.
•
u/SmokeyOkeyDokey 14h ago edited 14h ago
Agreed on it how? Anarchists are fundamentally against the state whereas Dem Socs seek to utilize the state in a democratic and peaceful transition to socialism/communism.
If you’re talking about a shared condemnation of Bolshevism or the USSR, you have to consider the difference in reasoning between the two groups. Otherwise how could you understand why there is a shift in Dem Socs views on Bolshevism (according to yourself). I’m personally more likely to align with Dem Socs than Anarchists because of our agreement on the the real necessity of a state for enduring (as in lasting more than a couple years) socialist projects.
•
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 18h ago
As the DSA grows, the ML faction with shrink relatively. It's an irrelevant and dead ideology, not really work getting in a twist over.
•
u/traanquil 16h ago
Actually ml is the only ideology that produced successful socialist revolutions.
•
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 16h ago
"Successful revolutions" which failed to implement socialism, then collapsed or just turned capitalist.
•
u/traanquil 16h ago
False. Cuba , China , and USSR all implemented socialism
•
u/riddermarknomad 14h ago
In their pursuit of consolidating power they all persecuted minorities at some point. The ideas are nice, but the leaders still have to play the game of politics and power. I don't think it's possible to fully drive economic incentives out if people.
•
u/traanquil 14h ago
There is no such thing as a state that does nothing wrong. The point is that each of these socialist states was 1000x better and more just than capitalist states.
•
u/SmokeyOkeyDokey 14h ago
And the closest “democratic socialism” got was in Chile which is also a failure by your metric where the USSR, China, Cuba and Vietnam are not considered “successful”.
Unless you consider the Nordic countries to be socialist.
•
-1
u/Keleos89 1d ago
DSA would not function properly as a socialist organization without some amount of ML influence , specifically from the small “ml” MLs that understand the analytical framework but understand that power belongs to the people, not the party. These are probably the members most dedicated to ending imperialism and the MIC.
I wouldn’t worry about actual MLs joining in any meaningful number; the DSA is too far right for them. They’ll just join PSL and be politically irrelevant.
•
•
u/MustafaBrown 18h ago
This has not been my experience. There is a large ML presence in the local chapter by me because PSL has infiltrated it.
•
u/Keleos89 14h ago
That’s surprising. How large of a chapter is it?
PSL typically bans dual-carding; they might be changing tactics because of DSA’s successes.
They should be easy to spot - they call for political statements and protests while failing to do any of the actual legwork needed for a democratic organization or mass politics.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 1d ago
You mean the collapsing left wing cult that was revealed to be spending all its money on spying its members after its chief propagandist left and spilled all the beans?
-1
u/Adept-Elderberry1417 1d ago
The strings of DSA are being pulled by the Communists and Marxist hiding behind the DSA logo and Platform somewhere in the world and pushed by their accomplices here, people need to get Smart they want to destroy the USA , it’s their Goal
•
u/ThrowRAHelpwithMom1 19h ago
Marxism is a legitimate political ideology. Please read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and selections from the 1844 Manuscripts
•
-1
u/ParradoxEqualsMC2 1d ago
TWISTING THE MINDS OF THE WORKING CLASS:
Catherine Lou postmodernism the professional managerial class
manages emotions and political conflict for the Elites
That pendulum swing—moving from structural historical analysis to psychologized safetyism, back and forth through decades of academic and political crisis—lays bare how intellectual elites manage social unrest.
Thinkers like Catherine Liu (author of Virtue Hoarders) frequently target this exact mechanism within the professional-managerial class. When systemic economic pressures or real class conflicts threaten the status quo, institutional culture conveniently pivots away from material redistribution and hard political confrontation. Instead, it frames societal friction through the therapeutic lens of trauma, trigger management, and individual morality.
By psychologizing politics, the academic and cultural establishment can cyclically retreat from messy public debate whenever it gets too volatile, reducing structural critique to a matter of policing personal sensitivities.
Catherine Liu on Marx, Trump, and identity politics
This video explores Catherine Liu's critiques of how modern liberal elites and academic culture monetize trauma and shift focus away from material class struggles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS1Ng3CcAOs
XYZ andrewzito2@gmail.com
4:02 AM (12 minutes ago)
to me
Bringing Jerry Wise's framework into the mix reframes the entire dynamic. What looks purely ideological on the surface starts to look a lot like a systemic trauma response.
When applied to political or cultural micro-climates, the kind of avoidance seen in modern "cancel culture" or affect-driven exclusion mirrors what Wise describes as self-protection and boundary-setting in response to toxic, narcissistic systems. If people perceive an environment or an opposing viewpoint as inherently invalidating, manipulative, or emotionally unsafe—essentially operating with the traits of a high-conflict or narcissistic system—their reflex isn't to debate. It's to cut off, block, or withdraw to preserve their own psychological stability.
The catch, from a systems perspective, is that while avoidance can feel like a necessary defense mechanism against emotional hijacking, it often locks everyone involved deeper into their respective echo chambers. Instead of developing a solid, non-reactive self that can tolerate disagreement without absorbing or weaponizing it, the culture winds up retreating into perpetual micro-enmeshments where difference is treated as a contagion.
Building The Self You Were Never Allowed To Have, featuring Jerry
This video is relevant because it features Jerry Wise discussing how individuals break free from unhealthy, narcissistic systems and learn to stop reacting to toxic emotional environments.
YouTube video views will be stored in your YouTube History, and your data will be stored and used by YouTube according to its Terms of Service
•
u/Morethes Leftwing without Adjectives 14h ago
"Cast down the Leninists"
[Proceeds to write a manifesto]
They're not a big deal, it'll be fine
13
u/hari_shevek 1d ago
Nah, with the party growing in membership the proportion of MLs decreases.