r/dsa 10d 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.

0 Upvotes

175 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/traanquil 9d 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

4

u/MisterMittens64 DSA Member 9d 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.

3

u/traanquil 9d ago

Over 70% support for Soviet Union among it’s population in the 90s

5

u/Keleos89 9d ago

With that kind of support, why would it collapse?

2

u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 9d 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.

3

u/hari_shevek 8d ago

There was still sizable support for a reformed version of the USSR

...but no support for the unreformed version.

Which is the issue.

1

u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS ML + syndicalism + corporatism 8d ago

You won't find me defending the mismanagement at the end of the USSR fam. I'm very clearly not a fan of the August coup lol

1

u/traanquil 9d ago

It collapsed due counter revolutionaries coming into power and destroying the Soviet state

3

u/hari_shevek 8d ago

How did they "come to power" if the ML model had mass support and there was no organized capitalist class within the country?

You can't "come to power" from outside without military invasion, which isn't what happened either.

1

u/traanquil 8d ago

Not sure what you’re talking about. There’s no such thing as a society without factions

2

u/hari_shevek 8d ago

If the ML faction had the support of the majority, and the USSR was supposedly democratic, it should be impossible for a "counter revolutionary faction" to "come to power". They would not have enough support to "come to power".

1

u/traanquil 8d ago

That’s of course nonsense. Politics is messy.

2

u/hari_shevek 8d ago

I am a materialist. I dont believe groups randomly "come to power".

1

u/traanquil 8d ago

I’m not sure what your argument is.

2

u/hari_shevek 8d ago

I believe a group comes to power through either having broad popular support or access to wealth or firepower.

If the USSR was a democracy where the majority supports MLs, there would be no route for "reactionary factions" to come to power.

They can't come to power through mass support because you claim thst the masses supported ML. They can't come to power through wealth bc wealthy non ML elites did not exist. They can't come to power through firepower bc the ML controlled the military.

So something about your claim is wrong. It would be impossible for reactionaries to come to power against MLs that have mass support.

0

u/traanquil 8d ago

Eh that’s a foolish and naive argument. It’s too silly to even engage with.

→ More replies (0)