The House of Representatives passed an updated version of its annual resolution condemning socialism. This year it complained about the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA) in particular. DSA did not take it lying down. A prominent DSA ideologist, Ben Burgis, took to the webpages of Jacobin, DSA’s unofficial magazine, with a fierce protest: DSA is anti- communist!
Burgis begins, “The House just passed a resolution condemning the Democratic Socialists of America and socialism broadly. While it rehearses opposition to Stalinist authoritarianism, the bill’s real preoccupation is with socialists’ advocacy for expanded democracy.”
Burgis is a philosophy teacher and logician. The heart of his rebuttal is this paragraph:
“The resolution’s nominal argument is a mess. The first two ‘whereas’ clauses are claims about the crimes of Stalinist regimes. But democratic socialists have always been critical of such regimes, even then. Condemning democratic socialists with claims about the crimes of Stalinist authoritarianism makes about as much sense as an atheist bringing up the Spanish Inquisition to condemn the Southern Baptists.”
A prominent DSA ideologist, Ben Burgis, took to the webpages of Jacobin, DSA’s unofficial magazine
Said another way… someone who does not speak for DSA said something in a magazine that is not affiliated with DSA about condemning communism.
Repectfully, the title of this post is incredibly misleading. It insinuates that the DSA has made some sort of statement about communism in response to Congressional action, when that is absolutely not the case (not even unofficially).
Edit: as far as I can tell, Burgis is at most a member of DSA but doesn’t hold any position of leadership, so you can’t even say DSA is trying to launder this position as not official but coming from someone in leadership.
What leadership there is no leadership in DSA
DSA literally has a leadership structure and official channels of communication.
Hahaha. No.
If you don’t understand what the DSA is don’t go talking about it. They have a billion chapters and they’re all independent.
I’m in DSA, I know what it is. The headline implies DSA is making this statement, when they are not. You can’t even claim that a single “independent” chapter is taking this position. It’s a guy. One member out of 100k+ is saying this, so what. I correctly pointed out the headline is misleading. It’s a clickbait title meant to slander all of DSA as a bunch of libs.
Go kick out your prominent DSA member saying it’s anti communist then. Or get him to retract his piece.
You say you speak for DSA because you’re in it so then he is speaking for it too.
I’ve been saying DSA is too big tent to work. Unless they were committed to educating all their members, and not just some sub-committees, it was doomed to fail. I hope the group that went to Cuba (minus that neo-lib narc) wind up breaking off or joining a different org. I don’t see much point in continuing to try to be included in spaces that hate us, whether that’s the DNC or the DSA.
“Democratic Socialists of America” condemning communism is like a “Healthy Puppy Society” condemning adult dogs. What the fuck is the end goal of your project then?
Welfare capitalism in practice.
We need something new
Why not socialism?
Its old.
🫠
Boo
Filthy neolibs. Worthless.
Liberals are honest that they pursue electoral politics to improve capitalism. DSA presents the same electoral reformism as socialism. Congressional reactionaries love to smear DSA, knowing its rejoinder will be safely anti-communist. It’s a win-win for capitalist politics.
Since there are as many versions of “real” communism as there are comrades who are socialist/leftists/an-caps/non-liberals, I just say I’m socialist and don’t fret on the details. That said I’d never say I’m “anti-communist,” since that is cowardly.
I think this is a really weak-ass an unnecessary rebuttal. Nobody in capitalist power gives a shit about the difference between a communist dictatorship and worker’s control of production, they’re just scared of labor and want to propagandize against it in any way possible. And DSA members who do want communism at the state level sans dictator and do care about the distinction will just be potentially alienated by this. And nobody who this guys message is trying to reach read Jacobin.
To be clear, the idea of a “communist dictator” is more projection, all socialist states have been collectively run socialist projects. Perpetuating the caricature of socialism that the Red Scare concocted damages left wing momentum.
Is this a No True Scotsman claim?
In what sense? I don’t believe the leaders of socialist countries historically fit the understood definition of dictator, as compared to figures like Hitler, Pinochet, and Syngman Rhee. I believe dictators exist, but not in past or present socialist countries.
I’d assume that Stalin had concentrated enough power to himself that the party’s support for him came more from fear of reprisal than ideological consent, but I’m definitely not well-read on that part of soviet history.
Edit - Thx all for the education
It’s an understandably common misconception. Here’s a screenshot of an internal CIA memo from 1956 titled “comments on change in Soviet leadership”. Really only the first couple lines are relevant:
Stalin was enormously popular, which actually became a problem for him after World War II. From Anna Louise Strong’s This Soviet World, written in 1936:
The operation of Soviet democracy is thus so intimate, continuous and organic that the observer fresh from capitalist politics hardly recognizes it as government. Where is the debate? Who determines general policies? Can the people throw out the upper officials? Can they throw out Stalin? The Communist Party? The Soviet voter, when asked these last questions, replies in a puzzled way: “Why should we want to?” The questioner thinks he has been evaded. But all elections presuppose an existing economic system, which voting is powerless to change. Voters in America cannot change Rockefeller’s method of operating oil companies for private profit. Similarly no Soviet election raises the issue of returning public properties to private hands: this was settled by the Revolution, and forms the foundation beneath the whole government.
Barring that question, there is nothing whatever that Soviet voters cannot change. They actually do change thousands of officials at every election, and as their acquaintance with the wider problems of the country grows, the forms of democracy are being widened to include direct control of the highest officials. Stalin’s chief post is not in the government, but as general secretary of the Communist Party, which would certainly remove him if his policy and actions should ever discredit him with the people; at present he is by far the most popular man in the country. To throw out the Communist Party bodily would be to throw out all the leading and organizing elements in all factories, farms, schools and enterprises; it could clearly be done only by upheaval leading to chaos. But the citizens are constantly at work changing the very membership of the Party, any member of which may be “cleaned out” on protest of his non-Party associates that he is too dictatorial, too rough towards workers, or merely not a fit leader.[27]
No true at all. Collectively run socialist projects would never have a figurehead like Xi or Stalin because they wouldn’t need one. Ultimately if Xi says there is corruption and needs to do a purge this is his decision and not a collective one.
This is like when a little kid walks up to an adult and says “Nuh uh, mosquitoes are birds”
What do you believe the role of General Secretary of a political party is for? Why do you believe that collectively running something is contradictory to having a General Secretary? Neither Xi nor Stalin have/had such a unilateral power, but because of their consistent leadership skills and sound analysis that led to them being elected to General Secretary, what they say is taken seriously by the party, both at the Central Committee level and beyond.
Both the decisions by Stalin and Xi that the respective communist parties they belong to regarding purges were necessary and correct.
Removed by mod
Why did Hu Jintao get escorted out of the congress in 2022?
He was very clearly having a mental health episode (most likely mental confusion inline with his age). Escorting someone out of the public eye during such episodes before they humiliate themselves or otherwise end up in distress is common decency. Even anti-China rags like the economist knew the nonsense you are trying to push with this jab was too blatantly nonsense even for them.
He was just sitting there. You guys are hilarious.
Very obviously in a confused state before reaching for others papers before finally being escorted away out of the public eye.
If you want to take a stance that was too ridiculous even for the economist that’s your prerogative but to be condescending at the same time simply makes you look silly.
Everything you are saying is entirely compatible with what I said, beyond your assertion that “Xi rules with an iron fist.” Again I ask, what do you believe the role of General Secretary of a political party is for? Why do you believe that collectively running something is contradictory to having a General Secretary?
We must have a different understanding of the word you are using. You have something in mind so why don’t you tell me?
Which word? General Secretary? General Secretaries are elected positions as leaders of political parties. They retain their posts through popular support, and if this ever changes, they can and will be removed. China is not run from such a top-down manner, policy comes from the bottom-up, works its way through the CPC and the NPC, and then is reinterpreted through Marxism-Leninism and is returned in the form of new policy.
The idea that Xi Jinping “rules with an iron fist” is nonsense. His power comes from democratic means, and the democratic structures in China lead to far more distributed levers of power than in western countries. This is referred to as “Whole-Process People’s Democracy.”
Don’t feed into the rhetoric, China is not any more Socialist or collectivist than countries like Sweden, Finland, France, etc. China is fundamentally a Capitalist country, at least in its current form.
Better than countries like the UK or USA? Sure, but that’s a low bar.
The commanding heights of China’s economy are publicly owned, and workers control the state. Sweden, Finland, and France are predominantly controlled by capitalists, and all 3 are examples of imperialist countries. Socialism is not welfarism. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Only China out of that list fulfills that.
So if the US government purchased controlling shares in its largest defense contractors and tech companies, it would be a socialist country?
China’s constitution does not grant independent worker unions rights, it does not grant independent worker-owned cooperatives or collectives rights.
China allows and has hundreds of billionaires, more than any other country except the USA, it also has thousands of centi-millionaires, ultra wealthy celebrities and one of the largest ultra-luxury goods industries in the world, selling to their own people, not just exports to other Capitalist countries.
Stop diminishing the actual Socialist/Communist project by crediting Capitalist countries with being Socialist/Communist.
Public ownership under capitalism is not socialism, and this was precisely my point: the US is not socialist for having a public sector, and China is not capitalist for having a private sector. What matters is what class controls the state, as well as which form of ownership is principal.
Independent worker union rights within the context of socialism can be a barrier to socialism. China has the largest federation of trade unions in the world, and the CPC sides with the trade unions. Independence from this cohesive socialist system can be levereged into disunity and resistance towards socialism, which can be especially dangerous for a society that still retains some degree of private ownership. Any crack becomes a lever.
China has billionaires because it has capitalists. China has capitalists because marketization is enormously useful for turning backwards production into socialized production, at which point it can be more effectively publicly owned and planned. Public ownership of backwards production is enormously difficult, which is why marketization is employed.
I’m not diminishing socialism, I’m taking a principled stance on what socialism is and how we understand it.
Public ownership under capitalism is not socialism
Worker ownership is Socialism, that’s literally the most basic definition of Socialism, when workers own the means of production. A business where 100% of the ownership is possessed by the workers, where workers have full democratic control on the deployment of capital, where class distinction is eliminated and role distinction is elevated but confers no special privileges, is a Socialist business.
What matters is what class controls the state
If the only way that workers are allowed to influence a state is from within the State-approved structure, then it’s meaningless. Chinese workers aren’t allowed to organize organically, they are required to organize only within the approved bounds of the CCP.
If tomorrow, Trump announced that the US government was automatically enrolling all workers into a national MAGA union, but the rules stated that all other unions would be dissolved and all membership transfered into the MAGA union, would that be Socialism?
Independent worker union rights within the context of socialism can be a barrier to socialism.
Independent worker unions are essential to a healthy Socialist movement.
Independence from this cohesive socialist system can be levereged into disunity and resistance towards socialism, which can be especially dangerous for a society that still retains some degree of private ownership. Any crack becomes a lever.
This is authoritarian rhetoric, the exact same as what is currently being used by the USA and the EU to justify more surveillance, more population control, and more repression of dissent to Capitalist, Neocolonial interests.
China has billionaires because it has capitalists. China has capitalists because marketization is enormously useful for turning backwards production into socialized production, at which point it can be more effectively publicly owned and planned. Public ownership of backwards production is enormously difficult, which is why marketization is employed.
I actually agree with most of this. But there is still no excuse to allow Billionaires to exist even in a Capitalist market, same with centi-millionaires and the ultra-wealthy in general. Where Capitalism flourishes, so do all these things, and they will shift the class interests at every level. Ironically, the CCP is far more friendly to Capitalism than to Socialism, and if that doesn’t change, China will follow the same path as the EU and US. Capitalism is a cancer that spreads deep and fast through a society. China is kicking the EU and US’ asses right now, that’s indisputable, but they’re beating them at their own game, Capitalist, Neo-Colonial dominance.
The USSR, despite its many massive flaws, was actually a much better example of fighting the US/NATO on its own terms. The fact that they led the space race for many years, were a comparable military power for decades, and managed to construct quite a few megaprojects while operating a highly inefficient planned economy and having a highly corrupt political upper class, is pretty shocking and impressive.
They should have just replied with “Release the Epstein files”
Condemning socialism while buying equity shares in several private businesses is definitely the hypocrisy you’d expect from the US government
Doing a capitalism while condemning socialism is definitely not hypocritical at all? It’s shitty, but the two actions are consistent with each other ideologically.
I don’t really see how that follows.
Just because the government owns a business doesn’t make it socialism
Socialists don’t make purchases of equity shares in private businesses. You’re thinking of EuroFascism.
But it’s not socialism when they do it!
Correct.
I hear atheiests do that all the time
Nobody expects it
Branding oneself anti-communist is a condition of survival for any leftist activity approaching power in North America. Comrade Burgis does the right thing there, given “Antifa” was already declared terrorist.
No, declaring oneself anti-communist alienates the communist left and throws them under the bus. Sometimes, you have to accept the hatred of the right to win allies on the left. Taking this odd middle-ground position isn’t going to make the right like you more, it will just make the left like you less.
In abstract - yes. In a state where one label puts you on a terrorist list while the other is getting popular, I think many American communists understand these words aren’t used in their book definitons in the US media and by the US state, and therefore wouldn’t feel alienated, as evidenced by the communist membership of the DSA. In my mind it’n not about the right liking me more. It’s about avoiding the lists that would make organizing much more difficult, and about not alienating the left-curious uber-propagandized people who like the ideas they’re hearing from the DSA but still consider communism to be Satan.
The DSA is already seen as a terrorist organization by the US, due to having amicable relations with Cuba. What’s most understood by the condemnation of communism is the DSA reaffirming their stances as a social democratic party in practice. Communists in the DSA are trying to develop a Marxist line within the DSA, but this is an arena of active struggle. Condemnation of communism is an attack on this line internal to the party, not a shield from the state.
Further, as regards reaching the radicalized masses, communists understand that we cannot hide our views, not should we. We cannot win over the working classes if they cannot trust us to be honest about our views. Working people are not stupid, they distrust duplicitous organizations and deception. To gain their support, communists must be open and honest about our views, strategies, and promises.
I didn’t imply hiding views. I meant dodging dangerous or thought-terminating labels while being honest abt views with people. When I talk to communism-is-satan people in Canada, I don’t use labels. I tell them what I think and they listen and often agree with a lot. After a while a couple have gone so far to telling me they “think they might be a socialist” in a hush-hush manner at first, then normally. So this seems to work in my little corner.
You should see how real orgs navigate the “evil communist” label. They’ll say Happy Bday Mao, drop some facts, and then dip out. They don’t like, argue with people in the instagram comments or condemn communism cuz they’re running scared from fascism.
I think there’s a distinction between public figures representing organizations, and grassroots dialogue. Even then, you’d be surprised by how many people prefer talking to an open communist than a “could-be-a-socialist.”
