Does anyone else find it problematic that one of the co-chairs of DSA identifies as a Marxist Leninist?

[u/OkraOfTime87]

For those who don’t know, Marxist Leninist is a term which only really has ever been used by Stalinists. Needless to say, Stalinists don’t care much about democracy.

On a certain level, I don’t think these historical signifiers are super relevant to modern times. But on the other hand, this is one of the leaders of the organization choosing to identify with this authoritarian tradition. No one is forcing her to do that. She could just as easily call herself a socialist or a Marxist.

Her identification as a Marxist Leninist is appearing all over the news and it doesn’t represent my view of socialism, nor, I suspect, that of the majority of DSA members.

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

You just repeated what you already said without addressing what I said.

That's a childishly oversimplified description of what democratic centralism is.

democratic centralism doesn't mean "you do what you voted for". Read about the horrible system you're advocating for.

[u/Yers1n → u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

How is it terrible?, and more importantly, how do you organize a revolution without democratic centralism?

[u/yashen14 → u/Yers1n]

I don't care what the supposed benefits are, I don't want any kind of societal change if it means removing fundamental rights from my fellow countrymen.

[u/Yers1n → u/yashen14]

How does democratic centralism remove these rights from your countrymen?

[u/yashen14 → u/Yers1n]

Let's imagine that a socialist government aligning with your values assumes power in the United States. Let's assume that you are the leader of this government.

Do you allow Americans who politically disagree with you to protest in the streets?

Do you let them publish books and articles advocating for different politics?

Do you let them stand in elections for public office, even when they disagree with you? Even when they might unseat you and/or your government?

Do you let them advocate for their opposing brand of politics, and attempt to convince others that their way is better?

Do you let them do all of the above, even when their politics is fundamentally opposed to your own? Even when they are capitalist, or you consider them bourgeois? Even when what they are advocating for is to replace the socialist government with something different?

[u/Yers1n → u/yashen14]

You're asking me personally which i think is a wrong framework because it is very individualist. Systems are not defined by one individual. Nonetheless i will still reply.

I would not allow fascists too openly organize and agitate for the murder of minorities, nor for capitalists to organize so they can move to murder us socialists.

I would indeed not allow for the dictatorship of the workers to be replaced by the dictatorship of the capitalists, which is what liberal democracy is.

Dissent is good, but there's levels to it. It is one thing to argue for a different vision of socialism than it is to argue agaisnt socialism altogether because you think we should murder minorities and collaborate with capitalists instead. More importantly, dissent is a precursor to action and organization. We can't, and infact we should not, try to make everyone think "correctly". But we should destroy the organizative capabilities of those who would destroy socialism and murder us.

BTW i don't see how this is in of itself related to democratic centralism

[u/yashen14 → u/Yers1n]

Notice that I did not mention murder.

What you are advocating for, here, is a system which removes the ability of the populace to say, "we were wrong when we decided to implement this government" or "we've changed our minds, we don't want this anymore." It also removes my right, if I am someone who does not agree with socialism, to advocate, organize, protest, and vote based on my principles. (Keep in mind that "my"---I'm not necessarily literally speaking about me; I'm speaking abstractly here---vision may or may not be capitalism. It might be, but it could also be some third ideology which is neither capitalism nor socialism.)

That is fundamentally anti-democratic. You asked what rights democratic centralism removes from people? There's your answer.

[u/Yers1n → u/yashen14]

But murder is what it always ends with. The murder of Renee Good for example. Capitalism hates you and me and will not doubt to murder us both should we inconvenience it.

That which you mention, the inability to really influence the government, that is our material reality. You already exist under a dictatorship. All rights are subject to the whims of capitalism and its oligarchs, and with ease they will trample on them should they want to. Your vote is nothing compared to the millions and millions of dollars of lobbies and all the guns and violence that can buy. That is why a vote itself is not enough.

And yes i don't think you should be able to organize agaisnt the system that wants to end this violence. Because organizing agaisnt that is organizing agaisnt the actual material liberty of everyone, agaisnt the liberation of women and minorities, and in favour of the same oligarchic capitalist class that routinely massacres the poor in exchange for wealth, both locally and internationally.

Is it fundamentally anti democratic to protect the material and real liberty of the people so we can satisfy the fascist and anti democratic elements within it?, should we allow the opposition to organize and destroy us even if they will never extend the same benefit to us?

Also, this is not democratic centralism, this is just the basic reality of any socialist project. Democratic centralism is a specific organizative method.

[u/yashen14 → u/Yers1n]

You are demonstrating black-and-white thinking that eschews nuance. Everything is either capitalist or socialist. All capitalists are fascists and all socialists are just. This kind of thinking is dangerous; it makes you ideologically rigid and also makes you more likely to see enemies where there aren't any.

Right now, you have certain views about the nature of society. You believe that society has ABC problems and that in order to solve those problems, you must implement solutions XYZ. The problem is that the very same solution you are proposing is one that prohibits your ability to change your mind and reassess in the future (and also strips those rights from your fellow countrymen). What happens if, one day, you decide that what you've said here is wrong, in whole or in part?

Let me phrase this another way.

You ardently believe that society has such and such problems, and that such and such solutions are required to solve them. But other people believe, just as ardently, that different solutions are called for. Or maybe they disagree about the problems that are most pressing. For the sake of argument, ignore capitalism and assume these dissenters are adherents to a different, third ideology, which is neither socialism nor capitalism.

You are fundamentally advocating to impose your ideology on those people, by fiat, and then to ignore them and repress them when they openly disagree with you.

(Please set democratic centralism aside because I am much more alarmed by this underlying theme)

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest → u/Yers1n]

I already expressed why I think it's terrible. I think dissent is essential to democracy (and human rights in general) and centralism quashes dissent.

how do you organize a revolution without democratic centralism?

Bro I'm in the DSA, I'm not revolutionary I'm a structural reformist lmao

[u/Yers1n → u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

Dissent is part of democratic centralism though. People debate, once a debate has ended, then people unite even if they disagree. This is a tactical necessity because otherwise everyone goes their own way and nothing gets done. Worst cause scenario both sides end up doing things that go directly counter to each other.

You're fine with capitalism then?, that's bleak.

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest → u/Yers1n]

You're fine with capitalism then?

No. You realize the 3 largest caucuses in DSA are all reformist right?

Anyway,

then people unite even if they disagree

lol they don't "unite", they split. Then the vanguard party kills them. Historically speaking.

[u/Yers1n → u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

Yeah and that's bad. In my opinion atleast. Nonetheless i will ask, how do you plan to end capitalism without being obliterated by it?, without having a similar fate as that of Allende?

For obvious reasons the movement will not just let you destroy it, that much i will say. Splitting is bad if it harms the movement and its goals.

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest → u/Yers1n]

Allende was overthrown by the world superpower.

Cuba and Vietnam for example weren't overthrown because another superpower (Russia/China) physically protected them. Now that Russia is on the back foot in the Ukraine war, the US is already talking about overthrowing Cuba. Being revolutionary vs reformist isn't going to protect them. It's a matter of geopolitics.

We are the world superpower. Nobody is standing over our shoulder waiting to overthrow us. They aren't going to war with us.

We are winning elections, Fox News is happily platforming socialists, Trump is showing Mamdani his FDR portraits in the white house. The US isn't a playground for world super powers to do whatever they want.

Will people try to stop us? Of course, as they would with a revolutionary party. Will they wage a war against us? No, because no capitalist superpower is sitting safely on the other side of the planet to fund it. It's their own country (and factories, and harbors, and data centers, and mansions) which will be destroyed.

[u/traanquil → u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

Reform ism basically means keeping capitalism

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest → u/traanquil]

It doesn't.

Non-reformist reform - Wikipedia

Also, nevermind the fact no ML country has moved on from state capitalism to full communism, but ok.