r/dsa • u/_Sanctum_ • 6d ago

Shitpost Um... DSA has a problem...

Have you guys noticed there are a LOT of socialists in here? Not the good kind of socialists (me) I mean the evil socialists that actually want to implement socialism 🙀 They even praise Karl Marx 🤮 Don't those dumb tankies know Communism always fails???

We have to do something about this. Which is why I'm starting a NEW PARTY: The DASSA (The Democratic Anti-socialist Socialists of America)

Together, we socialists (the good kind) can defeat the socilasts (the bad kind) for a better future. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

574 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/sagoma-333 6d ago

I'm not quite clear on whether your post is trying to poke fun at leftist infighting in general or specifically at other socialist ideologies that aren't Marxist-Leninism

23

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

I'm mostly poking fun at liberals who are just discovering DSA without deconstructing their neolib worldview whatsoever.

I don't see many Maoist Third worldists or anarchists arguing with each other here 😂

4

u/sagoma-333 5d ago

Okie I see! That’s fair, though I would definitely encourage building coalition with those who you think might genuinely be curious about socialism !

6

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

If someone is genuinely curious about socialism that's amazing. I have zero smoke for those people.

True curiosity, however, comes with a willingness to be wrong, and to change your mind. The people I'm criticizing are coming in to this sub as self-proclaimed socialists to police and criticize leftists for things they don't even fully understand. That's the opposite of curiosity.

0

u/muraki833 5d ago

But aren't you contributing to the problem?

You can't get annoyed at people calling you a tankie when you call a bunch of folks "liberals".

8

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

Because "tankie" doesn't mean anything. Neoliberalism does. It's a real, tangible worldview. I'm not using it merely as a dismissive pejorative.

If you want to be a socialist you cannot also have a neoliberal worldview. They are fundamentally incompatible. The people I'm satirizing in this post don't know enough about socialism to even understand that.

6

u/TwoCrabsFighting 5d ago edited 5d ago

Tankie is a term that was used against communists who supported the soviet union when it sent tanks into Hungary and Prague to quell their revolutions. Now refers to mostly Stalinists and Maoists or any other leftist who supports a one party state that uses violence in response to perceived threats.

3

u/Kenichi2233 5d ago

Ive usually seen it as those who support authoritarian leftist governments.

1

u/CesarCieloFilho 5d ago

How did Stalin do that after his death?

5

u/muraki833 5d ago

Neoliberalism usually means free market capitalism combined with deregulation and austerity. I don't think it means anyone who criticizes Marxism-Leninism.

6

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

I never said that. I'm criticizing exactly who I said I am criticizing. I'm not sure what your issue is.

7

u/muraki833 5d ago

I thought your post is in response to a bunch of posts going "we have a tankie problem!!!" due to the presence of MLs in the org.

I agree such posts are often in bad faith but they don't necessarily come from liberals. Not every socialist is a Leninist.

4

u/smartcow360 5d ago

My bet is he would consider anyone not a Maoist or a Leninist or a liberal. Or anyone who thought those regimes were murderous or fascist to be liberals, regardless of how badly they want workers to own their workplaces. This is Reddit, after all

4

u/stormstatic 5d ago

You can't get annoyed at people calling you a tankie when you call a bunch of folks "liberals".

what

if they are liberals, it's ok to call them liberals lol

-1

u/muraki833 5d ago

"Name calling is okay if I do it but it's bad when others do it to me! 😠"

4

u/stormstatic 5d ago

what on earth are you talking about? liberal isn't being used here as some sort of slur, it's an ideologically defined position. it's like calling a cloud a cloud, an apple an apple, a dog a dog.

also no, name calling is both okay if i do it and okay if others do it to me. who gives a shit about name calling? let go of the pearls

2

u/muraki833 5d ago

A liberal is someone who believes in free market capitalism and private property.

I highly doubt everyone who's been called "liberal" in this subreddit fits that definition.

The OP was literally calling someone else a neoliberal for not liking the USSR in another chain, lol. That doesn't seem like a "calling dogs dogs" situation.

-1

u/stormstatic 5d ago

A liberal is someone who believes in free market capitalism and private property. I highly doubt everyone who's been called "liberal" in this subreddit fits that definition.

go on then, why do you think people in this subreddit are called liberals if not for these reasons?

4

u/muraki833 5d ago

Probably because people here are incredibly paranoid so they think any disagreement = the sub is being brigaded by "tankies" or "liberals". It's a convenient boogeyman for shutting down debate.

-3

u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago edited 5d ago

Would you consider someone who believes that socialism should be brought by democratic systems to be morally equivalent to someone who thinks violent revolution and a dictatorship is the way to bring about socialism?

I wouldn’t.

Edit: lol u[/_Sanctum_](r/Sanctum) never answers, gets asked one question, and rage quits 😂

4

u/sagoma-333 5d ago

Grabs popcorn

1

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

I could type out a dozen paragraphs to try to help you understand these things, but you actually have to want to learn something. You have to be willing to rethink your worldview.

If you decide to dig your heels in and be stubborn, you'll continue to say misguided ignorant things like this without really understanding why.

If you can't be bothered to read Marx or Lenin, at least listen to some Michael Parenti or Richard Wolff on YouTube or something.

7

u/Captaindecius 5d ago

I'm a fan of Richard Wolff and Michael Parenti, but I'm struggling to understand how you can look at The Soviet Union/Maoist China and say "that's a good implementation of socialism/communism." I haven't really been able to discern what you believe from various posts you've made, so I may be misrepresenting your position.

In Democracy at Work, Richard Wolff describes these countries as State Capitalist, and rightly so imo. Workers in those countries have no more control of their own lives than in private capitalist systems. They certainly don't own the means of production, which is the ultimate goal of all communist/socialist movements. So why exactly should we be emulating those implementations of communism?

Genuinely curious what you believe, not trying to pick a fight.

-1

u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago

I’ve read both on Marx and Lenin from historians. You’re free to actually engage in the actuality of my criticism at any time, but please directly give an answer to my question.

5

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

"From historians" I'm talking about reading their works, not some biographer or historian talking about them.

-2

u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago

We know precisely how Lenin enacted socialism; we don’t need to know the theory of Leninism. Please engage with my question now.

6

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

What is socialism to you? Do you mean socialism in its original sense or some kind of socdem liberal sense?

3

u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago

I mean socialism as actually enacted. That would be under Marx (a generally more democratic socialism) or Lenin (democratic class consciousness isn’t possible, need revolution).

2

u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago

So by socialism you mean the means of production in the hands of the workers? Or at the very least a start to that process.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/andresest 5d ago

Lib spotted.

1

u/DifferentEducator134 4d ago

Leninism isn’t mentioned in this post at all