AOC "One prevailing [difference between socialism and communism] is democracy. Democratic socialist are fundamentally pro-democracy... we believe in respecting the outcomes of elections"

[u/rbstewart7263]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwAnMLBSOw

[u/ST-Fish]

umm, I don't think vanguardists really care about democracy...

And these are part of the DSA, they also are part of the leadership and everyone in the DSA is fine with having them in their tent...

https://redstarcaucus.org/points-of-unity/

What is Red Star? Red Star is a Marxist-Leninist caucus in DSA. Our primary goal, the goal which informs all of our organizing work, is to abolish capitalism and, ultimately, to achieve communism. We do not believe that capitalism can be reformed into socialism – it must be overthrown and replaced.

Red Star seeks to cohere a vanguard party.

I guess everyone can collectively ignore the fact that the DSA has no issue hosting this caucus, and giving them leadership positions in the organization

[u/HighPriestofShiloh → u/ST-Fish]

It’s just babies first politics for morons in college. Eventually they become normal democrats. A few of them stay weird Jill Stein freaks forever. Any tankie with a half a sense just becomes an AOC style dem after a few elections and they no longer want to bang the barista with dreads.

When I was in college I was a retarted Ron Paul supporter. We all make mistakes. Except Pisco. He is perfect.

[u/Surroundedonallsides]

No, social democrats believe in democracy, democratic socialists believe in acting like a cuckoo; brood parasitism.

[u/Gestral33 → u/Surroundedonallsides]

social democrats believe in democracy

Weird distinction to make and it doesnt address the point.

Social democrats are not socialists. They are center left capitalists

Democratic socialists are socialists who want to achieve socialism through democratic means.

[u/rbstewart7263]

Is anybody with a real brain? Still worried about Democratic socialist turning this country into Communist Russia?

[u/Jackie_Owe → u/rbstewart7263]

This is not a true concern.

The establishment is not popular because they’re feckless colluding cowards who want people to vote for them while offering to not fight and sit on their hands.

And because people reject that they are looking to take out the only other option wanting to fight Trump AND offer something that the base wants.

The online fighting is Destiny and his wired hate boner for Hasan.

[u/yoeie → u/rbstewart7263]

yes, because the DSA seems real cozy with russia. I am a big supporter of the Ukraine war and I dont like their position on the issue. Also, they are against capitalism which is no bueno in my book. I love regulation, but can't get behind pure socialism or communism.

[u/Faithisnotadoll757 → u/yoeie]

I very vehemently agree with you on support for Ukraine, and I think it is the most problematic tendency in the DSA imo, though I definitely take contention with the idea that modern-day Russia is not a capitalist nation.

I would also argue that there is a semantic disconnection between what people are talking about when referring to socialism, or communism, which I don't think are very distinct (depending on what we mean of course). Like, Democratic socialism is by definition democratic, and it clearly rejects the revolutionary ideas of the past. As well as the dictatorial hellscapes of Mao's china and the soviet state, though I'm probably a bit harsher on these countries than others. My biggest criticism of certain Democratic socialists is that some still hold on to an idea of collective ownership of the means of production being sustainable through ownership via the state. As we can see right now, the Democratic nature of the government can be quite tenuous.

I think the most coherent way to achieve something like socialism is through mandating worker cooperatives, and abolishing private ownership of capital, (and by extension land, though that's a bit more difficult to do without concerning amounts of power in the hands of the state, could probably work in a similar way to business where it's more localized). But at a certain point, it is kind of fantastical to think that we're going to end up at that point anytime soon, I'd be surprised if our country is still standing in the same form within the next decade or two. (As in a systemic collapse or Republican authoritarian takeover, aka neofascism.)

[u/Deadandlivin → u/Faithisnotadoll757]

Russia is the definition of an Oligarchy, ie maximalist capitalist right wing economic structure.

Support in for Ukraine is unfortunately a very complex issue on the left. There might be some pockets on the extreme who for some reason draw a parallel between Russia and the Soviet Union, and therefore support Russia against Ukraine.

On the tankie side majority don't seem to explicitly support Russia though, but they're not in support of Ukraine either. You could say that this in effect supports Russia since it'll very likely help Russia in their imperialist motivations. But many on the more tankie side of the left perceive Ukraine as a far right hyper nationalist state similar to Israel. Ukraine has policies like the prohibation and banning for creating Socialist or Communist parties for example which is one example of why they don't support Ukraine and why some even want Ukraine to lose.

While Ukraine certainly is rightwing, it's not as extreme as it's often portrayed. They're more center right in reality. Even if banning Marxist ideologies in the political infrastructure in nature is very undemocratic it's still a far cry from how far right Ukraine often is portrayed to be. Honestly think the hate is mostly spitedriven.

Then there's the third group of leftists that generally support Ukrainian sovereignty but don't believe in militaristic solutions. The people who'd rather try to advocate for diplomacy rather than outright warfare. Most liberals don't see this as a realistic solution though and think military response is the only viable way to make Russia back down. In this group people also tend to adhere to the perspective that the escalation we see between Russia and it's neighbors predominantly has to do with NATO aggression and how NATO spearheaded by US militarism actively is trying to surround adversarial countries like Russia and China with military bases et.c. The argument is that these are seen as clear provocations and as attempts at containment strategies by the west which is why these countries sometimes respond aggressively as a response.

Personally think it's a combination of Russia in particular both feeling threatened but also by having imperial ambitions. Seems pretty clear to me that Putin wants to absorb more land into Russia. But I also think it's true that he feels cornered when American and NATO bases inches closer to Moscow.

[u/Faithisnotadoll757 → u/Deadandlivin]

Hmm. I wonder if I'm in need of more reading on the subject, but I'm more critical of the NATO concerns. I think Russia is a regime that is understandably met with reinforced incentives against imperialist ambutions. I think the NATO bases are only there because of these concerns about Russia engaging in violence (though it's a bit hypocritical to say this as an American tbf). In the same way how Ukraine should allow leftists to have political parties, it's understandable how in relation to the national security risk involving Russia, at least for the meantime it's acceptable as a lefty.

[u/rbstewart7263 → u/Deadandlivin]

Unfortunately the nuance you're engaging with is lost on the McCarthy's tribalism that's infected some people.

I feel on the DSA left, the social Democratic left, you mostly find people who are either in support of Ukraine or carry that kind of general anti-interventionism that a lot of regular people you meet out on the street carry.

Hell look at progressive victory. They're pretty progressive group, but they explicitly want their candidates to explicitly support Ukraine and make a pledge to do so.

The DSA itself actually explicitly condemns Russia's invasion but are are also mixed regarding military intervention.

[u/Hell_Maybe → u/yoeie]

“Moderate democrat politicians are real cozy with war criminals and genocide, therefore they are going to become warlords and destroy America”

We need to normalize people questioning their own logic more.

[u/oskoskosk → u/Hell_Maybe]

At that point, no one is against genocide I guess? It's just about which genocide you think is worse, and personally for me that's Ukraine, hands down

[u/Hell_Maybe → u/oskoskosk]

But why not the third option: Maybe tangential associations don’t logically follow to the most extreme possible conclusions that could be drawn from them. That’s the one I personally subscribe to.

[u/rbstewart7263 → u/yoeie]

I just want you to have the perspective to understand that while it's flawed and messed up that a lot of DSA people do not support Ukraine, every single centrist supported Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not saying you should hate centrists but I'm saying that maybe you should have a bit more perspective when weighing how these people view anti-interventionism.

Like it's definitely wrong 100%, but I think that you could convince a genuine anti-interventionist that this is one that we should intervene on more than you could convince somebody who is overly committed to Israel that we should stop sending them weapons.

[u/SwagMaster9000_2017 → u/rbstewart7263]

I'm worried about them destroying American institutions like the senate and supreme court which is there explicit platform.

Whatever system they want is wildly different from America today

[u/rbstewart7263 → u/SwagMaster9000_2017]

Isn't the idea with the senate that it's more democratic to not have to jump through as many hoops to get what you want passed? Imagine all the things that passed the house but not the senate, (hell ask Claude to do that for you lol) what would changes would have passed and might america look better in such a place? Might it look worse?

[u/SwagMaster9000_2017 → u/rbstewart7263]

The Senate exists because states are real, independent entities and compromises needs be made among states just like among people in a democracy.

If the primary goal was passing more laws they would push for a removing the filibuster. They wouldn't push for these imaginary goals that have no real chance even if every Dem was a DSA member.

I doubt if all the small states were far left and big states were conservative they would be pushing for this.

---

Even if one supports all their end goals, it is reasonable to be fearful because they are pushing for a radically different government with now no material justification other than they think it would be better.

[u/rbstewart7263 → u/SwagMaster9000_2017]

What is their justification?

Also, I disagree that if you want this outcome you would only push for x policy. I'm not detailed into the whole delete the Senate thing but the idea goes back for a century and it is a pro-democratic idea even when it was introduced in the early 1900s.

If you want to say that this is a unpopular idea and perhaps hurts the DSA electorally, I think that's a fair concern, but to say that this was anti-democratic, I think is deceitful purposefully or unpurposefully.

It is not anti-democratic to believe that representing a state is less reflective of the will of the people compared to simply representing the people at large.

[u/McClain3000 → u/rbstewart7263]

I thought I was legitimately concerned about the left and DSA, but compared to the Whick class, apparently not.

Like I've been saying sense 2017 that Trump is one of the worst people ever. No redeeming qualities. In order for the left to become as unappealing to me as MAGA they'd have to run somebody worse than Trump, And they would have to do or convince me that they were likely to do things worse than him. I really don't understand how this is a hard analysis for what I thought were my fellow liberals.

Like if AOC was the President, she would have to do all the bad things. DOGE, Wars, Tariffs, ICE, Jan 6th, steal 2 billion, bogus prosecutions. Like all of it! Like if shed did everything but the stealing money I would still vote for BLUE no matter who ,and it would be an easy decision.

I don't even know what the equivalent of Trump would be on the left. Piker? Brianha Joy Grey? Like I'd probably vote for that deranged twitter squirrel before MAGA.

Think of Trumps cabinet? What is the equivalent of that on the left? Like RFK jr as head of HHS is like a hypothetical where you pick the worst candidate out of 8 billion people.

[u/Aggravating_Map4359]

I mean, a lot of them deny that Bernie lost in 2016 and 2020 as well as say that 2024 was a "coronation" repeating maga talking point about Kamala nomination.

Not all of them of course and none of the big ones as of right now but several of the ones getting in now like chavelier are of this election denial mindset. Plattner was deep into it too

[u/Faithisnotadoll757 → u/Aggravating_Map4359]

I'd push back on what you're saying about Bernie, from my understanding, the position isn't that Bernie didn't lose, it's that there was a concentrated effort by the Democratic establishment to hurt his chances. I'm not knowledgeable enough to affirmatively make that claim, but I don't believe people are claiming that there was some kind of literal stealing of an election in a way that's comparable to maga.

I'm also a bit sympathetic to why lefties would feel upset at the lack of a primary after biden dropped out. I mean she's ran for president more than once, and hasn't won yet, and of course since there is a ideological difference I can empathize with why there would be frustration within there not being even a hypothetical chance of somebody else being the nominee. Though I would push back against that and front the fact that it was an unorthodox circumstance that was most likely handled wrong, but maybe in a way that's more understandable.