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.”
Boo
“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.
Filthy neolibs. Worthless.
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.
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.
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.
Nice fanfic but that is not remotely grounded in reality. Xi rules with an iron fist. Why did Hu Jintao get escorted out of the congress in 2022? If it was collective then 1) it would have been agreed in public beforehand and 2) he would never have been at the congress in the first place.
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.
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.
They should have just replied with “Release the Epstein files”
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.
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.
Condemning socialism while buying equity shares in several private businesses is definitely the hypocrisy you’d expect from the US government
I don’t really see how that follows.
Socialists don’t take purchases equity shares in private businesses. You’re thinking of EuroFascism.
Just because the government owns a business doesn’t make it socialism
But it’s not socialism when they do it!
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.
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.”
