Impact of the Democratic primaries: MS Now has been cutting back and forth to this bland-looking chart comparing democratic socialism to communism
Impact of the Democratic primaries: MS Now has been cutting back and forth to this bland-looking chart comparing democratic socialism to communism
Nonetheless, DSA explicitly states that their goal is to replace capitalism with socialism. Their program asks people to imagine a world without capitalism.
DSA is the boogey man they’re pointing and DSA is clear that their democratic socialism is about ending capitalism and building socialism.
Labour in the UK also used to be explicit in its charter about wanting to replace capitalism with socialism, until Blair cut it from the charter. Fat load of use that was 'ey?
This is trivially true. Any socialist formation can drop its demand to end capitalism. Many have.
Do you think it matters what’s in a platform? Do you think you should characterize a formation by what’s in it’s platform or by what is not in it’s platform?
Labour were/are social chauvinists who oversaw both radical and meek reforms to the capitalist system they’ve been tasked with overseeing over the last century. Their charter’s ambition never manifested because they are ardent supporters of bourgeois democracy, and continuously fail to overthrow the basic elements of the political system they operate in to stop swings to outright reactionaries like the Tories.
Yet their strategy is to elect social democrats who openly say they are capitalists. Something isn’t adding up here
Which DSA electeds call themselves capitalists?
Abdul El-Sayed: drew immense boots-on-the-ground support and resources from DSA activists. Despite benefiting from their infrastructure, El-Sayed openly walked back any association with the socialist label, explicitly stating to the press: “I am not a socialist, just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works.”
Bernie Sanders: While Sanders popularized the term “democratic socialist” and the DSA heavily allocated organizational power to canvass for his presidential runs, Sanders has explicitly defined his ideology as akin to Nordic social democracy. He maintains that he supports a regulated market economy with a robust social safety net rather than the complete abolition of capitalism.
That’s just the 2 biggest/most recent, the DSA has done this dozens of times. They endorse and back every “progressive” with resources from their organization and then those candidates go on to become centrist careerists. If their goal is “Democratic socialism”, why do they promote social democrats and Liberals? Why do they repeatedly spend their resources on political campaigns of people they have no control over whatsoever?
Neither El-Sayed or Bernie Sanders is in DSA. Neither are currently endorsed by DSA. If you want to move the goal post and discuss Sanders and El-Sayed I’m happy too.
But first, will you admit you couldn’t name a DSA elected who has called themselves a capitalist?
They were both heavily backed by DSA individuals, their ground teams composed of DSA volunteers using DSA resources. Sanders was officially endorsed. A system is what is produces.
You can’t use the “they aren’t officially members of DSA” defense while the DSA endorses and backs and gives resources to electeds outside of the DSA constantly as a matter of process. Why don’t they stick to backing official DSA members only instead? Then that would be a valid defense.
You said:
You listed: (1) A man who DSA endorsed six years ago who doesn’t identify as a capitalist. (2) An anti-zionist who calls himself a capitalist who isn’t endorsed by DSA but has DSA people supporting him.
Neither of those things are what you said. You moved the goal posts or you weren’t clear in your initial statement.
I think you bring up topics worth discussing, but if you cant be clear or can’t admit you moved the goal posts I don’t see how we can have a productive conversation.
Best of luck, comrade.