“What stops the people running the new system from becoming the new ruling class?”
Brilliant. This is the silver stake to drive through the heart of DSA. It is a question they cannot answer, because the answer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the party is the power, and loyalty to the party is the only currency left, because there are no price signals. Look at Maoist China, look at the Soviet Union, look at Cuba.
DSA are like child molesters. They promise you the candy of Norway, of free buses, and loan forgiveness, and free child care, which is really just indoctrination from cradle to grave. And then, they take you into their Zil limo and rape you with the gruesome, brutal reality of communism.
You're onto something real with the price signals point. That's actually the sharpest version of the "who stops the new ruling class" question…
When loyalty to the party replaces price signals as the thing that allocates resources, you get exactly the pattern you're describing, and Maoist China, the USSR, and Cuba are legitimate examples of it, not slippery slope hand-waving. That's worth its own follow-up honestly.
That's why I think the democratic party is at a spot where they need to move towards what their voters are actually saying …or suffer this consequence …which is far more extreme than most voters would ever imagine.
As far asthe rest of it though… Chicago people are so eloquent with their words… Comparing a political platform to child sex abuse…lol. I get it… but Jesus. DSA's own document already hands you the ammunition, the Senate abolition, the new constitution, the "complete victory" language. That's plenty. Stick to that and the argument gets stronger, not weaker.
Actually, my limited technical skills prevent me from being able to post a little meme I did on those chats that you just promoted this piece in. This should be read by every person who is even close to voting for these DSA scoundrels.
It was really good... And I'll set aside that murderous rampage that willy wonka went on with all those kids dying in chocolate felons and turning into blueberries...
There is a tri-part system THREE FOLD SOCIAL ORDER that allows governance to recognize the three aspects in EACH part: Freedom in Cultural Choices where Oprions are FREELY CHOSEN: Equality in law enforcement, No one is Exempt or entitled to buy a pardon; Economic leveling, to tax at a higher rate extreme wealth, and provide a negative income tax to eliminate extreme poverty.
These principles need to become represented in EVERY ASPECT of Governance by consensus, so that there is Accord and willingness to allow everyone their rights to exist.
BJoy… that's basically Rudolf Steiner's threefold social order dressed in different words. Freedom in cultural life, equality in rights, solidarity in economics. That's a real tradition, not something you made up on the spot, so credit where it's due.
But this describes values you want the system to honor. It doesn't describe who enforces them… when two of the three collide… which they always do… the question is…. Who decides when "freedom in cultural choices" runs into "equality in law enforcement"? Who sets the negative income tax rate, and who's accountable if it's wrong?
A set of principles everyone agrees to by consensus sounds great until you hit the first group that doesn't consent… That's where the plan has gone violent historically…. and then we are right back to the question the piece keeps asking: “who actually holds the power to make the call, and what stops them from keeping it.”
Not saying that to shoot it down, I think naming the three domains is a really useful move. But i just think the mechanism question doesn't disappear because the framework is nicer than DSA's.
Thank you. This makes perfect sense. Let's see it where it leads - at the very least discuss these issues in what the DSA puts forth. It is so true that people have a way of turning everything into some type of caste system that creates ruling classes. As stupid as it is because it is not built to last when we do that.
Appreciate that. And yeah, that's basically the pattern I keep running into no matter which system I look at…. Doesn't matter what you call it, some version of "who's actually got the power now" shows up eventually….every single time. And regardless of how great the principles are now you are relying on someones personal moral code. The trick probably isn't finding a system immune to it, I don't think one exists, it's building in enough friction that it happens slow and visible instead of fast and hidden.
I think you are correct that the Democrat electorate is ready for change, whether the establishment wants to admit it or not.
DSA doesn’t describe the changes most progressives want to see. At least their overall manifesto doesn’t. Not from what I have seen or read. Your description of the DSA agenda isn’t wrong, but it is exactly the kind of talk Republicans will continually use to scare people away from progressive change that is needed.
You aren’t to blame for DSA policy. And I understand you are describing the difference between DSA and progressive policy, but I’m concerned that your DSA description, which is most of what is described here, is what will be heard by most people. It is certainly the argument Republicans will use to scare people into turning away from progress that they would benefit from. It has always worked in the past, and it has always prevented progress.
Look to Norway for a description of a workable democratic socialist system. They call themselves democratic socialists. It is a capitalist system with social programs designed to protect the population from the worst excesses of capitalism. The profit before life aspects.
Perhaps what your piece really highlights is the need for progressives to describe what they want to see happen, rather than defaulting to the initials, DSA. Because it’s true, as has always happened in the past, if people associate Marxism with democratic socialism (no caps), it will fail, as always, and the corporations will breathe a sigh of relief. The most damaging capitalist policies will continue, uninterrupted.
Am I assuming that most people won’t read the whole piece? Maybe. Or that even those who do will hear only part of the message. People usually walk away with only part of any message: change the constitution, redistribute wealth.
The lesson, if we don’t want to lose this one, is that we had better clarify the message. If Marxism isn’t the goal, you had better speak up now. Or lose.
This is really powerful commentary, James. I think he's nailed it for the most part.. and god knows you're right that most people who call themselves progressive aren't signing up for a new constitution and an abolished Senate. But that's exactly why i chose to evaluate DSA's national program specifically, not "progressivism," and it says that this is their “end state” directly. I did include the line that the org's own members disagree with each other about how far this should go so I'm not trying to make DSA stand in for the whole left. I'm looking at one organization's own document because they're the ones currently winning primaries and because they actually wrote a destination down, which almost nobody else bothers to do.
But I stand pretty firm on this point for most issues: sunlight is the best Disinfectant. Not talking about DSA less. This gap between "tax reform and Medicare for All" and "abolish the Senate, to write a new constitution" only gets surfaced by opponents doing opposition research, that's a worse outcome for the people who actually just want the popular stuff. Better that gap gets named by someone up front than discovered later and weaponized as "see, they were hiding it."
As far as Norway… i know it is usually the go-to example precisely because it's a market economy with a strong welfare state, not public ownership of major industries or a new constitutional order. That's not a knock on Norway. It's the whole point. DSA's own platform explicitly goes 10x further than the Nordic model, in their own words, and we should be honest about that distance instead of borrowing Norway's credibility for a document that describes something different.
And on "is Marxism the goal," I deliberately didn't put that label on it anywhere in the piece…. Although what I described is undeniably, a part of marxism… I used THEIR language instead of mine on purpose, specifically so nobody could accuse me of doing what you're worried about… scaring people with a word instead of showing them the actual text. If people read DSA's own program and land somewhere different than I did, that's a disagreement worth having…. I just don't think the answer is to talk about the document less.
Like I said in the beginning… They\nAre getting traction?Because they're listening to people , and they're able to slide in the one or two most popular ideas with a very radical plan that follows it , that they don't really talk about outside of their own conferences (which I can assure you are not larry friendly to the press).
I agree, though with regard to Norway, most of their economy is capitalist. They did have the foresight to hold their offshore oil reserves as a public asset, and it is this that has allowed them to provide services that the whole population can enjoy, not just a handful of wealthy capitalists. Interestingly, most countries do hold their natural resources as public assets rather than capitalist exploitation sectors. It makes sense if you think about it. If capitalism runs on innovation, natural resources are existing features of the land the people are a part of, not innovations.
It is clear that progressives had better make their policies clear. If you support the full DSA agenda say so. But if you are strictly seeking reforms that will benefit the public at large, you had best make that clear, before Republicans make it impossible for you to separate yourselves.
“What stops the people running the new system from becoming the new ruling class?”
Brilliant. This is the silver stake to drive through the heart of DSA. It is a question they cannot answer, because the answer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the party is the power, and loyalty to the party is the only currency left, because there are no price signals. Look at Maoist China, look at the Soviet Union, look at Cuba.
DSA are like child molesters. They promise you the candy of Norway, of free buses, and loan forgiveness, and free child care, which is really just indoctrination from cradle to grave. And then, they take you into their Zil limo and rape you with the gruesome, brutal reality of communism.
You're onto something real with the price signals point. That's actually the sharpest version of the "who stops the new ruling class" question…
When loyalty to the party replaces price signals as the thing that allocates resources, you get exactly the pattern you're describing, and Maoist China, the USSR, and Cuba are legitimate examples of it, not slippery slope hand-waving. That's worth its own follow-up honestly.
That's why I think the democratic party is at a spot where they need to move towards what their voters are actually saying …or suffer this consequence …which is far more extreme than most voters would ever imagine.
As far asthe rest of it though… Chicago people are so eloquent with their words… Comparing a political platform to child sex abuse…lol. I get it… but Jesus. DSA's own document already hands you the ammunition, the Senate abolition, the new constitution, the "complete victory" language. That's plenty. Stick to that and the argument gets stronger, not weaker.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice-Barry Goldwater.
But I take your point.
Here's a gift in the spirit of socialist solidarity.
(next comment)
Actually, my limited technical skills prevent me from being able to post a little meme I did on those chats that you just promoted this piece in. This should be read by every person who is even close to voting for these DSA scoundrels.
Looks like you figurd it out?
Good?
It was really good... And I'll set aside that murderous rampage that willy wonka went on with all those kids dying in chocolate felons and turning into blueberries...
There is a tri-part system THREE FOLD SOCIAL ORDER that allows governance to recognize the three aspects in EACH part: Freedom in Cultural Choices where Oprions are FREELY CHOSEN: Equality in law enforcement, No one is Exempt or entitled to buy a pardon; Economic leveling, to tax at a higher rate extreme wealth, and provide a negative income tax to eliminate extreme poverty.
These principles need to become represented in EVERY ASPECT of Governance by consensus, so that there is Accord and willingness to allow everyone their rights to exist.
BJoy… that's basically Rudolf Steiner's threefold social order dressed in different words. Freedom in cultural life, equality in rights, solidarity in economics. That's a real tradition, not something you made up on the spot, so credit where it's due.
But this describes values you want the system to honor. It doesn't describe who enforces them… when two of the three collide… which they always do… the question is…. Who decides when "freedom in cultural choices" runs into "equality in law enforcement"? Who sets the negative income tax rate, and who's accountable if it's wrong?
A set of principles everyone agrees to by consensus sounds great until you hit the first group that doesn't consent… That's where the plan has gone violent historically…. and then we are right back to the question the piece keeps asking: “who actually holds the power to make the call, and what stops them from keeping it.”
Not saying that to shoot it down, I think naming the three domains is a really useful move. But i just think the mechanism question doesn't disappear because the framework is nicer than DSA's.
Thank you. This makes perfect sense. Let's see it where it leads - at the very least discuss these issues in what the DSA puts forth. It is so true that people have a way of turning everything into some type of caste system that creates ruling classes. As stupid as it is because it is not built to last when we do that.
Appreciate that. And yeah, that's basically the pattern I keep running into no matter which system I look at…. Doesn't matter what you call it, some version of "who's actually got the power now" shows up eventually….every single time. And regardless of how great the principles are now you are relying on someones personal moral code. The trick probably isn't finding a system immune to it, I don't think one exists, it's building in enough friction that it happens slow and visible instead of fast and hidden.
I think you are correct that the Democrat electorate is ready for change, whether the establishment wants to admit it or not.
DSA doesn’t describe the changes most progressives want to see. At least their overall manifesto doesn’t. Not from what I have seen or read. Your description of the DSA agenda isn’t wrong, but it is exactly the kind of talk Republicans will continually use to scare people away from progressive change that is needed.
You aren’t to blame for DSA policy. And I understand you are describing the difference between DSA and progressive policy, but I’m concerned that your DSA description, which is most of what is described here, is what will be heard by most people. It is certainly the argument Republicans will use to scare people into turning away from progress that they would benefit from. It has always worked in the past, and it has always prevented progress.
Look to Norway for a description of a workable democratic socialist system. They call themselves democratic socialists. It is a capitalist system with social programs designed to protect the population from the worst excesses of capitalism. The profit before life aspects.
Perhaps what your piece really highlights is the need for progressives to describe what they want to see happen, rather than defaulting to the initials, DSA. Because it’s true, as has always happened in the past, if people associate Marxism with democratic socialism (no caps), it will fail, as always, and the corporations will breathe a sigh of relief. The most damaging capitalist policies will continue, uninterrupted.
Am I assuming that most people won’t read the whole piece? Maybe. Or that even those who do will hear only part of the message. People usually walk away with only part of any message: change the constitution, redistribute wealth.
The lesson, if we don’t want to lose this one, is that we had better clarify the message. If Marxism isn’t the goal, you had better speak up now. Or lose.
This is really powerful commentary, James. I think he's nailed it for the most part.. and god knows you're right that most people who call themselves progressive aren't signing up for a new constitution and an abolished Senate. But that's exactly why i chose to evaluate DSA's national program specifically, not "progressivism," and it says that this is their “end state” directly. I did include the line that the org's own members disagree with each other about how far this should go so I'm not trying to make DSA stand in for the whole left. I'm looking at one organization's own document because they're the ones currently winning primaries and because they actually wrote a destination down, which almost nobody else bothers to do.
But I stand pretty firm on this point for most issues: sunlight is the best Disinfectant. Not talking about DSA less. This gap between "tax reform and Medicare for All" and "abolish the Senate, to write a new constitution" only gets surfaced by opponents doing opposition research, that's a worse outcome for the people who actually just want the popular stuff. Better that gap gets named by someone up front than discovered later and weaponized as "see, they were hiding it."
As far as Norway… i know it is usually the go-to example precisely because it's a market economy with a strong welfare state, not public ownership of major industries or a new constitutional order. That's not a knock on Norway. It's the whole point. DSA's own platform explicitly goes 10x further than the Nordic model, in their own words, and we should be honest about that distance instead of borrowing Norway's credibility for a document that describes something different.
And on "is Marxism the goal," I deliberately didn't put that label on it anywhere in the piece…. Although what I described is undeniably, a part of marxism… I used THEIR language instead of mine on purpose, specifically so nobody could accuse me of doing what you're worried about… scaring people with a word instead of showing them the actual text. If people read DSA's own program and land somewhere different than I did, that's a disagreement worth having…. I just don't think the answer is to talk about the document less.
Like I said in the beginning… They\nAre getting traction?Because they're listening to people , and they're able to slide in the one or two most popular ideas with a very radical plan that follows it , that they don't really talk about outside of their own conferences (which I can assure you are not larry friendly to the press).
I agree, though with regard to Norway, most of their economy is capitalist. They did have the foresight to hold their offshore oil reserves as a public asset, and it is this that has allowed them to provide services that the whole population can enjoy, not just a handful of wealthy capitalists. Interestingly, most countries do hold their natural resources as public assets rather than capitalist exploitation sectors. It makes sense if you think about it. If capitalism runs on innovation, natural resources are existing features of the land the people are a part of, not innovations.
It is clear that progressives had better make their policies clear. If you support the full DSA agenda say so. But if you are strictly seeking reforms that will benefit the public at large, you had best make that clear, before Republicans make it impossible for you to separate yourselves.
Which parts of the DSA 's platform are the best and worst for democrats?