43

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 hours ago

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.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago

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."

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
43 points (95.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9461 readers
353 users here now

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS