Breaking Down the Communist DSA Platform

by James Lindsay

Seems like a good day not just to talk about the DSA platform, which is (a) Communist af, (b) retarded, (c) unrealistic as hell, (d) childishly presented, and (e) extraordinarily radical -- calling for a new Constitution even -- but to do a thread showing its stupid points.

Before I begin going through this whole thing, let me start with a comment about the image there: the raised fist. The raised fist means Communism. It doesn’t mean anything else. For all the Lefties and Democrats out there that think it’s just a cute symbol of resistance, it is not. It is Communism, and that raised fist is going straight up your ass.

Let’s read through this stupid thing together and decode ALL of it, though!

It starts off with an imaginative exercise, illustrated with silly cartoons: imagine you have a day off in a future without capitalism. Apparently you will work because you like to (a Marxist delusion) and you won’t have any bills (another Marxist delusion).

The idea that you will work because you like to comes directly from Karl Marx’s own vision of a Communist circumstance, where the worker has been transformed back to his original/completed “social (i.e., human)” nature. This vision includes the idea that people will see work, not for themselves but for the community, as their main desired life activity.

“In a higher phase of communist society,” wrote Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, “after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour, from a mere means of life, has itself become the prime necessity of life; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (emphasis added)

And that last famous line appears on the first pane of the DSA program in watered-down form. As Marx infamously wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” the DSA renders, “You work as much as you are able and no more than needed” before promising bevvies of “free” (paid for by others) stuff as though they are human rights you can take from at need. That is, not only is the theme of the document explicitly Marxist from the first lines, but there’s also a direct allusion to Marx within them too.

Back to the main point, Communism posits that you and everyone else (who can) will work on behalf of everyone else but never yourself because you have been re-educated (re-socialized, Mao: ideologically remolded) to believe in working for the commune.

Everything you have will therefore be provided to you by the organizing force of the society, which is left vague. Everyone knows it will be the state, which is what calling them “common goods and utilities” refers to, but Communists, including the DSA a few more lines down, believes that in the realized Communist world that never arrives, there won’t be a state.

In the meantime, it will be the state, which is organized entirely to resocialize and remold you into a socialist (that is, human being, says Marx) who accepts this ridiculous notion.

So it starts off by asserting that things other people have to work to provide for you are to be free because they’re human rights and that everyone (including you) will have to work to provide these things for everyone else (but not yourself) because you’ve been psychologically transformed to believe in working for the sake of upholding the magical community, including all its loafers, free riders, cheats, scoundrels, etc.

Socialists would object here by saying that being such a thing would be outlawed (by the state that isn’t supposed to exist) and punished (again, by the state that doesn’t exist), and in practice, every socialist/Communist state has actually done this. The problem is that the socialists and Communists in charge get to decide who the criminals and loafers are, and it’s funny how most of their political enemies end up on that list regardless of anything else.

Oh, and what you really don’t have isn’t bills. It’s recourse when your rights get violated. If the Communists in charge (state or not) decide you’re a problem, you don’t have any individual rights. Those are bourgeois, selfish, and against the will and needs of “the people,” who you have been remolded to always support.

Mao instructed that the purpose of this ideological remolding, by the way, is to learn to see from “the people’s standpoint,” which means as the Communists want you to see it, as the right theoretical representatives of “the people,” who are, in Mao’s definition as well, those who support the building of socialism. Everyone else is “the enemies of the people,” and the purpose of the people’s democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, say both Mao and Lenin, is to crush the enemies of the people.

If you are listed as enemies of “the people,” you will not be enfranchised (voting) because that’s not real people’s or proletarian democracy. You will not have free speech because you misinform people away from the people’s standpoint and cause agitation and division, plus it’s an expression of your bourgeois values because not everyone has equal access to speak. You have no rights to due process because the Communist leadership knows what is best and knows all, including all your (imaginary) crimes. You have no right to your property because that’s the primary thing Communism is abolishing.

Good luck, Wokies! It’s only worked like this every time!

After spending one whole short paragraph talking about how you’ll live in a magical world with no bills, the DSA goes on with its fantasy and cartoons to imagine your day off. Yes, your day off. Your one day off.

In China today, which operates under CCP control, allegedly not even fully Communist or something, the workers or laboring class (who the title of the document says “deserve more”) called “ku li” (bitter work) work 12-hour days, 28 days in a row, with the 29th day off. They’re paid in a combination of RMB and rice and live in hovels, usually with a few bunks to a room and no indoor bathroom. They wash in a basin on the sidewalk outside of their hovel, if they wash.

That’s what happens when you live under Communism for a while, though. They wouldn’t tell you that up front!

But what they actually wrote in this little fantasy is interesting. In the morning you might do some basic things (like stand silently in a bread line). In the afternoon, you might do some hobbies. In the evening, you can recreate. This is an allusion, though. The framing they present is actually borrowed from... Karl Marx!

This is how Karl Marx envisioned the daily life of a realized Communist in a world without capitalism, from The German Ideology:

“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

In practice, Mao Zedong used this idea to make sure that every Communist worker was also fully well-rounded in all the jobs: student, teacher, farmer, steelworker, army, etc. He turned the working population into a de facto military corps and sent people, who never became those things, like Marx said, from one job to the next in cycles. The result was everything that was actually done was done by people mostly incompetent to do them. Guess how it worked out! Famines! Disasters! Catastrophes! Failures!

The punishment for those things was gulag, hard labor, thought-reform prison, withholding of food at the canteen (often a death sentence), or death. Worked great!

But this isn’t the paragraph about your work. They don’t talk about that much here. This is your one coveted day off. You could do all kinds of things without ever having to become good at anything!

PS: Unless you’re in the Party, you’re not taking any trips, so don’t bother planning them. LOL joke’s on you. Don’t count on that doctor being there or worth going to either. The movie will be mandatory, and it will be brainwashing propaganda.

It only works this way every time!

The section finishes with the big lie: “A socialist day off could be like any good day now.” But with none of the stuff you hate, like paying bills or dreading going back to work the next day.

That’s just not true! It will not be like any good day now but without the bad stuff. Your life will suck in a big way, nothing will work, people you know will disappear, others will starve, things you want will be unavailable, and you’ll shut up and pretend to like it all because if you don’t, you’re next.

But the fun part of this lie is the “without dreading going back to work.”

See, you will go back to work, but it kinda sounds like you won’t. You definitely will, but because they brainwashed you to be a socialist who loves to go to work for other people but never yourself, you won’t dread it. That’s a neat little trick they played on you there, isn’t it?

In reality, what your brainwashing entails is not loving to work for other people. Of course not. That’s retarded. It entails learning to keep your dirty capitalist mouth shut before someone shuts it for you and makes an example of you to everyone else. It will also train you to hate yourself for having those dirty capitalist thoughts. This has been documented extensively by psychologists studying the socialist condition as it played out in reality, e.g., Robert Jay Lifton who provided extensive description and analysis of the early Maoist condition as such (see, for example, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China).

And your work is going to be hard and awful, often pointless. You might enjoy it sometimes, but it won’t be much different than work now except harder in worse conditions with no compensation except your comradeship and with more problems that arise and can’t easily be fixed. You won’t complain, though. You’ll know better than to complain!

Then you can go back to your socialist apartment with three other families and one shared washroom and one shared kitchen and one bedroom per family, maybe overbooked, and not pay rent on it. You can have your free groceries, when they’re there, whatever they are, with no real choice in what you get, including whether you get enough, and you won’t have to pay for them.

Of course, in Mao’s China in reality in practice, you didn’t have to pay for your groceries at the canteen but you did have to have permission to get them. You had to have fake definitely not-money canteen coupons, and that was the only way you could get food. There was no other way. If you behaved badly, you couldn’t use them until they said you could again. Because they weren’t money, you couldn’t spend them on food somewhere else. There also wasn’t somewhere else. Hoarding food or getting food from any other source (like that you grew yourself) was a leading way to get your coupons that weren’t money taken away from you. (See Frank Dikotter’s The People’s Trilogy series.)

It only works that way every time!

At least you don’t have to, you know, pay to maintain the privileges of your own life because you can lie to yourself and call them human rights that your stupid socialist state can’t actually adequately provide for you.

This first fantasy section, with a direct allusion to Marx buried in it, built on a Marxist conception of social and economic reality, ends by saying you should try to make that impossible thing happen. Because “workers deserve more.”

Again, 12-hour days, 28 days on, one day off, backbreaking conditions, nonsensical assignments, no pride or dignity in what you do, no safety equipment, no concern for you. That’s the “more” you get, bitter worker!

It only works that way every time!

Now let’s go to the next section!!

The next section of this idiotic platform is their “how did we get here?” (”our perspective”) section, where they give a childlike analysis in five short paragraphs for how the world got the way it did, apparently.

If you suspected that this might actually be where they inject some stupid and manipulative Marxist Theory into the story, you are absolutely right!

Let’s explore their idiocy and lies together!

Apparently, everything you experience is going badly, but this is all by design for “the bosses,” for whom “it’s all going according to plan.”

This combines two Marxist approaches in one: Paulo Freire’s “generative themes” approach, which he derived in his own telling from Mao Zedong’s “mass line” approach, and Marxist class antagonism (or conflict theory).

Class conflict theory (roughly, Marxism) says that there are essentially two classes in society by the time we get to capitalism (more in earlier stages of development), and they are intrinsically in conflict with one another. These are the owners, who are oppressors, and the workers, who are oppressed, also known as “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat,” or “capitalist class” and “working class.” This is spelled out explicitly in the opening paragraph of the main body of the Communist Manifesto.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

Marx and Engels make clear that this fight necessarily always ends either in total ruin or in a revolution installing the underclass as a new overclass. “Oppressor and oppressed” comes straight from the original language.

A few lines down (I’ll spare you the quote) they say that in earlier periods these classes were more diverse, but the period of economic development called capitalism concentrates them into two classes: capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat). The latter of these, the second chapter explains, are naturally to be led by their “most advanced” segment, the Communists (even though most of them aren’t actually workers at all).

The theory is more than we need, but it’s basically that capitalist ownership with lots of workers in concentrated corporations is already highly “socialized” (socialist) production except the owners still exist in a separate class and extract the “surplus value” of the labor of the workers, so the capitalist owners could just be thrown out, let the workers own and run everything, and it would be the same but without the alleged exploitation. That’s literally Marxism in a sentence, as a bad economic theory.

Of course, “the workers,” to round this out, can’t actually own things except nominally. Someone actually has to run the “means of production,” and that will naturally now be the Communists, who are the leaders of the workers. Never mind now that the Communists don’t know how to run anything because they’re mostly bookish malcontents who never learned anything but Marxist theory. They’re allegedly doing it in the name of “the workers” and “the people” whom they claim to “represent” (theoretically) in their interests (again, only in the theory).

So this paragraph is Marxist class conflict from the get-go and then at the end, and everything in between is the “generative” method laid out by Paulo Freire (a Marxist) who figured out how to connect the real personal suffering of individuals to the Marxist conflict theory.

So the next step is to invoke the suffering of hot summers and economic instability, brainless distaste for the ugly realities of war and its occasional necessity, and to get the heart-strings pulled so that a Marxist conflict-driven explanation can be given for why people suffer these problems and apparent indignities.

That’s the first paragraph of their perspective. Emotional manipulation into the Marxist oppressor-vs-oppressed framing for all world affairs, with “the bosses” and “the billionaire class” named as the enemies, who apparently make summers hot (but not as hot as they were in the 1930s, somehow, mercifully).

This is Marxist manipulation, not explanation or analysis, that is.

Paragraph II of their explanation is the same, really, but they’re more explicit about blaming the “political and economic system under which we live” and naming “private ownership and profit” as the root of the problem (they strawman this by saying “at all costs,” which virtually nobody lives by outside of the deranged imagination of Communists).

They invoke a ridiculous specter of right-wing authoritarianism, which is on the rise now but as yet another anti-capitalist faction, not a pro-capitalist one, so there’s lying and fearmongering to make it work, dealing and trading on the delusional anxieties, near-total ignorance, and deep, active prejudices of their target audience.

They position the issue as being beyond political cure because both political parties are inadequate to the task. That necessitates revolution, which is what they’re offering.

It’s pretty funny that what they invoke as “hatred” is the tired identity politics of the last few years, but it still works on their target audiences to manipulate them.

Woke 2.0 has to incorporate (dialectical sublation) Woke 1.0, though, and they make that clear here. Even though they’re moving to third-worldist and materialist (economic) analyses, they can’t drop the identity politics of the last decade completely. They have to pay it lip service and tuck it in there, pulling it out as a power card when it works and pretending to care about it the rest of the time so their lunatics don’t turn on them and the normie Dems don’t figure them out.

Sublation (German: aufgehoben) means to keep the essence of while abolishing by lifting some of it up to a higher level. A good example of this is sampling in music. When Vanilla Ice takes the iconic track from Queen’s “Under Pressure” (with David Bowie), you know, bum bum bum bum-da-bum bum, and makes it the rhythm line for “Ice, Ice Baby,” he has sublated “Under Pressure.” The recognizable beat has been taken and retained while “Under Pressure” has been abolished from the scene, and it has been lifted up as the basis for a new track called “Ice, Ice Baby.”

Woke 2.0 has to do this same trick with Woke 1.0’s themes, all the way through. They can’t leave behind Critical Race grift, Queer “Liberation” monstrosities, trans horrors, or any of the rest as causes, but they can obliterate their unpopular front presentations and incorporate them into a new message about oppression and “affordability.” In fact, they have to, otherwise the previous generation of Marxist demons they spawned will eat them.

This, by the way, in a very pertinent way, is reminiscent of Stalin’s late 1928 abandonment of korenizatsiya in the New Economic Plan in favor of the Five-Year Plans system (more on this below). Rather than positioning the Soviet Union as an ethnically diverse set of republics opposed to the feudalism of the Great Russian, new Soviet identity would “Russify” and honor the Great Russian as “first among equals.” This was a sublation of Soviet ethnic-nationalist policy and is a prototype for the Woke 2.0 replacement today of Woke 1.0 with its DEI-based ethnic American korenizatsiya program.

In all, though, this is just more of the same dreck pretending to be analysis. No further comment.

Paragraph III is the turn. Democratic Socialists know there’s an alternative! No one has to live like this! Ooooh! There are certain historical possibilities that have come to be regarded as utopian possibilities, but they’re still possibilities, to paraphrase (and nearly quote) grand Neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse, grandfather of Woke.

Oh, why not. Let’s quote him directly from the opening of his infamous 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” which is the source of the logic in which we live today.

”The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities--that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.”

What is that alternative? Another direct call to Karl Marx:

“If we lived in a classless society and governed ourselves...,” the DSA writes.

Communism: a stateless, classless society, where class has been overcome and abolished and the state withered away of its own accord for lack of necessity.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first spelled out this imaginary vision in The Communist Manifesto, writing,

“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (emphasis added)

As you can see, Communists believe that the state exists for two essential functions only, neither being the management or governance of society. First, a state exists to maintain class divisions on the side of the ruling classes, and, second, a state exists to punish the enemies of the ruling class in the name of the law.

Lenin laid this out explicitly in The State and Revolution (1917), drawing heavily off Engels’s writing in Anti-Duhring, while talking about this “withering away” nonsense, that the socialist state isn’t a state at all, but a “semi-state,” because it doesn’t uphold both of these functions. The DSA is essentially a Leninist organization, by the way. The Engels quote, which Lenin offers in full, is really long, but here it is:

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight.”

Lying, Lenin used this to insist socialist states don’t maintain class divisions but seek to abolish class (the new classes are actually the Party and “the people,” i.e., their slaves). They only use the state to punish their enemies. Thus, they’re only half a state, a semi-state, and as such, as the enemies get more and more destroyed, expropriated, killed, reeducated, or whatever, that function becomes less and less important and “withers away.” That’s how it’s supposed to work. As he put it,

”As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.” (emphasis in the original)

That is, to summarize, Communists believe their states become stateless through the long process of killing everyone who doesn’t come to agree with them. Full stop.

Stalin made this more clear still. He also had to try to explain this nonsense because it clearly wasn’t happening. The Soviet state was increasing in its totalitarian control of everyone, not withering away. He explained that the state will wither away suddenly in exactly the moment it reaches the zenith of its power. Addressing the 16th Party Congress in 1930, he said specifically,

“We are for the withering away of the state. And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship, which represents the tightest and mightiest form of state authority that has ever existed in history. To keep on strengthening state power in order to prepare the conditions for the withering away of state power – that is the Marxist formula. Is it contradictory? Yes, contradictory. But the contradiction is vital and wholly reflective of the Marxist dialectic.”

That is, in practical terms, Stalin insisted that the totalitarian state necessary to maintain Communism will end when it has the power to mentally transform or kill everyone under its reach.

The next part of this paragraph invokes the standard negative idealism of the Critical methodology, which cannot articulate any ideal world except to say it’s just like the world we have now except without class enemies (here: racists, bigots, people who don’t actively care for others on Communist terms, etc.).

Negative idealism is when you hold out that there’s an ideal that’s theoretically possible but that cannot be described in positive terms, but you can criticize the parts of the society that an ideal world couldn’t possibly contain. You can’t say what the world will actually look like or how it works when it finally arrives, but you know what it DOESN’T contain and criticize and attack that relentlessly, offering no real solutions except the empowerment of commissars who were good at naming the problems in Marxist terms.

It’s literally Utopianism, meaning literally “nowhere-ism,” since “utopia” is a Greek word that means “nowhere.” The negative idealist world is nowhere.

Building this movement, they say, which is actually impossible, is the “guiding star of [their] movement.” The best thing that can be said for it, then, is that it’s chasing a utopian fantasy that will eventually kill everyone because it can’t work and all enemies preventing it from working have to be killed.

This is called “laboring for the common good,” just like the Woke Right (right-wing authoritarians they pretend to be against), and the reward is everyone who doesn’t get killed in the process (nobody) gets to use their time and talents however they want.

Paragraph IV is insane.

It starts off with a demand to organize because that’s actually all Communists are good at except for complaining, lying, and breaking things. But what are they organizing for?

Not beating your individual boss or all the individual bosses but overthrowing the whole system! Revolution! What a surprise!

It isn’t the bosses who need to be overthrown but the system that allows the existence of bosses that must go. That goes for cops, judges, and presidents, too.

The result demands “winning the battle for democracy,” which must be understood in Lenin’s terms of a proletarian democracy that silences and disenfranchises all bourgeois elements on behalf of “the people,” which he literally described as a dictatorship (led, conveniently, by the Communists; led, conveniently, by him).

See, Lenin explained in State and Revolution (1917) that all existing democracies are actually bourgeois democracies because the bourgeois classes have unfair advantages. “Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society,” he ranted. They’re not real democracies, which would require revoking freedoms of speech and movement from the bourgeois elements of society and removing their rights to vote so that only proletarians (workers who have accepted socialism, in his view) can vote. That, he said, would be the first true attempt at democracy. These views had their origins in Marx and were echoed by Mao and put into practice by every Communist dictator and functionary in history. Lenin wrote,

“In capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.”

Ideal democracy, as he called it, was even more remote. Without “actual equality” (total equity, in today’s language), the inequalities still present in the system prevent actual democracy. Thus, to make a true democracy possible, you need Communism, which is also stateless, so... you figure out who you’re voting for.

Just kidding, you don’t vote for people in the real Communism because everyone (who is still alive) all know what’s best for everyone by their nature, and they only vote when decisions about using resources have to come up, which is pretty much never because they’re all socialists by nature and don’t do it wrong. That’s actually true because real Communism has only showed up when everyone involved is dead.

But, hey! Then it actually gets wild, and serious.

The DSA endeavors to draft and install a new constitution too, apparently, and turn our country, America, into a “democratic socialist republic,” which is Commie-speak for a Communist Shithole and Terror Regime.

I don’t know if you caught that.

The DSA platform explicitly says they’re going to draft a new constitution, which would literally abolish the United States of America.

How these people can possibly hold an office or take a naturalization oath to uphold and defend the Constitution they openly say they’ll get rid of, WITHOUT LYING, is a mystery to me.

That is, they can’t.

DSA members should not be allowed to hold public office anywhere in the United States of America at any level, or hold any office in the public trust, nor be naturalized as citizens or keep naturalized citizenship, because their stated PARTY PLATFORM prevents them from holding and fulfilling the required oaths of office.

Enforce this.

Paragraph V just reiterates their intention to abolish the United States and build a whole new society that is not the United States of America. In essence, it says they’re serious.

Do not join them.

Bar them from office, public jobs, and naturalized citizenship.

On to the next section!

Finally, we reach their actual platform, which appears in sixteen planks (so, sixteen more posts in the thread!). Just perusing this list will tell you it’s insane and extremely radical: a bunch of free stuff, a new political system, and “feminism for all.”

Let’s go through the pieces one by one.

The DSA Party Platform, July 2026

1. Freedom to Flourish

Freedom to flourish is a bunch of free stuff that they don’t explain how it will be paid for except in a later point where they talk about high income and wealth taxes that rob the rich. President Trump was right to mock these people for just promising a bunch of free stuff that isn’t actually possible, at least not for long.

On “free” stuff: there is no free stuff, though. There’s stuff you pay for, stuff other people pay for, for you, and there’s stuff you pay for indirectly, often without realizing it.

The idea in socialism as it’s sold is that other (“rich”) people will pay for things so you can have them. In reality, this isn’t how socialist systems work except briefly at first while they expropriate and plunder the wealthy, which only lasts so long. Eventually, you’re paying for all your free stuff, just indirectly.

The way it works in practice is actually brutal. You get free access to services and maybe goods at the point of acquisition, but in order to qualify for this program, you work exactly as you’re told to. Otherwise, you’re simply excluded. Everyone allegedly wants to contribute (that was the point of the very first imaginary pane far above), so they don’t mind (in theory), but you’re still working for the whole system to work, and the services you’re obtaining are part of that system, so you’re still working for them. The process is just a whole lot less fair and shittier and set up to be able to arbitrarily deprive someone of things as a means of punishment and/or social control.

In modern socialist states like the CCP, this process is mostly achieved by their social credit system, which doesn’t just force you to work; it also forces you to behave and to ideologically remold yourself into an increasingly “perfect socialist.” See, it’s not just a social control mechanism but a means of operant conditioning, just like the gulags of Siberia were meant to be, Mao’s thought-reform prisons and labor camps were designed to be, and like Karl Marx himself said would be the point of working within a socialist system until people became socialists. Marx considered this an essential part of the “inversion of praxis,” by which the socialist state transforms people into socialists. Consider this linguistically tortured paragraph from his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, or read the entire third manuscript for elaborations on the theme:

“It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears, as his work and his reality. The object of labour is, therefore, the objectification of Man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectu­ally, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labour [being employed or otherwise working for life’s necessities instead of the Commune] tears from him his species-life, his real objectivity as a member of the species, and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken away from him.”

But people still have to work. Oh boy, do they still have to work.

The whole idea is that nobody will pay for everything, everyone will work less (that’s a lie, see CCP points about ku li above), and somehow everyone will “flourish.” This is childish, magical thinking tapping into youthful frustrations that it’s tough to earn a living and build a life.

It is also what I increasingly like to call “welfare mentality.” In essence, we have kind of two mental frames for approaching the world: either we’re responsible for ourselves or we have a welfare mentality. In the first, it’s up to us to provide and secure our living, and we have to do what it takes, including self-governance on all levels, practical and moral, to accomplish that. In the second, “welfare mentality,” we expect to be given things we haven’t earned because we are somehow entitled to them.

Responsibility mentality builds. Welfare mentality kills.

With a responsibility mentality, we build our lives and our own sense of dignity by earning it and knowing we earned it. We are faithful over a few things and grow to be master over many, and we accumulate human dignity along the way by having done so by providing worthy service to our fellow man. The proof that the service was worthy is that someone else was willing to part with their own resources to acquire the fruits of that service.

That is, in “capitalism,” we don’t just trade goods, services, and money, or signals about supply and demand as Hayek had it, we also trade proof of a job well done and thus the foundation for a sense of self-worth and human dignity. That’s a big deal.

Under welfare mentality, this doesn’t happen. We receive things whether we have done anything to earn them or not, and deep down, no matter how entitled we are, we know it. We acquire none of the foundations for self-worth and human dignity. Instead, in every bit of lack, in every shortfall against our expectations, hopes, and entitlement, we acquire more entitlement and resentment. Welfare mentality creates more welfare mentality while withholding the foundations of human dignity.

This is a death spiral.

Some people suggest that we should be taken care of “until we heal,” but we’re not talking about a broken ankle here. You will not “heal” psychologically by undermining your source of healing, which is entering the cycle that produces the human dignity that heals you. That cycle is the responsibility cycle.

Under socialist systems, you’ll work, but your work is disconnected in all ways from your return. You get things for “free” whether you work or not, and if you don’t work enough, you’ll be forced to. You don’t get paid more. You just have to do it. The whole thing is a broken system and cycle of dependency. This is why every socialist system is full of miserable people who have to be walled in or else they’ll flee.

More prosaically, as you can see, this is an extremely radical and unrealistic economic entitlement program. Nothing in their platform explains how this can actually be done. It’s born and bred of welfare mentality and will produce nothing but eventual destruction and misery.

2. Healthcare for All

More free stuff! Including all medical education! And gender-affirming care! And abortion!

More welfare mentality, in other words, plus some Woke peculiarities they cannot quit now even if they wanted to. They don’t want to, though, because it is the carefully curated Woke mental illnesses around abortion and “gender” horrors that serve as reliable engines for the most rabid (and dangerous) portions of their base. (These charming lunatics will likely be liquidated after the revolution because they’re very inconvenient. For more information, look into what Mao Zedong did starting in 1968 after the young Red Guard got him back into full power. Spoiler: liquidated.)

This platform plank offers an important side point, though: the words “for all.” In Commie-speak, “for all” ALWAYS indicates a redistribution scheme. Look for it in anything Marxists write. Either resources (“healthcare for all,” “education for all”) or power (“democracy for all,” “access for all”) will be redistributed.

It sounds great and fair, but it always, always, always proceeds on the assumption that some people have and other people don’t have, so for it to be “for all” there must be taking away from the people who have and giving it to the people who don’t have.

Education for all. Healthcare for all. Free stuff for all. Housing for all. It ALWAYS works this way. It ALWAYS means seizure of assets or power and their redistribution. Democracy for all!

As a quick point, notice the reproductive and gender-affirming “healthcare” demands. This is another reminder of the fact that Woke 2.0 has moved on from Woke 1.0 but cannot actually leave it behind. Woke 1.0 is sublated into Woke 2.0 as I explained above.

Finally, there’s absolutely no explanation how any of this will be paid for or implemented in their platform, and even more, there’s no explanation at all about how it will be “quality.” There’s just a demand that a whole bunch of free stuff be “quality.” It’s just more creation of and mining of welfare mentality (a death spiral for people and societies).

I guess I should talk about the second of Lenin’s three dialectics briefly here, too: quantity into quality, and quality back into quality here. It’s actually important when you see that word “quality,” especially with no explanation for how you’ll get or ensure it. This will actually come up a lot in this DSA platform, and it’s a strong hallmark of its Marxist-Leninist nature.

Lenin’s second dialectic in Marxist dialectical materialism is “quantity into quality and quality into quantity.” This is supposed to be a Marxist explanation about how they’ll have lots of high quality stuff by the process of having a lot less stuff first (read: critical, even fatal, shortages).

See, capitalism produces quantity, but it does so by robbing quality (mostly the “human quality”) out of things through an allegedly evil process called “commodification.” Socialism begins by transforming that quantity into quality. That means you’ll have a lot less, but it will be better. You’ll have less healthcare that’s worse, but it will be universally accessible without paying for it directly (only indirectly) and more “fair,” so that’s higher quality in socialist-brain thinking.

You’ll have a lot less standard of living, or quality of life, for example, but it will be higher quality lower quality of life. You’ll suffer, but you’ll feel enriched that you’re working for socialism and humanism and the common good. You’ll be glad to suffer. It’s quality suffering.

In reality, it won’t be better, obviously. Quality of stuff and quality of life will both diminish, but you’re supposed to like it and find value in the immaterial things like “hanging out” and “building socialism” and “not getting shot today by being perfectly obedient” and “getting to experience the Cheka breaking down your door.”

The next step of this magical dialectic never arrives, that’s the quality (less stuff, but socialist stuff) transforming back into quantity. Socialism will figure out how to produce its “better” socialist stuff, and you’ll have abundance again. Mostly an abundance of free time, leisure, loafing around (on your one day off), etc., but apparently also material stuff.

No socialist program in the history of anywhere, including small voluntary ones with homogenous religiously bound populations, has ever reached this part of the dialectic, but I’m sure the weird-looking freaks in the DSA will figure it out just like they figured out how to manage their own lives.

I mean, just look at them. The culmination of their lives’ choices landed them in the DSA screaming about how they can’t figure out how to function in the amazing society they already have, literally called “the land of opportunity” that people all over the world clamor to get into even to this day even when they hate it.

3. Housing for All

What a surprise! More free stuff! More welfare mentality and its exploitation! Still no explanation of how it will be achieved or paid for!

And another “for all” redistribution scheme!

Obviously, like the previous “Healthcare for All,” this is another extremely radical proposal that’s completely unrealistic but hits their young target audience precisely in another generative sore spot, so it works even though it’s completely deadly.

That said, the “for all” here works the same way. Some people have housing (or better housing), and other people don’t, so we’ll have to take from those who do, reorganize it, and give to those who don’t.

They do say they’ll build new property too, to be fair. So that’s literally what we call “the projects.” Remember, “quantity into quality” will produce your “quality” housing under this plan in no time, and no socialist society in history has ever figured out how to do the second half of that bogus “dialectic,” including on the materialism of housing.

The Party officials will have nice houses, though. Don’t worry about that.

The foundation upon which they present this particular bit of welfare mentality is the concept of housing being a “human right,” which they also think about healthcare, including abortion and “gender-affirming care,” education, and all the other free stuff they’re trying to demand. There are a few bits of trickery happening here, some going too far afield to develop.

First, human rights discourse is a replacement for individual rights discourse, and individual rights, because they apply to every individual, cannot demand that one individual do something for another by force. That means, it’s just not true. This issue is a little complicated, though, and goes beyond my scope to address.

Secondly, to reiterate, no it isn’t. Period. No one is entitled to a place to live when building a place to live requires resources. They have a right not to be hindered in lawfully acquiring a place to live.

The furthest this “rights” discourse should really go is to make a very reasonable argument that the state is interfering with various inalienable individual rights with untenable building, zoning, and housing policies that restrict the market from being able to produce and distribute housing, but that’s pretty much literally the opposite of what the DSA is arguing here, especially given the last parts of this platform plank.

Lastly, and most importantly, it’s impossible to read a Marxist document like this DSA platform without sniffing out the Marxist meanings for words. Here, “human” is the relevant word in question, not “rights.” In fact, Karl Marx vigorously criticized universal “human rights” in his infamous essay “On the Jewish Question” in 1843.

To say it plainly, Marxists do not believe non-Marxists, or those against socialism, to be human. Marx says it over and over again in his writing that one’s human nature is identical to his social nature, i.e., his being a socialist. He spends entire long sections developing the theme of how becoming a socialist awakens one’s true human nature in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844). You are not fully human until you’re a socialist, which requires an inner transformation of the person. Here’s one representative (and famous) quote:

“Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to him­self as a social (i.e., human) being.” (emphasis in the original)

That’s explicit: Communism is the complete return of man to what makes him human, which is being a socialist.

Therefore, when we read a Marxist document like this DSA platform claiming something is a human right, there’s every reason to believe that what we’ve seen in practice all over the world in Communist (“democratic socialist”) states will hold in their vision: it only applies to socialists. Put rightly: “Housing is a right reserved to socialists.”

Most of the rest of these proposals are about bankrupting landlords and seizing their assets. That strongly echoes the idea that socialists get to enjoy housing as a socialist (i.e., human) right and everyone else is an expropriator who is hoarding property who has to be expropirated.

I reiterate that this is their actual party platform that they want to take over the Democratic Party with and are (successfully so far) running candidates on.

4. Finish Reconstruction

Yes, “Reconstruction,” like what we did after the Civil War, about a hundred and fifty years ago.

This is another one of those hangovers from Woke 1.0 that they have to include because of the rules of sublation and not wanting to get called racist by the race activists, which they know would crush them with their own zombies now who still believe that crap.

It’s extremely radical, including reparations, a “for all” redistribution scheme or two, one clause about indigenous people that would, in practice, give them the ability to pillage society without any restrictions, and another invocation of the “quantity into quality” dialectic. Complete disaster. Totally unrealistic. Destruction of society stuff here, as we already saw on 2020, but about 1619 times harder.

This is effectively a pledge to maintain American korenizatsiya, which is a program that Lenin and Stalin implemented together in the Soviet Union starting in 1921 and fully in 1923. It’s key subprogram was Lenin’s raznoobraziya, which is the Russian word for “diversity,” interestingly enough. While korenizatsiya means something like “indigenization” or “putting in roots,” its modern translation would be “inclusion.” Isn’t that weird!

The point of that program was to go to ethnic minority enclaves and promise them self-determination and protection from the “chauvinism” (racism) of the dominant population groups while elevating them in socialism as they aligned with that against feudalism (now, here, capitalism). It’s an excuse to use ethnic minority status of some kind (here including LGBTQ as an extended ethnic group) as a tool for promoting socialists nobody can disagree with without being called a bigot. Sounds so familiar!

This program was part of the so-called NEP (New Economic Policy) introduced by Lenin and Stalin together in 1921 and fully enacted in 1923 after they spent four to six years since they took power in 1917 trying “real Communism,” and it was a disaster. The result of this program was a huge lever for the Communist Party to build the Soviet Union and to pass whatever they wanted into law by calling opponents “racists,” effectively. It has been widely described as the world’s first and biggest-ever “affirmative action regime.”

The result of korenizatsiya is exactly what you would imagine it was. Trouble, particularly a huge amount of ethnic strife that by 1928 was threatening to tear the Soviet Union apart already (just about 5-7 years after its implementation, like how 2026 is in the same window since 2020). As noted above, it was abandoned for the Five-Years Plans programs, which were also unmitigated disasters.

This plank in the DSA platform is to keep using this korenizatsiya in its American form, or at least to pander to it, just like Lenin and Stalin did, for as long as they can to do as much damage to the existing system as possible and to install the most radical bullshit imaginable because anyone who disagrees is a racist or a transphobe or some horseshit.

Of course, the new model is going to be that “workers are the first among equals in oppression,” or some such, though I doubt they’ll phrase it that way. They’ll probably say something like “we are all workers” or something.

5. End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity

Yet another insanely radical proposal effectively nobody wants. Let’s just kind of enumerate the really bad ideas, almost all of which we already see in embryo destroying California.

Weaken police departments so they cannot resist organized crime and gang violence. Cities will become even more dangerous shitholes.

Make sure police cannot organize for their own employment needs against this radical, deadly bullshit (isn’t it interesting that there’s a union the Communists hate, and it’s the police union??).

Redirect funding to their network of grifters and away from police (defund the police and fund their NGO partners).

All of these points are done “as steps toward” fully abolishing not the police and prisons, but “the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor.” Thus we hit the important part.

That’s really important, in fact, y’all. “Defund the police” and “prison abolition” aren’t initiatives against police and prisons. They’re against the existing state (remember that thing about Lenin earlier?). They’re all for their own police and their own prisons to arrest and punish their enemies.

Quick reminder -- Lenin’s theory, which he derived from Marx and Engels, said that the capitalist state has two essential functions: to maintain class antagonisms on behalf of the ruling class (the rich) and to punish their class enemies (the poor). It also says the socialist state only keeps the second of these functions but against the enemies of building socialism.

Okay, so that means that the police and prisons we have in capitalist America are illegitimate to Communists because they serve to keep America capitalist and to protect the ruling capitalist (and white, male, normal, etc.) class safe from the revolutionary terrorism, sedition, and general mayhem employed by Communists before they get power. It is only those capitalist police and prisons they want to defund and abolish.

They like police and prisons that work for the socialist “semi-state,” which is used to build socialism by crushing the enemies of socialism under the auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat. “Defund the police” and “abolish prisons” means getting the existing state out of the way of their revolution so they can set up a socialist secret police and socialist gulag prisons. Very important! Very, very important!

The DSA is EXPLICIT about this here, by the way. They want to abolish the police ‘that protect the rich and punish the poor” (that maintain the capitalist state). They are not opposed to any other kind of police or prisons and will definitely make full use of them. Those little clauses tacked on to the end of their operational statements mean something and cannot be ignored. They’re not just flourish or dressing. They’re telling you their bias.

Next up, treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, which they’ll coddle, making everything more dangerous for everyone, to insane levels. Again, California is just in embryo here. This is to increase the general mayhem and demand more of their “programs” to fix it, since policing and prisons are racist and oppressive and stuff. Those programs are giant grift opportunities for their NGOs, usually with state moneys, provided in exchange for milking them for ballot harvesting to keep electing the corrupt politicians that approve them. Get the scam? California mostly works this way now already, and that’s why it’s a disaster.

End qualified immunity for cops (who they don’t like).

You can tell it’s not all cops because they give it away again with a “civilian oversight body with authority over the police.” They want to be the police-police who polices the police. That body will grow into their state secret police. That’s exactly what it’s for.

You can bet your ass there will be prisons, although they might call them “reeducation facilities” or “gulags,” which are actually a kind of learn-by-doing reeducation camp designed to teach people to love to work like all socialists should and would (see the beginning of this analysis for more).

Very radical. Very insane. Definitely Communist.

6. Feminism for All

Feminism for all... that’s what I want. That’s what everybody wants. LOL

This is the funniest one on the list, yet another sublated Woke 1.0 point.

There will be a redistribution (reeducation) here for people who don’t have enough feminism, for sure, but let’s look at the points they actually write because they’re hilarious. You really should read it as a command. If you’re not feminist, you’ll at least pretend to be one. Or else. Feminism is FOR ALL.

The first sentence is a banger:
“Socialist feminism fights for... QUEER LIBERATION... (LOL) and the freedoms of all WORKING CLASS women.”

It doesn’t fight for women, or all women, or whatever guys. It’s first priority is queer liberation. It’s second priority is that only proletarian women (according to their definition) count. Other women, like most real women, are bourgeois and not part of the program.

It only gets worse from here. Stop “gender violence,” support trans, reinforce an unqualified access to abortion, and on and on -- all catastrophic social and professional policies when put into practice in the way they envision them.

The redistribution to qualified “women” (queer, trans, and working class, according to their definition) along with special considerations (not specified but definitely expansive) for those women as legal mandates. Overpaying “women” above the market rate, which will also include forcing employers to hire and overpay them, will also be a part.

This is another extremely radical set of policies designed to pander to the anxieties of their second most insane constituency, which is Leftist women who have lost touch with reality by becoming feminists.

7. Green New Deal

The nod to environmental Communism here isn’t merely a sublation of Woke 1.0 but is also another massive scheme for massively increasing the scope, scale, power, and intrusion of government and making far more people depending on the government by making their jobs be government jobs.

Let me just assure you from all examples in history: nobody except the best Party members want a government job under Communism, and they’re all government jobs under Communism.

It’s not specified how this extremely expensive transition to energy weakness is going to be paid for, but it’s explicit that it will involve a lot of federal jobs.

Not to linger on this extremely radical proposal that already failed and didn’t go away, but it gets important at the bottom.

“Phase out the use of fossil fuels” means energy poverty. Period. In fact, the whole Green New Deal is effectively three Communist turds in one package:

1. Artificial energy poverty (which becomes real)

2. Federalizing a lot more workers so they’re government employees

3. Crushing lucrative industries that sustain our economy

Energy poverty means a diminished quality of life, standard of living, etc. (quality becoming quality, freezing while you starve in the dark), but it also means diminishing our capacities in every possible regard, making us uncompetitive and sitting ducks against our geopolitical foes like China or the Caliphate, who would be happy to conquer and occupy us by force if we were weak enough.

Of course, China and the wannabe Caliphate are the primary funders and backers of the DSA, so go figure....

Reclaiming and repairing our Earth’s resources FOR ALL is not just another redistribution scheme where access will be privileged to their favored classes and revoked from the classes they call privileged, it is also directly in line with Karl Marx’s humanization of the natural world as explained in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, on the one hand, and the third volume of Capital, on the other.

This model is explored by the popular Communist from Japan named Kohei Saito in his book about Degrowth Communism (Marx in the Anthropocene, 2020) and is a long Marxist diatribe that amounts to why we should enter into deliberate energy poverty (only here in the West) in line with Marx’s vision for a so-called “humanized” world, where Nature is completed as “man’s inorganic body.” He proposes this to solve Marx’s alleged problem of “metabolic rift” and eventual rupture, which was Marx’s theory that if we don’t Marxify (”humanize”) Nature, it will eventually get revenge on us.

In practice, it’s an excuse to weaken ourselves and enter energy poverty, which force us to accept more socialism and control while we enjoy the “abundance” of having less (Saito openly redefines “wealth,” “abundance,” and “scarcity” into their opposites using Marxist inversion).

The Green New Deal is the DSA’s “Great Leap Backwards,” inspired from their Marxist hero Mao Zedong but trying to shrink our economy and standard of living rather than trying to grow it (and failing miserably).

It’s a death pact, and it’s a plank in their sparse platform.

The DSA platform now turns to a few perfectly predictable points of foreign policy.

8. End the U.S. War Machine

They begin with “ending the U.S. war machine.”

What this means in practice is neutering the American military so that the Chinese, Russian, and Islamist militaries can claim the advantage. This is stock Soviet agenda stuff, here.

The proposals are absolutely and fundamentally radical and, mostly, agree with the Woke Right in most details. They want to federalize the entire veteran workforce to increase government jobs and dependency as well.

One proposal specifically gives the International Criminal Court (ICC) power to prosecute American “war criminals” (by their definition), which deliberately ends U.S. sovereignty and weakens America in virtually every way relevant to military capabilities.

I once again remind the reader that the DSA is heavily funded and supported by the CCP and Caliphate-types, who would both stand to benefit enormously from any of this being enacted (looking at you sideways here, Woke Right and idiot Libertarians).

9. Free Palestine [Kill Jews]

No one is surprised to see “free Palestine” with a picture of a watermelon (a red and green symbol of Islamic and Communist collaboration against their common enemies: Islamic (green) on the outside and Communist (red) on the inside). What it means in practice is “kill Jews.”

The first provisions are all about “freeing Palestine” as such and amount to driving all Jewish sovereignty and most Jews out of the region known as Eretz Israel, the land of Israel, which these idiots call by the obsolete name “Palestine.”

Right to return means to where the Jews live now, which means deposing the Jews (you know, “from the river (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea,” all of Eretz Israel).

Right to resist military occupation means to do so by force by casing the state of Israel as a military occupier that should be shot at and blown up as long as it exists.

Right to self-determination in a free Palestine (with Jerusalem as its capital, no less) means to establish a single Arab state in Eretz Israel, which means to end all Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. The reason for this is because the (radical?) Muslims believe that since sometime in the 7th century that land has all been PERMANENTLY Islamic because Muslims conquered it, so no one else (especially Jews) can ever have a sovereign claim over it. Only Muslims can. The Israelis violate this and need to be chased off and many killed for the violation it represents. Making Jerusalem the capital of this state is an act of humiliation and desolation against the Jews who have seen it as their capital since King David established it there as such.

Don’t think for one second this means some kind of functional partition, two-state solution, or any Jews living safely in the region at all. It means KILL JEWS.

Interestingly, though surely for different reasons, they agree with most conservative Israelis and Bibi Netanyahu and many conservative Jews in wanting to end all economic and military aid to Israel. This is simply because they want to weaken them and damage the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Woke Right shares this ambition with their Leftist DSA buddies. President Trump does not. Interesting times!

Finally, they call to prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for the imaginary “genocide” in Gaza (there is not and never has been a genocide in Gaza). That will be an excuse to round up and jail or kill most of both countries’ leaders and militaries. Who benefits from that?

This isn’t just radical. This is PSYCHO SHIT. In fact, it’s legitimately Hitler-type psycho shit.

10. End Blockades, Embargoes, and Sanctions

The lie in this one is that they don’t finish the demand, which should conclude “...against Communist and Islamic terrorist states.”

They are perfectly happy with blockades, embargoes, and sanctions for countries they don’t like, as is evidenced by their widespread support for the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement against Israel. You know they’d do it against America too if they could, even though they’re the DSA. Canada more or less is already trying it.

They make this apparent at the end by mentioning only Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran as worthy of this treatment and specifying that they only mean it to apply to “governments that act independently [read: against] the U.S.”

This, by the way, could and should be construed as seeking to give aid and comfort to the enemies of America during wartime and prosecuted as such. It’s literally in their party platform, so we can be sure they’re committed to it.

Anyone remember what that crime is called?

11. Abolish ICE

Of course they call to abolish ICE. It’s one of their biggest causes and most productive pursuits with their useful idiots and supporters.

They don’t just call to abolish ICE, though. They call for far more, and it’s all extreme and extremely radical.

Federal agents who are involved should be punished for their “brutality,” as defined by the DSA Cheka, no doubt. Of course, the whole ICE program will also be brought to an end under their sight.

But this is where they include their radical immigration policy, which is far more radical than even the policy of the frankly treasonous on this issue Biden Administration (which the DSA hates).

Legalize migration, full amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, path to citizenship for all permanent residents (as they’d define it), no caps or quotas on any visas.

Communists don’t build walls on their borders to keep people out. They build them to keep people in.

I could probably elaborate on what they’d bring in with all of this, especially combined with the revocation of all sanctions of Communist and terrorist-sponsoring countries, but I think you can imagine it for yourself.

I’m sure the Salafist Islamists and CCP love this set of policies, and I don’t doubt they paid for their inclusion.

12. Democracy for All

Another redistribution scheme (”for all”) now under the auspices of political power, not material resources. This is specifically Lenin’s program for “democracy” put into more palatable terms plus some more radical specific demands for the United States in particular.

I won’t remind you in full of what Lenin’s program of democracy includes, but the short version is that all of your “democratic rights” will be taken from you or limited if you’re designated “privileged” and expanded if you’re designated “oppressed,” even if it doesn’t make any sense. I’ll offer you a quote I didn’t yet, though, from State and Revolution again:

“The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.”

So, the underlying logic of “Democracy for All” (remember the DSA is Leninist) is the Marxist dialectic of “quantity being transformed into quality.” See, what we currently have now is “quantity,” that is, too many kinds of people voting. What we need is to transform it into “quality,” that is, only socialists voting. That will transform it from a bourgeois to a proletarian democracy. As I said, it’s a redistribution scheme for political power by means of a redistribution scheme for enfranchisement.

Here’s Lenin making my point as only he (and the DSA) can:

“And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.”

We get a nice glimpse into what this “quality” entails: the specific proposals extend to expanding the franchise to felons, prisoners, and all permanent residents, including certainly illegal aliens who live here illegally and who are not citizens and, given the vague language, might include children.

Obviously, combined with the previous point, their goal is to flood the country with new voters who will vote for them to establish a permanent rule for their DSA crap, at which point they’ll rewrite the Constitution and put us under real Communism, as they said earlier. This is the part Elon Musk has been screaming about for years because he gets this point.

But wait! There’s more!

Washington, D.C., will be made a state to add two almost-certainly Democratic (thus DSA after they take over) senators, ensuring nearly perpetual DSA control until they rewrite the Constitution.*

*In a later point, they call to abolish the Senate completely, which is contradictory to this end.

There will also be full korenizatsiya (”self-determination”) for all U.S. territories and “colonies.” The first of these will be mostly to destabilize the military bases that reside on many of them, particularly ones that are a problem for China’s ambitions in the Pacific. I’m not sure what they mean by “colonies,” but that would grant extensive powers for them to disrupt other things they deem “colonized” by some mechanism.

The point about expanding voter rights and ending voter suppression means unaccountable mail-in and other forms of ballots forever until they win enough power to abolish our system and Constitution and install Communism, per their previously stated goals and ambitions.

13. A Real Democracy

Again, in case you were in any doubt, this is about establishing Lenin’s vision of a “proletarian democracy” and an “ideal democracy” (only exists under Communism), here by ending the “bourgeois democracy” practices of things like money in politics (except for them, I’m sure). From State and Revolution, again,

“Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy.”

Their first sentence, a justification, gives away what this is about, and it’s Leninist to the core. “For the working class to govern, we need a new political system,” the first sentence on this plank, means not just abolishing the Constitution (the existing political system) but also establishing Marx’s and Lenin’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” in its place, which is the name for their “governance by the working class.”

You won’t be surprised to realize that the DSA will end up being the representatives who govern on behalf of the working class.

Two quotes, one from Marx, quoted by Lenin, and the second Lenin’s point with it. First, Marx:

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Now, Lenin:

“Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism. Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever.”

A real democracy!

But wait! There’s more! And it’s extremely radical!

Abolish the Electoral College because it sometimes makes them lose elections (not in 2024, though, huh?) Then it gets really wild. As radical as this one is, it’s nothing compared to what’s next.

“Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” It really says that.

Of course, that means a full abolition of the Constitution, as those things aren’t actually possible under the existing U.S. Constitution, but that hasn’t stopped them from making it a part of their party platform.

Can I once again demand our government take seriously that DSA members, by their stated party platform, cannot fulfill an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States in good faith and are therefore ineligible to hold offices in the public trust, elected office, and even naturalization of citizenship? Can we take this seriously and enforce it? Now!

14. A Democratic Congress

After just stating that their idea of a real democracy means that the President and Supreme Court are replaced by functionaries subordinate to Congress, the next plank on their platform is the completely transform Congress. What a surprise!

Some of these points require a little nuance to understand, but the point is that they want to change the voting system, inter alia, which is encoded in the Constitution, which means abolishing the Constitution again.

Replacing the two-party system with a multi-party democracy is a kind of lie, and it actually requires, in practice, abolishing the existing Constitution. There’s a law in political theory called Duverger’s Law that says that when you have “winner-takes all” (actually, “first past the post”) voting systems, as our Constitution assumes, you will trend toward having only two major parties, though minor parties might exist. This is simply because one big political coalition will always win unless another big political coalition forms to oppose it, and the result is almost always two big coalition parties. Because we choose our POTUS this way, the two-party effect mostly trickles down to other offices down-ballot and in the states because the parties are huge pools of resources that are hard to run outside of.

The lie here, though, is that we already have a multi-party democracy. You can make your own party if you want, given certain requirements, and you can lose. This is why the DSA isn’t forming its own party but is angling to take over the Democrats. They cannot win as the DSA. They can only win by capturing the Democrats. The Democrats should not allow this and should kick their asses out with all their famous non-democratic means and let them cry on the sidewalk.

As an aside here, occasionally a third party does rise up, but it always spoils the side closest to it. If the DSA did this now, they’d spoil the Democrats, which is against their goals, so they colonize the Democrats instead. Tucker Carlson’s Woke Right Idiot Retard Low-IQ I-Hate-Jews Party is being launched at the moment specifically to spoil the Republicans. Weird how that’s happening at exactly the same time that the DSA is taking over the Democrats, isn’t it? Super weird when you consider how much of this DSA platform overlaps with Woke Right garbage too. It’s almost like they’re working together for the same goals by different evil means. Almost....

Some states, in fact, have changed their statewide voting systems to things like ranked-choice voting, which almost all the socialist idiots prefer because it’s usually their only chance. Alaska is an example, and it is consistently used to (and was installed for the purpose of) elect one shitty Republican senator that nobody likes. Other states have it already too. Other systems, like mixed-member proportional, also exist in theory but are not implemented in practice.

The DSA wishes to campaign for these other voting schemes, and the reason is simple: they can’t win any other way, probably even if they take over the Democratic Party.

The extra exciting bonus here in this plank, though, is the last clause: “abolish the Senate.” The Congress they want is unicameral, rigged to be filled with their people, and controls the President and SCOTUS.

This is the model of the Soviet Party Congress. What a surprise!

15. Economic Democracy

Here’s some really Communist stuff!

What we actually see with these astonishingly radical proposals are “seize the means of production,” “dekulakization,” and “expropriate the expropriators” in the names of “democratizing” economics (wealth and opportunity redistribution by the state at the end of the barrel of a gun).

Fun fact: Mao Zedong, hero to the DSA and role model of their spokespeople, once said that “power flows from the barrel of a gun.”

You can read the little card for yourself for their language. What are these three Communist ideas I mentioned?

Seizing the means of production is the key socialist/Communist revolutionary demand. As I explained above, Marxism posits that capitalism is already a very socialized form of production and all that needs to happen to turn it into socialism is a bloody revolution that kills and deposes the bosses and lets the Communist Party and its leaders run everything in the name of the people and for building socialism. It has to be bloody revolution because these guys have big resources and won’t just let go of them, so they have to be killed.

The other name for this activity is the third thing I listed, “expropriating the expropirators.” The Communist theory, straight from Marx, is that the owners are expropriating the worker from his means of living a full human life and his own production, so basically they have to be expropriated from their ownership of factories, farms, and residential (rental) properties.

Though Marx uses the phrase also in Capital, it’s a bit more on-the-nose how he uses it in The Civil War in France:

“The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class-property which makes the labour of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labour, into mere instruments of free and associated labour.—But this is Communism, “impossible” Communism!”

Dekulakization refers to the removal of the kulaks, who are the kind of self-sufficient, self-reliant, self-governing types who can manage themselves and sometimes help their neighbors too. We’d call them “entrepreneurs” mostly in our society. Stalin’s brutal murder of millions of Ukrainians in the infamous Holodomor in the 1932-33 is the most famous example in history of dekulakization in action.

Here, the program is a little different: aggressive (excessive) wealth taxes on rich (lol) individuals and corporations. These will undoubtedly start big and expand to almost everyone in the middle class over a few years, probably five since we’re dealing with Communists. It only happens that way every time!

The point will be to force entrepreneurs to liquidate, first bigger ones then later smaller ones, so that no one is self-sufficient and everyone is dependent upon the government for all needs, goods, and services.

Larger corporations won’t even be taxed to the breaking point, at which point the public sector will acquire them for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy; they’ll just be nationalized directly. The Communist Party (DSA) will control all of the “means of production” in relatively short order under this unbelievably radical plan. You know it will be them because of that clause they wrote, “...to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people,” which is ensured by the Communist Party (DSA) and its leadership (NPCs, no joke).

Incidentally, this draconian Communist policy suggestion (no details are given) represents the only, solidary, lone stated revenue source to fund all the free stuff in all the other points.

16. Democracy at Work

You didn’t think there really wouldn’t be work, right? Haha. There will be lots of work, and it will be democratic!

In the Communist countries and under Marx directly, democracy at work meant something specific. It meant everyone (except important party officials) will democratically take their turns doing the jobs nobody likes doing. You know, the hard jobs, the dangerous jobs, the dirty jobs, the gross jobs. You will get your turn at them, comrade! You didn’t really think the revolution meant painting pictures, writing essays, and doing OnlyFans, did you, child? You’ll learn soon enough!

This is all about stoking up that Marxist class conflict, now through unions and other forms of organization of the “working class” against the capitalists. That’s a party platform plank for the DSA.

The funny part of this one is the contradiction they wrote in their own stupid platform. Remember a few points ago when they said that the police won’t be allowed to unionize against them? Now they say that workers will be allowed to form, join, and strike with their unions regardless of industry. That clearly means these unions do not include any industries that might be able to be used against their DSA Communist agenda.

...

NB: Somewhere in the above, there was a point about the DSA fighting corruption, which sounds pretty good until you know how Mao Zedong did that in his CCP-controled People’s Republic of China. I regret forgetting to tell you about it then.

He launched two campaigns against corruption in business and in the government early on in the 1950s, soon after he took control. They were called the “Three-Antis Campaign” and the “Five-Antis Campaign.” Obviously, they were against three and then five forms of corruption.

All of the forms of corruption they were against were vaguely defined but sounded good in name. In practice, Mao just used them to purge all of his political enemies and rivals, to do a professional reign of terror (kinda like DEI did to us -- it was a Omni-Antis Campaign, really), and consolidate his political power throughout the government and all business in the PRC.

You really shouldn’t trust dirty Communists ever, but you really, really shouldn’t trust them when they tell you they’re going to fight corruption. Theirs will never count, and the terms will be vague enough to destroy anyone they want to destroy.

...

So this is the last point. I don’t need another post as a capstone, so I’ll just close by saying this DSA platform is

1) Communist, undeniably
2) Marxist-Leninist, specifically, with hints of Mao throughout
3) Ridiculously radical
4) Actually impossible
5) Totally unrealistic
6) Anti-Constitutional and Anti-American, explicitly
7) Designed to benefit our enemies abroad, even in wartime
8) Actually sedition and treason if enacted, and perhaps under the conspiracy called their organizational structure
9) Satisfactory proof that no DSA member can in good faith take an oath of office or public trust, or of American citizenship, which we should act upon stringently in accordance with our constitutions and laws without apology, immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

We will stop the Communists!

We will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!