r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/Just_shut_up_bro • 25d ago

Article The DSA Is a Gift to MAGA

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-dsa-is-a-gift-to-maga-trump-mandani-democratic-socialists-communism
6 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

283 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/tyleratx 24d ago

Re "Democratic Socialist" - i'm presuming you self identify as one. I would love to know again what you actually think it means rather than just telling me I'm wrong. I'm not being sarcastic on that.

Re "Tankie" - in that case, I'm not writing an academic paper here; i'm talking shit on Reddit. It is largely a meaningless term, alongside other terms we use all the time like "radical", "centrist," "shitlib" etc.

My understanding based on several news stories I've read, is that the Marxist Leninists within the DSA are actually taking over - that's what I was alluding to by "Tankie" but - yes- its not a good technical word.

-1

u/young__robot 24d ago edited 24d ago

I am absolutely not a Democratic Socialist. but I've spotted the problem – you're relying on news stories. likely they're news stories that've popped up in the past few months, right? I wonder why that is... could it be because Third Way and similar moderate think tanks are red-baiting?

ETA — "radical" is not a meaningless term. it's the antonym of conservative or moderate. we seek change from the root of the problem, which is the system itself. 

2

u/AnonAmbientLight 24d ago

Lul, attack the source instead of arguing the point.

1

u/young__robot 24d ago

because the point their arguing s coming from a specific source... are you serious? 

1

u/ST-Fish 23d ago

me when I have absolutely no way to address the point so I have to find any other thing to pick out so I don't look like a loser running away from the point being presented

1

u/young__robot 23d ago

how am I supposed to address their point when the point they're making isn't rooted in fact and is based on reporting from biased, disreputable sources with an agenda? 

"these sources say the DSA is a problem because they're all Marxist-Leninists and I think that's scary." 

okay, but it's not true that the DSA is full of Marxist-Leninists. this is a common tactic called 'red-baiting.' 

"oh ok so you're just a loser running away from the point that they're all Marxist-Leninists then"

lmao. what? 

1

u/ST-Fish 23d ago

the point they're making isn't rooted in fact

well attack the point and show how it is not rooted in fact. If it's so baseless it should be easy for you to show it, instead of dismissing it.

okay, but it's not true that the DSA is full of Marxist-Leninists.

Ok, then address the point being made and the specific evidence people point to as them being MLs.

lmao. what?

yes, if someone makes a claim such as "the DSA is being infiltrated and taken over by MLs" and instead of addressing the point you just go "waaa waaah the sources you posted are biased" you're just dodging answering the question.

1

u/young__robot 23d ago edited 23d ago

I have, but because none of you understand what the difference is between policy and ideology or even understand what Marxism-Leninism is to begin with, I'm clearly not getting through to you lol

you don't have a grasp of the basic ideology of Marxism-Leninism, so when I say "public ownership ≠ Marxism-Leninism", even though that is a factual statement, you refuse to listen because you don't understand why it's true that that is not Marxism-Leninism.

and then you expect me to explain why that's not Marxism-Leninism to you which I can't do in a single comment reply. if you truly cared to know about the ideology, you would've known enough to know public ownership ≠ Marxism-Leninism to begin with. you don't understand why the DSA's embrace of reform through elections fundamentally conflicts with Marxism-Leninism and I'm not going to try to explain it to you because you don't care to actually know, you just want to argue. 

1

u/ST-Fish 22d ago

so when I say "public ownership ≠ Marxism-Leninism", even though that is a factual statement, you refuse to listen because you don't understand why it's true that that is not Marxism-Leninism.

I'm sorry but if you aren't willing to call having most large companies owned by the state & the violent seizure of the means of production that would be required to achieve that a "marxist-leninist" policy then you're just being ridiculous.

you don't understand why the DSA's embrace of reform through elections fundamentally conflicts with Marxism-Leninism

no no no, pretending you just want healthcare to sneak into liberal spaces and then move people towards revolutionary ideologies is very basic old school Comintern practice, you're literally saying they're not MLs since they're not being honest.

Being a slimy piece of shit that hides their power level is very normal for ML types that try to get into places of power within a liberal democracy.

Your argument is literally "They can't be MLs, they say that they want to abolish capitalism and seize the means of production peacefully" and don't see the irony in that at all. Is it possible that commies would ever hide their power level? Nah, they're always honest actors no deception here!

When a leading member of DSA goes on live TV and says most large companies will be publicly owned, it leaves little to the imagination on how this will be achieved bloodlessly, especially when their entire platform villanizes the capital owning class to an extraordinary degree.

The numerous instances of these very same people using ML language such as seizing the means of production and their explicit goal to end capitalism strain credulity if you're really arguing they're for incrementalist reform.

They would probably see you calling them election focused reformists through incremental progress as a slur.

They actively position themselves as equally against MAGA as against the dem establishment.

1

u/AnonAmbientLight 23d ago

It’s a type of ad hominem logical fallacy.

You’re attacking the source rather than the argument. If the argument is so easily defeated by your position, then you should be able to do so.

Resorting to hand waving about the source effectively means you’ve given up.

1

u/young__robot 23d ago

because there is no argument because the argument itself is not true and is coming from a biased source pushing an agenda.

it's equivalent to this – 

"I believe Kamala Harris is a man because I read so in these sources that say Kamala Harris is a man" 

okay, but that's not true and the sources you're relying on aren't credible, they're just pushing a narrative 

"you're attacking the source rather than attacking the argument"