Socialism is authoritarianism of the collective in theory, and plain old dictatorship and totalitarianism in practice. It is the "cure" that is worse than the illness.
“Authoritarianism of the collective” sounds just as stupid as “dictatorship of the proletariat” but saying that socialism, which means democracy by definition, is dictatorship and totalitarianism in practice is like saying that capitalism means liberty and democracy in practice. It sounds absurd on its face and it’s even more ridiculous when you think about it for ten seconds.
In theory, socialism does mean democracy, the sort of democracy the US founders feared, which results in a tyranny of the majority. You got a problem with that assessment? Take it up with Hamilton and Madison.
In practice, while many socialist countries call themselves republics, their elections are shams and there is only ever one ruling party. Socialism always ends up as dictatorship.
Every socialist group defines socialism differently, which influences its actions, even if that definition isn’t always clear. When the Democratic Socialists of America uses the word “socialism,” it does not offer a clear, fixed meaning. Instead, the term often stands in for a strategy and sometimes for avoiding difficult choices regarding that strategy. The question of definition is not just about words. What an organization means by socialism guides what it sees as progress, which in turn influences the daily work of its members, the actions of its elected officials, and the expectations placed on everyone involved. For instance, DSA’s varying interpretation of socialism has shaped decisions such as the endorsement and legislative priorities of members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the New York City slate. In some cases, the organization has backed policies like rent control, the creation of public banks, or support for Medicare for All, presenting them as steps toward socialism under one definition, while hesitating to commit to more disruptive demands like municipal ownership of utilities or breaking with the Democratic ballot line. These choices show how the lack of a fixed meaning allows DSA to adapt its strategy to different campaigns and political conjunctures, making the boundaries of “socialism” in practice dependent on immediate strategic needs. In this way, a definition serves as a form of discipline or highlights instances where discipline is lacking.
This essay has three main goals. First, I explore the meaning of socialism as defined by DSA at its founding, with a focus on Michael Harrington’s ideas that shaped the group for 20 years. Second, I explore what DSA means by socialism today, noting the difference between its official documents—which have become more radical—and its actual practices, which have changed less. Third, I compare DSA’s current definition with a Marxist view of socialism, examining four key areas: the state, the agent, the content, and the movement form. My main argument is that while DSA’s official language has become more radical since 2016, this shift is mostly on paper. In practice, little has changed in these four areas. The gap between DSA’s rhetoric and its actions is not merely a phase of growth; it is the breeding ground for careerism within the organization’s electoral wing. By careerism, I mean a pattern in which individuals use their positions in the organization, especially elected offices, primarily to advance their own political careers rather than to further the collective goals of socialism. This lack of a clear definition allows careerism to thrive.
Textbook socialism is public ownership of the means of production via the state. This is the explicit goal of the DSA, and that tells us all we need to know.
Working-class/social ownership of the means of production: yes, explicitly, in binding documents. The 2021 Political Platform (still the operative full platform, amended in 2023) contains, in its labor section, the demand for "social ownership of all major industry and infrastructure," framed by the statement that the class must become "capable of transforming the relationships of ownership and production, from the current system of exploitation and private accumulation, into a socialized system that serves the common good." The preamble commits DSA to "a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution"—language lifted directly from the constitution's Article II, so it's foundational, not just conjunctural. The current "Workers Deserve More!" program (2025–26) says the goal is a socialist society in which "the largest corporations are put under public ownership and democratic control," reached via "a new democratic constitution" and "a government by, for, and of the working class. " Note the qualifiers, though: "major industry," "largest corporations," and "key economic drivers"—the organization's economic vision has consistently involved a mixture of public ownership, worker ownership, and market mechanisms, with the 2016 "Resistance Rising" document assigning democratic planning to strategic sectors while market-driven worker-owned firms handle consumer goods. So it's social ownership of the commanding heights, not generalized abolition of private property in means of production. Proposed DSA Political Platform for 2021 Convention - The American Mind +6
"Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution... based on proportional representation in a single federal legislature," and the 2021 platform's call for "a new political order through a second constitutional convention to write the founding documents of a new socialist democracy." This is, of course, the Marxist Unity Group's deliberate strategy—smuggling the Kautskyan/Draperite content of the DoP (the democratic republic as the form of working-class rule) into the platform while avoiding the term. And it's advancing: the rebooted platform adopted by the NPC in June 2026 reportedly calls for replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress—passing the NPC by a razor-thin margin, with the full text to debut at the Chicago summit from July 31 to August 2. That's a demand to abolish the separation of powers in favor of a unitary sovereign legislature—Marx's reading of the Commune in constitutional form—without ever saying "dictatorship." Program - DSA Platform - Democratic Socialists of America + 2
Expropriation of the capitalist class: not in the official platform vocabulary. The adopted documents use "social ownership," "public ownership," "decommodification," and (in draft language) "nationalize and socialize (through worker and community ownership and control) institutions of monetary policy, insurance, real estate, and finance"—but the word "expropriate" and the concept of uncompensated seizure are absent from binding national texts. Where expropriation language lives is in the caucuses: Marxist Unity Group's program has the democratic socialist republic expropriating the "commanding heights" of the economy, with demands including expropriation of utilities, infrastructure, and finance. The distinction between nationalization (implying purchase or compensation) and expropriation (implying confiscation) is never resolved in the official documents—they're simply silent on the mechanism and on compensation
With a liberal democratic system, expropriation is implicit in any program that seeks public or social ownership of the means of production. Besides this, the DSA platform is rife with other statements exhibiting antipathy to private enterprise. Socialists would literally have to overturn the US constitution to achieve their ultimate goals. Many voters don't understand this, because the DSA is playing a game of bait-and-switch, selling the social democracy, while planning to end private enterprise and all other civil rights that the Americans value highly and replace them with the authoritarianism of the collective, in the name of "social justice." Fuck that shit.
Reread the above article. The author cites the founder of the DSA. And then read the DSA's platform online. It is in there. Better to get it from the horse's mouth than some nobody like me on the Internet.
With all the acronyms being tossed around, I don't see FDR or WPA or CCC or TVA. Socialism did work here, and it BUILT this country.
Socialism is authoritarianism of the collective in theory, and plain old dictatorship and totalitarianism in practice. It is the "cure" that is worse than the illness.
Oh absolutely, if you don’t understand the first thing about the world or what words mean.
I choose my words carefully and know exactly what they mean.
“Authoritarianism of the collective” sounds just as stupid as “dictatorship of the proletariat” but saying that socialism, which means democracy by definition, is dictatorship and totalitarianism in practice is like saying that capitalism means liberty and democracy in practice. It sounds absurd on its face and it’s even more ridiculous when you think about it for ten seconds.
In theory, socialism does mean democracy, the sort of democracy the US founders feared, which results in a tyranny of the majority. You got a problem with that assessment? Take it up with Hamilton and Madison.
In practice, while many socialist countries call themselves republics, their elections are shams and there is only ever one ruling party. Socialism always ends up as dictatorship.
Every socialist group defines socialism differently, which influences its actions, even if that definition isn’t always clear. When the Democratic Socialists of America uses the word “socialism,” it does not offer a clear, fixed meaning. Instead, the term often stands in for a strategy and sometimes for avoiding difficult choices regarding that strategy. The question of definition is not just about words. What an organization means by socialism guides what it sees as progress, which in turn influences the daily work of its members, the actions of its elected officials, and the expectations placed on everyone involved. For instance, DSA’s varying interpretation of socialism has shaped decisions such as the endorsement and legislative priorities of members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the New York City slate. In some cases, the organization has backed policies like rent control, the creation of public banks, or support for Medicare for All, presenting them as steps toward socialism under one definition, while hesitating to commit to more disruptive demands like municipal ownership of utilities or breaking with the Democratic ballot line. These choices show how the lack of a fixed meaning allows DSA to adapt its strategy to different campaigns and political conjunctures, making the boundaries of “socialism” in practice dependent on immediate strategic needs. In this way, a definition serves as a form of discipline or highlights instances where discipline is lacking.
This essay has three main goals. First, I explore the meaning of socialism as defined by DSA at its founding, with a focus on Michael Harrington’s ideas that shaped the group for 20 years. Second, I explore what DSA means by socialism today, noting the difference between its official documents—which have become more radical—and its actual practices, which have changed less. Third, I compare DSA’s current definition with a Marxist view of socialism, examining four key areas: the state, the agent, the content, and the movement form. My main argument is that while DSA’s official language has become more radical since 2016, this shift is mostly on paper. In practice, little has changed in these four areas. The gap between DSA’s rhetoric and its actions is not merely a phase of growth; it is the breeding ground for careerism within the organization’s electoral wing. By careerism, I mean a pattern in which individuals use their positions in the organization, especially elected offices, primarily to advance their own political careers rather than to further the collective goals of socialism. This lack of a clear definition allows careerism to thrive.
https://anthonyteso.substack.com/p/a-word-in-search-of-its-class-what?r=2sbdk&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Textbook socialism is public ownership of the means of production via the state. This is the explicit goal of the DSA, and that tells us all we need to know.
Could you provide a textbook citation?
Socialism by (socialist economist) Robert Heilbroner, whose works are commonly used for economics courses.
Working-class/social ownership of the means of production: yes, explicitly, in binding documents. The 2021 Political Platform (still the operative full platform, amended in 2023) contains, in its labor section, the demand for "social ownership of all major industry and infrastructure," framed by the statement that the class must become "capable of transforming the relationships of ownership and production, from the current system of exploitation and private accumulation, into a socialized system that serves the common good." The preamble commits DSA to "a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution"—language lifted directly from the constitution's Article II, so it's foundational, not just conjunctural. The current "Workers Deserve More!" program (2025–26) says the goal is a socialist society in which "the largest corporations are put under public ownership and democratic control," reached via "a new democratic constitution" and "a government by, for, and of the working class. " Note the qualifiers, though: "major industry," "largest corporations," and "key economic drivers"—the organization's economic vision has consistently involved a mixture of public ownership, worker ownership, and market mechanisms, with the 2016 "Resistance Rising" document assigning democratic planning to strategic sectors while market-driven worker-owned firms handle consumer goods. So it's social ownership of the commanding heights, not generalized abolition of private property in means of production. Proposed DSA Political Platform for 2021 Convention - The American Mind +6
"Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution... based on proportional representation in a single federal legislature," and the 2021 platform's call for "a new political order through a second constitutional convention to write the founding documents of a new socialist democracy." This is, of course, the Marxist Unity Group's deliberate strategy—smuggling the Kautskyan/Draperite content of the DoP (the democratic republic as the form of working-class rule) into the platform while avoiding the term. And it's advancing: the rebooted platform adopted by the NPC in June 2026 reportedly calls for replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress—passing the NPC by a razor-thin margin, with the full text to debut at the Chicago summit from July 31 to August 2. That's a demand to abolish the separation of powers in favor of a unitary sovereign legislature—Marx's reading of the Commune in constitutional form—without ever saying "dictatorship." Program - DSA Platform - Democratic Socialists of America + 2
Expropriation of the capitalist class: not in the official platform vocabulary. The adopted documents use "social ownership," "public ownership," "decommodification," and (in draft language) "nationalize and socialize (through worker and community ownership and control) institutions of monetary policy, insurance, real estate, and finance"—but the word "expropriate" and the concept of uncompensated seizure are absent from binding national texts. Where expropriation language lives is in the caucuses: Marxist Unity Group's program has the democratic socialist republic expropriating the "commanding heights" of the economy, with demands including expropriation of utilities, infrastructure, and finance. The distinction between nationalization (implying purchase or compensation) and expropriation (implying confiscation) is never resolved in the official documents—they're simply silent on the mechanism and on compensation
Sources?
With a liberal democratic system, expropriation is implicit in any program that seeks public or social ownership of the means of production. Besides this, the DSA platform is rife with other statements exhibiting antipathy to private enterprise. Socialists would literally have to overturn the US constitution to achieve their ultimate goals. Many voters don't understand this, because the DSA is playing a game of bait-and-switch, selling the social democracy, while planning to end private enterprise and all other civil rights that the Americans value highly and replace them with the authoritarianism of the collective, in the name of "social justice." Fuck that shit.
Socialism by (socialist economist) Robert Heilbroner, whose works are commonly used for economics courses.
You posted that "This is the explicit goal of the DSA." Where is that explicitly stated?
No, a DSA document or evidence that DSA adopted textbook socialism as you defined it
Reread the above article. The author cites the founder of the DSA. And then read the DSA's platform online. It is in there. Better to get it from the horse's mouth than some nobody like me on the Internet.
You made the claim; you need to provide the evidence.