After sifting through the ones and ones of the emails from my tens and tens of fans, I figured I’d better get cracking on an actual submission this week. And boy was it a target-rich environment.
This week I want to venture into a topic I delved into previously because it’s gained a lot more attention recently. Plus, I’m big into recycling, especially if it’s my own writing. In recent weeks, the Democratic Socialists of America have found their way into political relevancy, both because of winning primaries and because of politicians supporting them. But a recent Fox News interview with a DSA co-chair leaves the Left in a precarious situation.
And by precarious, I mean utterly mockable.
Democratic Socialists of America
What the Left thinks it means – a new and long overdue progressive movement that will bring equality and justice to America
What it really means – a new and very underdone progressive movement that sucks ass
The concept of democratic socialism sounds good on paper. The way the DSA explains it makes it sound so logical and appealing. I mean, who wouldn’t want more of a say in government and how it wastes…I mean spends our tax dollars? We should really take back our power from the greedy corporations who are running everything into the ground and join with our neighbors so we can build a better tomorrow.
Yeah, that and $5 will gets you a hand job from a crack whore…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
The problem with what the DSA promotes is it’s all bullshit. And it’s not even good quality bullshit, either. It’s Temu/Great Value bullshit, if that.
The core of DSA’s platform is anti-capitalism. In their own words:
Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society….
We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.
Where do I begin with this? Well, first off, the DSA has a below rudimentary understanding of just what capitalism is. Here’s a very simple definition of capitalism from Investopedia.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit-driven activity.
Now, if you’re observant and have an IQ higher than that of table salt, you’ll notice there’s an important word in the definition of capitalism that undercuts the DSA’s description of it. And if you’re a Leftist, I’ll tell you so you don’t spend the next few weeks trying to figure it out.
It’s the word “voluntary.”
Capitalism isn’t a system where people are forced to take any action whatsoever. Everything done under capitalism is done by choice. If you have a job, you choose to go there. If you buy groceries, you choose to do that. If a company puts out a certain type of widget, that’s a choice. Seems to this humble observer that’s…freedom.
Compare that to the DSA’s description. Based on them, all commerce is forced by the producers. In order to create a Democratic Socialistic society, the DSA would have to take from the producers and give it to the consumers. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t think that’s freedom, kids.
Not to mention, the DSA overlooks the power consumers already have. Remember Crystal Pepsi? I do. You know why it’s no longer prominently sold? Because enough people thought it fucking sucked. New Coke? Same thing. Potato chips made with Olestra? Off to the great outhouse in the sky, along with a lot of Taco Bell meals. (Too soon?) All of these (except for the Taco Bell) is a direct result of consumers not wanting the products the corporations put out for consumption.
You know what’s still on the market? Mountain Fucking Dew! And that’s because people like it and keep buying it in all of its multicolored variations. Imagine an economic and political movement whose core beliefs can be destroyed by Mountain Fucking Dew. And that includes Caffeine Free Diet Mountain Dew, which takes away two of the reasons people buy Mountain Dew in the first place.
Now, let’s talk about the platform itself. Or more specifically, the shit they think is important. For their “Socialist Summit” which will be going on when this piece goes live, here is a short list of programming tracks.
– how the DSA can win elections
– promoting a general workers’ strike on May Day
– Palestine
– abolishing ICE
– organizing so more DSA candidates win
And the best part? Registration for the Socialists Summit is $200. Oh, and they suggest bringing food and water for yourself because a meal won’t be provided. But if you need childcare, you can let them know!
And they have an online merch store.
And they have membership tiers, complete with increasing prices.
And it’s not voluntary. If you want to join the DSA, you have to pay.
See what I’m getting at here? The DSA is a marching contradiction. They can talk all about how they’re for the common person, but they’re just as invested in capitalism as those they want to topple.
Now, here’s the really funny part. The DSA is making electoral strides only because Democrats are so pathetically weak right now. Let me put it this way: in the face of the DSA, the DNC would surrender before the French would. Part of this is because Democrat leadership is a contradiction in terms. More to the point, though, this void in leadership has left an opening for fringe players unhappy with the aforementioned void to step in and be loud, giving the illusion of popularity.
As of July 2026, there are over 120,000 members of the DSA. In comparison, there are 45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026. Granted there may be some crossover voters, but let’s assume for the purposes of this sketch the numbers are right. A major political party of 45 million is kissing the ring of a group that represents less than 1% of its own voting base.
Pardon my French, but WHAT IN THE WILD WORLD OF FUCK? You literally have the numbers to make the DSA your bitches, but you can’t.
Or won’t.
Modern Democrat politics and Leftist politics revolve around the same thing: capitalizing on buzzwords they think voters want to hear. That’s why Bernie “Three Houses” Sanders and the Socialist Socialite continue to blabber on about the oligarchy (which is ironic given the fact they are the oligarchy and rarely vote against their peers who are also the oligarchy). It’s never about actual policy anymore. Trying to pin down a Leftist on a policy position is like trying to staple Jello to the wall using a banana. It might work at Lutheran potlucks, but not where it counts.
While Democrats struggle with how to handle the influx of Democratic Socialists, their indecision/silence is speaking volumes. The leadership is flummoxed, the party faithful are either staying quiet or supporting the DSA, and the rest of us are noticing what’s going on. In this case, my Democrat friends, silence is consent. Or is it violence? Maybe it’s infrastructure. Either way, you have to say or do something to not look like cowards, fence-sitters, or comrades. (Yes, I know that’s more communism than Democratic Socialism, but they’re not that far away from each other.)
One final note on Democratic Socialism that has always bothered me. The term makes it sound like we can vote in socialism, which I don’t mind necessarily because it’s still the will of the people. Stupid people, I grant you, but people nonetheless. If we can vote in socialism via Democratic Socialism, can we vote it out again?
Still not getting a line on that question from the DSA, so I’m assuming the answer is “we haven’t thought that far ahead yet.”
While I continue to prime my cryogenic chamber to wait for the answer, I suggest keeping an eye out for the Democratic Socialists of America. Partially because they seem to be gathering steam and may take over the Democrat Party relatively soon. But mostly because it’s fun watching them saying capitalism is bad while posting on social media using the latest smartphones.
Tag: democratic socialism
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Well, the pre-midterm election results didn’t turn out so well for the Republicans, with Democrats making strides in several contests. One area of note is in the Big Apple, where voters overwhelmingly elected Zohran Mamdani to be the next Mayor. He ran as a democratic socialist, which is just a fancy term for a regular socialist who wants Democrat donations.
Anyway, this has sparked a discussion about socialism in general. The Left is crowing about how Mamdani represents a new way forward while simultaneously telling us we don’t know enough about socialism to appreciate it.
Challenge accepted.
socialism
What the Left thinks it means – a viable socioeconomic/political model that works time and time again
What it really means – an non-viable socioeconomic/political model that doesn’t work more often than it works
The most important place to start in this discussion is what socialism actually means. You know, aside from the definition I posed above. Our good friends at Dictionary.com define socialism thus:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
More on this third definition later.
What Leftists say is a key feature of socialism is fairness. Everything is fair, everyone contributes to the overall good, and everything is rainbows, unicorns, and unlimited trips to the salad bar with any meal purchase. Socialism’s PR has gotten so good these days, around two-thirds of Democrats see it in a positive light.
And I can understand the appeal, especially with younger voters. The current capitalist system doesn’t seem to work for anyone but the wealthy, leaving many people out in the cold. People having to take on multiple jobs just to keep their heads above water. Everything’s getting more expensive. Surely there has to be a better way forward.
There is, but socialism ain’t it, kids.
Let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1620 when the Pilgrims were making their way to what would be called America. Because there were squabbles among the Pilgrims, leaders created a little thing the kids like to call the Mayflower Compact. Although it sounded good on paper and advocated for such things as self-governance and no religious oppression, it was by and large a socialist approach.
And, surprise surprise, it didn’t work! Who could have seen this coming? (I mean aside from anyone who stayed awake in junior high American history from back in my day.)
If you think that was the only time we dabbled in socialism, there’s also Social Security. What started out with good intentions became a socialist nightmare that is running out of money, partially because of demographics, and partially because Congress has been taking money out of it for decades and not returning it.
Then, there’s public education, care through the VA, SNAP, public defenders, and other not-so-goods and service that fall under the socialist umbrella. Even when you have moderately successful concepts like public roads and fire departments, they still aren’t quite socialist because they serve a common good, while socialism just claims to serve. You can count on the remaining hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of socialist programs and ideas that have worked to everyone’s satisfaction.
That may be one of the underlying reasons younger voters are okay with socialism: they haven’t been taught shit about the failures of socialism, even on our shores. Sure, they learned all about how the Pilgrims were evil white colonizers who slaughtered Native Americans, but they just didn’t get to the part where they tried their hand at an early version of socialism and got their asses handed to them. But in the defense of public education, they just don’t have time to cover how fucked up socialism is because they have to make room for a deep dive into how Taylor Swift is such a cultural icon.
And I only wish I were half-kidding.
Educational standards going down like a starlet trying to get a movie deal from Harvey Weinstein aside, I don’t think capitalism has made a good enough argument to the past couple of generations, mainly because capitalists know it’s the best thing going today. Even so, it might not hurt to advertise a bit more. I mean, it’s easy to be a socialist when you have the latest iPhone, drink Starbucks on the regular, and make money posting TikTok videos. When the rubber meets the road, though, it’s a lot harder to live in a socialist society.
That’s because one of the dirty little secrets of socialism is it only works as long as they have OPM: Other People’s Money. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. If you’re spending your own money, you tend to be more frugal. If you’re spending someone else’s money, the sky’s the limit, baby!
Socialism works on the same principle. As long as they can take money from the wealthy, things can work. But then it runs into a brick wall called human nature. Even if you’re the most progressive guy or gal (gender count: still 2) out there, at some point you’re going to be confronted with the real possibility you’re putting in more than you’re getting back. Then, you have to make a value judgment: stay within the current system, or high-tail it out of there.
Then, socialism runs into the potential for income erosion. As the wealthier members of a socialist society die off or move on, that not only eliminates their protection money…I mean contributions, it puts more pressure on the next lowest wealth base. Then, if/when they’re off the books, it goes down to the next lowest wealth base.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
What most people who subscribe to socialism don’t understand is as long as their is wealth erosion, there will come a time when they’re the wealthiest because everyone else will be poorer than they are. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Even if you attempt to dress up socialism by giving it a cool name like Logan or democratic socialism, you’re still going to run into the same problems. And the reason is the same: socialism fucking sucks, man! Although if it were named Logan, it would be cool while it sucked.
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the third definition of socialism? If not, read up a bit and you’ll see it.
Anyway, it’s interesting to note Marxists used socialism as a lead-in to communism. The way I describe it is this: socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP. By nature, I’ve found socialists by and large aren’t that into violence. You’ll get the occasional socialist with a bike lock and a bad attitude and tries to start something, but most of them are pretty calm. Their hearts are in the right place, as are their facial features because they’re not getting knocked the fuck out.
Communists, on the other hand…well, they’re not exactly the “live and let live” type. Violence is a part of their political brand. I can’t say for certain how many socialists would be okay with communism, but I have to think the number is higher than 1, especially when you consider the Left’s hunger for control. That’s pretty much right out of the communist playbook (or manifesto if you will). It’s almost as if communists knew socialism would fail and further steps would need to be taken.
You know, like cracking skulls and oppression?
I know I’ve shit on socialism worse than if I’d had a Triple Bean Burrito with a side order of salmonella from Taco Bell that’s been sitting in a van in the Mojave Desert since the last time Bon Jovi made a good album (which is never), but I don’t shit on socialists themselves very much. To me, they’re misguided, but have hearts of gold. Or at least would have hearts of gold until their socialist buddies found out and accused them of hoarding wealth.
Having said that, I can’t bring myself to join their ideology because I know too much. I’ve seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Warsaw Pact countries, and the rise of a more egocentric approach to life in general, none of which bode well for socialism working in this country. Yet, I still wish Zohran Mamdani the best of luck in his attempt to create a socialistic utopia in a city weirder than I am. If he succeeds, I’ll admit freely. If he fails, I’ll mock him endlessly.
Let’s just say I’m betting the under on his success rate.