Socialism is genuinely un-American
By: Hugo Gurdon
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
At a 2005 party for American Prometheus, Kai Bird’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, discussion about the great man, father of the atom bomb, turned toward his suffering during the Red Scare of the late 1940s and 1950s. He had come under official suspicion and was hounded for his communist sympathies and friends, some of whom were Soviet spies.At a point in this conversation more than 20 years ago, an English journalist said he did not understand why Americans won't or can't see socialism simply as one among many possible forms of government to choose from, but regard it instead as wholly incompatible with the idea of America.
As uncomprehending as this statement was of this country, it also hit a truth: Few Americans at that time, and until recently, have seen socialism in the same way that most other places in the world see it. It has not been merely disliked more here than elsewhere, although that is the case, but recognized as poisonous to the air of American freedom we breathe. Socialism is toxic, and has long been understood to be toxic, to the political culture in which Americans have been formed for 250 years.
This is not simply a hangover from the epoch of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and any excesses that may have been committed in the name of anti-communism three-quarters of a century ago. Indeed, those excesses, if they can properly be called that after the Red Scare was vindicated by evidence that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have left a lingering cultural disquiet among many of our compatriots at the notion that any ideas can be "un-American." To propose such a thing is to risk being condemned as a hateful reactionary or a fascist. Bluntly expressed, anti-communism has long been thought to be in poor taste.
America has also moved a long way leftward since the middle of the 20th century, and ideas that were shocking then and were understood by many to be antithetical to our interests and values are now often accepted as normal and reasonable. Democrats and other radicals have poured them so copiously into mainstream politics that we've become used to them.
But that doesn't mean the nature of those ideas has changed or that the question of whether they are compatible with American principles and ways has become redundant. It has, rather, become more pressing. In the wake of primary wins by candidates belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America, which will be followed by their inevitable entry as explicit Marxists into Congress next year, the question has become more pressing than ever. It is past time to ask again: Is socialism un-American?
It is a question that should not be put merely rhetorically or deployed as a crude insult. It is a real and vital issue, and it should be asked in a serious way. Is it possible for the ideas, assumptions, and prerequisites of socialism to coexist with America? Could America survive them? America would still be here as a huge land mass and a nation (though without borders) under socialism. But would it still be recognizably America?
No, it would not. Let it be stated unequivocally that socialism is indeed un-American. Socialism constrains and controls individuals to a high degree for the ostensible common and collective good. This is the inverse of the indispensable idea of America, which is individual freedom. Socialism and America are not merely immiscible, like oil and water, but mutually exclusive like heat and cold.
The late Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn used this idea in a 1976 BBC radio address when he said that the term "democratic socialism" is "about as meaningful as talking about 'ice-cold heat.'" The word "democratic" applied to "socialism" creates an oxymoron. It is sugar coating on a cyanide pill. It is used by American socialists, wittingly or not, to tell a lie — in the same deceptive way that it was once used by the German Democratic Republic before that Warsaw Pact tyranny collapsed, and is still used by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to mislabel a system of state mass murder and incarceration. If you have socialism, you cannot have freedom and a genuine self-governing democracy. They cannot, in logic, coexist.
The Declaration of Independence makes clear that the preeminent American idea is that each person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life comes first, for without it, all other rights are meaningless. Then comes liberty — liberty within life, the freedom of each individual to choose how he or she will live. This does not mean anarchy or the absence of all legal restraint, for that would result in no liberty at all; it means liberty within the law.
Then comes the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to possess happiness itself, only to pursue it. The right to pursue happiness is, indeed, another way of describing liberty. The American idea is not that people should be guaranteed happiness, which is an obvious impossibility. Even if, for the sake of discussion, one accepted the hypothesis that happiness could be guaranteed, the only earthly power with the authority to guarantee it would be the government. An attempt by the government to do so would, as is proven by the examples of foreign tyrannies, take so much power away from individuals that it would mean an end to freedom. Solzhenitsyn, in his famous 1978 Harvard commencement address, noted that "not by coincidence, all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about man… and his earthly happiness." Socialism is a system that promises goodies but requires that you pay for them with obedience to the state and to sacrifice your freedom.
Which brings us to the manifesto published this month by the DSA. It promises among other things presumably essential to government-guaranteed happiness, a "32-hour work week with no reduction in pay or benefits," "Medicare for all with no premiums or copays," "higher education tuition-free with no out-of-pocket cost for room and board," the cancellation of "all student loan debt," "expansive paid family leave for all workers," "free public universal childcare and pre-K," and "universal rent-control."
This list of free stuff is childish and would be economically ruinous and corrosive of human dignity. But let us set aside for the moment such fairy tales and the detailed discussion and data required to demonstrate their useless fatuity. Let us turn instead to the socialists' constitutional prescriptions, for they are what make explicit and undeniable the fact that socialism is incompatible with the continued existence of America as America. They are mutually hostile.
The DSA manifesto calls for open borders and full voting rights for criminals and noncitizens, statehood for the District of Columbia (which is about to elect a Marxist mayor), abolition of the Senate filibuster, abolition of the Electoral College, and an end to the Supreme Court's ability to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional.
These prescriptions would end the Senate's role of ensuring that a majority of states, not merely an overriding mass of people in a few big states, must approve new laws. It also would mean that when new laws are passed by the House of Representatives and rammed through the powerless Senate, they could not be meaningfully reviewed or blocked by the Supreme Court. When the Constitution is pitted against the latest House of Representatives demands, the Constitution must give way.
The subordination of the presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court to the House of Representatives would require the Constitution to be rewritten wholesale. The document is the framework or architecture of America. It mandates checks and balances to ensure that majoritarian tyranny can never be established within our borders. It defines what the nation is and the way it must operate. By demanding that the Constitution be rewritten, the socialist forces now gathering momentum are declaring as explicitly as they can that they oppose what America actually is.
It is said that America is a credal nation. That is, it is a nation not founded upon ethnicity but upon certain ideas and values. It is possible to debate this at the margins, and I, for one, do not wholly accept it. But, again, set that aside for the sake of argument and let us accept that America is defined solely by acceptance of certain propositions. Those propositions, it can be further asserted, are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and given working structure and force by the Constitution that founded the United States of America.
Socialists are now here and saying plainly that they will rewrite it. That is, they do not accept the propositions. They make it as plain as possible that they want America to be something other than it is. This isn't a matter of them introducing marginal improvements but, rather, that they demand to shred what we have and what we hold. It means starting from year zero, as other revolutionaries have done, which illuminates their relentless efforts to rewrite history.
The socialists are telling us explicitly that their own creed is incompatible with America's. They cannot allow this nation to continue as it was founded. It is often remarked about terrorists who proclaim their enmity to America that we should take them at their word. When they tell us who they are and what they intend to do, we should believe them. When they tell us they hate us and intend to kill us when the chance to do so arises, don't assume they are exaggerating.
So, too, we should believe socialists when they tell us in their manifesto and their rhetoric that America as described and established in its foundational documents must be changed wholesale. The DSA manifesto is helpful in making these anti-American intentions clear. But in truth, we should never have doubted it. The socialists have been telling us this at the top of their voices for a very long time. Darializa Avila Chevalier, for example, who will enter Congress from a deep blue Democratic district in New York City in January and who is backed by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani, calls America "a f***ing disgrace" and was part of a student group that endorsed "death to America."
In this rhetoric and in other statements, the socialists go further than they do even in their official documents. They reveal a malignancy and hatred of this country. They want to bring in alien ideas hostile to those under which America has thrived. Which makes it unsurprising that so many socialists are themselves either foreign or the children of foreigners. They do not have an acculturated and assimilated instinct for what this country is. They are part of a generation that has been induced to believe that assimilation to America and its ways is wrong. They want America to assimilate to the foreign ideas that they and their parents brought with them from elsewhere.
Gustavo Gordillo, whose family left Peru to escape the communist horrors of that country's Maoist Shining Path guerrilla movement, is now co-chairman of the New York City branch of the Democratic Socialists of America. He appeared on Martha MacCallum's Fox News show, The Story, recently and told viewers that American imperialism and capitalism were to blame for Peru's woes, and therefore his family came to America. MacCallum chuckled in disbelief and commented, "That doesn't make sense."
No, it doesn't. Socialists want unfettered immigration and voting not confined to American citizens. They want to bring in foreign people and foreign ideas. They want American wealth, order, and success, but they completely reject the American ideas, values, and methods of government which make them possible.
They don't realize that you don't get the benefits without the methods and beliefs. But just because they don't know, or don't care, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't know and care. Socialism is un-American and it will wreck America — if we let it.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Yes. It's inconsistent with the declaration of independence and the constitution.
Cue the "if you support the government building roads, you support socialism" talking point from the parrots.
And just like that Trump doesn't look so bad. Anyone whining about Trump creating an existential crisis needs to look at the direction of their own party.
I'm pretty sure there are quite a few that are certain that Trump will enact martial law in late 2027 if not sooner......
Yes, but it ain't happened yet. I wonder why?
And those that will make that claim are the same ones that claim he's damaged the country (with no proof), is a rapist (with no proof), he's a dictator (with no proof).
We've heard it all for the past decade and look at what the end result has been.
All feelings based
That is all they have. And it's so damn tiresome.
And yet, here you are again...
[✘]
All the babbling presented the article completely misses the point. The reason Socialism is incompatible with America is because of the role of government. Social Democracy runs into the same problem of an autocratic central government. America was founded on the idea of decentralized government.
The reason for the babbling misdirection seems all too obvious. Neoliberalism and favoritism toward an oligarchy is also incompatible with America. Welfare for the wealthy is little different than a 'members only' Socialism. Using government for business-friendly autocratic command & control is little different than Communism for the elite.
The hair-on-fire fearmongering is actually a competition between business Communists and social Socialists. Americans are being screwed by both.
I don't think so, seems to me it's the point of the article.
From the article summation:
"No, it doesn't. Socialists want unfettered immigration and voting not confined to American citizens. They want to bring in foreign people and foreign ideas. They want American wealth, order, and success, but they completely reject the American ideas, values, and methods of government which make them possible.
They don't realize that you don't get the benefits without the methods and beliefs. But just because they don't know, or don't care, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't know and care. Socialism is un-American and it will wreck America — if we let it."
The article is built upon culture-war creedal crap. What Socialists really want is highly concentrated government control with autocratic power over all aspects of society and the economy. Socialists don't give rat's crap about immigration; that's not what Socialism is about.
The point is that neoliberals and oligarchs also want the same concentrated government control with autocratic power over all aspects of society and the economy.
Wrong interpretation. ignore the fear mongering emotional nonsense.
Nerm_L is correct.
I have read what some others that i feel are a lot more informed and intelligent on the subject of socialism is that it is born out of envy fed by greed and only shares misery . that of course supposedly came from Churchill, of course history has shown that Margret Thatcher hit the nail on the head when she pointed out it only sometimes works until you run out of other peoples funds . the theory of socialism as envisioned by Marx and Engels has never worked in practice or reality, mainly because socialism is but a single step in the theory and those that take interest think they can pump the breaks and stop the process where they wish .
Or maybe not....
This article is 5 or 6 times longer than it needed to be.
This was the most interesting line in the whole thing.
You found one line that grabbed your interest? Thanks...
Lets bring some seriousness back to these proceedings-
Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion
What democratic socialists believe
Democratic socialism — socialism pursued democratically . They advocate:
public or collective control over major industries,
workplace democracy,
weakening corporate power,
and expanding economic rights — all while preserving elections, pluralism, and civil liberties.
They reject Soviet‑style authoritarian socialism and emphasize that socialism must be both a means and an end rooted in democracy.
🛠 How this differs from other forms of socialism
Socialism (broadly) includes:
revolutionary socialism,
state‑planned economies,
market socialism,
and other variants that may or may not use democratic processes.
Democratic socialism is one subtype within that larger family — defined by method (democratic reform) and scope (structural transformation of ownership).
🧭 Where confusion comes from
Many U.S. politicians labeled “democratic socialists” (e.g., Sanders, Ocasio‑Cortez) often support policies closer to social democracy , which reforms capitalism rather than replaces it. This leads some analysts to argue they are not socialists in the strict ownership‑based sense. But the ideology of democratic socialism itself is socialist — it simply seeks socialism through democratic means.
Comparison table
Bottom line
Democratic socialists are socialists , but of a democratic, non‑authoritarian, reform‑oriented variety. They differ from both revolutionary socialists and social democrats, but they remain within the socialist tradition because they seek social ownership and economic democracy .
WTF does that mean? Have you acquainted yourself with the DSA's goals?..
Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion
The core reality
Bernie Sanders and AOC align with DSA on:
Economic justice
Labor rights
Universal healthcare
Climate policy
Opposition to corporate power
But they do not fully support the most sweeping structural changes in the DSA platform, such as:
abolishing capitalism outright,
replacing major political institutions,
eliminating private ownership of key industries,
or certain foreign‑policy positions.
Both Sanders and AOC operate inside the U.S. electoral system as elected officials. DSA’s platform is more ideologically maximalist than the positions they take in Congress.
🔍 Where they agree
Medicare for All
Green New Deal
Higher taxes on the wealthy
Stronger unions
Expanded social programs
Anti‑corporate, anti‑oligarchy politics
These are all consistent with democratic socialist principles.
🔍 Where they diverge
1. Capitalism
DSA’s platform calls for ending capitalism and replacing it with a socialist economy. Sanders and AOC do not call for abolishing capitalism; they support regulated capitalism with strong social programs — closer to social democracy .
2. Institutional restructuring
Recent DSA debates include proposals about:
replacing the presidency,
restructuring the Supreme Court,
and other major institutional changes.
Sanders and AOC have never endorsed these ideas.
3. Foreign policy
DSA’s foreign‑policy positions are often more radical than those taken by Sanders or AOC in Congress.
4. Nationalization
DSA supports public ownership of major industries. Sanders and AOC rarely call for nationalization beyond specific cases (e.g., utilities).
🧩 Why the confusion exists
Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist , but his policy agenda is closer to social democracy (like Scandinavia).
AOC is a DSA member , but she legislates within the Democratic Party and does not endorse every DSA plank.
DSA itself is a big tent , with members ranging from mild reformists to full socialists.
📌 Bottom line
Bernie Sanders and AOC agree with the values of DSA but not the full platform. They support democratic‑socialist‑inspired reforms, but they do not advocate the full socialist transformation DSA officially endorses.
There are 374 members of the Democratic Party for every 1 member of the DSA.
45,000,000/120,000
How can you support a person that believes in these things and not support these things? Do they believe the DSA will magically stop when Bernie and AOC think they have taken things far enough?
120,000 and growing larger every day. Need to squash them now. If the dem party does not then the voters need to.
Yet they are electing members of Congress and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency is a member..
Sort of like how the Bolsheviks, though a tiny minority of the socialist left, were able to win power through exploiting useful idiots who went along with them.
The red scare hysteria of the right that is going on now is a direct distraction from the catastrophe the Trump presidency is.
Mmmm... how many Republicans were there per MAGA?.....
Damn right. The DSA is the best thing to happen for the republicans to keep the house and senate in a while. You can be sure they are going to use it and scream it from the mountains. All the dems can do is claim it is a distraction away from Trump or the DSA is not really a problem even though the dems are not distancing themselves from them and welcoming them into the "tent". Too bad people have grown tired of the Trump hysteria.
Of course the republicans have 10 years to catch up to the Trump hysteria and the end of democracy claims.
‘welcoming them into the "tent".’
Because most of them fully support their positions
Yep. As the DSA keeps talking expect the trump hysteria and memes to get more shrill to try and cover for them.
I asked Chat GPT to analyze the article for the standard features in used in determining an article's worth.
You can read what it said here:
Excerpted from the same:
--------------------------------------------------------------
So what do I think? I am substantially in agreement regarding the stuff that I had ChatGPT grade the article on. My opinion of the article is that it sounds like a 50s-era dramatic soapbox opinion.
I don't give most of the DSA's major constitutional proposals even a ghost of a chance because most of them would require a constitutional convention or several major amendments to the Constitution, neither of which I can see happening in the near future. But who knows, maybe after two more years of Donald Trump, we might just be ready to majorly change the CotUS.
I do agree with some of their proposals in principle, though. I wouldn't mind if we abolished the Electoral College. The idea is anachronistic with modern society and it flies in the face of the idea of "One Man, One Vote". I am also in agreement with the ranked choice voting, the replacement of the two party system (I would like a no party system:not much chance of that), and giving suffrage rights to all permanent residents regardless of citizenship.
I reject the idea that immigrants, "...do not have an acculturated and assimilated instinct for what this country is." I think many people who have been here for 10 years or more or were born and raised here have developed a very deep appreciation of what this country is about. In many cases, that is precisely why they came here and why they stayed. To say that they cannot appreciate the USA is a nativist and nationalistic echo of Jim Crow.
SAVE YOURSELVES!!! Do away withj public libraries, police forces, public parks and YES, HIGHWAYS TOO. You have NO IDEA how much SOCIALISM you enjoy and then criiticize as being unAmerican. Ever heard of "The ship of fools"? Welcome aboard.
Don't forget to return your "pension cheques+ ie, Social Security payments and refuse Medicare treatments, lol.
Ship of fools indeed,
"Down with Chocolate Cake!! We hate Chocolate Cake!! Booo Chocolate Cake!!!"
"But Chocolate cake can be fine in moderation."
"Booo! Chocolate cake can make you a fatty!! Boo to fatties! Down with Chocolate cake!!!"
I guess America can never be trusted to do anything in moderation because, you know, Americans.
Remember when these people were the bogey men from the Tea Party?
Both the GOP and the DNC survived.
Do away withj public libraries, police forces, public parks and YES, HIGHWAYS TO
Perfect. No notes,