Section VIII — The Verdict: Is the Fear Founded?
Be direct. The fear is not unfounded. But it requires precision to be useful.
What is NOT the risk
- DSA will not “vote in communism” through normal elections. The U.S. constitutional structure — federalism, the 5th Amendment takings clause, Senate supermajority requirements for major legislation, judicial review — creates enormous friction against any rapid socialist transformation.
- DSA elected officials in Congress are a small minority and cannot impose their program unilaterally.
What IS the risk
- The one-way door problem is real. Policies that eliminate private alternatives (single-payer replacing private insurance, rent control destroying developer economics, energy nationalization deterring private investment) create irreversible structural shifts. Once enacted and allowed to take effect, these policies are genuinely difficult to reverse — not because of conspiracy, but because the reversal requires rebuilding industries that have ceased to exist.
- The incentive destruction is real. Even partial implementation of the program produces the predicted responses: capital flight, investment retreat, supply shortages in targeted sectors. These are not political attacks on DSA — they are the mechanistic responses of rational economic actors to changed incentives. They are as predictable as water flowing downhill.
- The dependency creation is real. Every expansion of government provision creates a constituency for its continuation. This is not unique to socialism — Medicare and Social Security face the same dynamic. But DSA's program is designed to expand government provision into sectors (housing, healthcare, energy) where private alternatives currently function reasonably well, creating dependencies in sectors that don't currently have them.
- The “crisis as opportunity” framing is documented. DSA's intellectual leadership does not apologize for viewing crises as political opportunities. They see a destabilized capitalism as a moment when socialist alternatives become credible. This means the reform program and the crisis program are not separate — the reforms that produce crisis are the pathway to the deeper transformation.
| The Honest Verdict The question is not whether DSA's program is a secret Communist plot. It is whether DSA's program, implemented on its own terms and through entirely legal means, produces outcomes that require Communist-style government control to manage. The evidence from economic theory and historical precedent says: yes, it does. Not immediately. Not through conspiracy. But through the entirely predictable, well-documented response of economic actors to changed incentives -- withdrawal, underinvestment, shortage, crisis -- followed by the entirely predictable political response to crisis: more government. The fear is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition. |
|---|
The deepest problem with DSA's program is not that it is dishonest, though the ownership obfuscation comes close. The deepest problem is that it may be sincere. Leaders who genuinely believe that taxation and regulation can achieve the “abolition of capitalism” without the economic disruptions described above are not lying to their followers -- they are wrong about economics. And wrong about economics, when you hold the levers of a $27 trillion economy, is a category of error the country cannot easily survive.
Appendix A — References
References follow APA 7th edition format.
Sunkara, B. (2019). The socialist manifesto: The case for radical politics in an era of extreme inequality. Basic Books.
Federal Reserve. (2024). Financial accounts of the United States: Flow of funds (Q4 2024). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/
Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Democratic Socialists of America. (2024). DSA platform: Workers deserve more. https://platform.dsausa.org/program/
Democratic Socialists of America. (2021). National convention resolutions: Foreign policy. dsausa.org.
Diamond, J. (2014, December 19). France abandons 75% supertax. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tax-supertax-idUSKBN0JX1M320141219
The Economist. (2014, January 4). France's supertax: Surrendering. The Economist.
Mises, L. von. (1920). Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth. In F. A. Hayek (Ed.), Collectivist economic planning (pp. 87–130). Routledge. (Original work published 1920)
Norberg, J. (2003). In defense of global capitalism. Cato Institute Press.
Guriev, S., & Rachinsky, A. (2005). The role of oligarchs in Russian capitalism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147994
Weyland, K. (2009). The rise of Latin America's two lefts: Insights from rentier state theory. Comparative Politics, 41(2), 145–164.
Goodman, J. B., & Pauly, L. W. (1993). The obsolescence of capital controls? Economic management in an age of global markets. World Politics, 46(1), 50–82.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Investment Company Institute. (2024). 2024 investment company fact book. ICI. https://www.icifactbook.org/
National Association of Realtors. (2024). Home equity data and statistics. NAR. https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics
Kristiansen, E. G. (2017). The Nordic model. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.231
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.
5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution (Takings Clause). (1791). U.S. Const. amend. V.