Stalin, Mao and Castro were not democratic socialists, but their histories still raise an important question: how much political and economic power should any government be trusted to hold?
Socialism has always sounded better in the brochure.
Equality. Fairness. Workers having a voice. An economy that works for ordinary people instead of the wealthy and powerful.
Those are attractive promises, especially when people are frustrated with the economy or convinced that the political system is not working for them.
The problem is that history gives us plenty of reasons to look beyond promises.
Before going any further, though, we should be fair about something. Socialism is a big political tent. A democratic socialist running for city council in America is not Joseph Stalin. A European social-democratic government is not Maoist China. And the Democratic Socialists of America explicitly says it rejects authoritarian socialism and wants to pursue its goals democratically.
That matters.
But so does what happened when revolutionary socialist movements actually gained enormous power.
Look at the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks spoke the language of workers, equality and liberation. Under Stalin, however, the Soviet government became one of the most repressive dictatorships of the twentieth century. Political opposition was crushed. Agriculture was forcibly collectivized. Millions of people were arrested, imprisoned, or sent to labor camps during Stalin’s purges, and many were killed.
According to the Library of Congress’s collection of material from Soviet archives, Stalin had eliminated meaningful opposition to his leadership by the mid-1930s and used terror to bring both the Communist Party and the population under his control.
China offers another example. Mao Zedong promised to transform China through the Great Leap Forward. Instead. The program created an enormous economic crisis and contributed to ruinous famines. Mao later launched the Cultural Revolution. Like, who thought this was a good idea? This led to political purges, the persecution of intellectuals, and years of upheaval. U.S. State Department historical records describe the Great Leap Forward as a “colossal failure” and document the turmoil that followed.
Then there is Cuba. Fidel Castro came to power after overthrowing the corrupt Batista government. What followed was not a competitive multiparty democracy. Cuba became a one-party communist state in which political pluralism was prohibited, independent media was restricted, and dissent was suppressed. Those restrictions remain part of Cuba’s political system today.
None of this means every socialist movement ends with a dictator. However, history tells us a different story. Socialism ends the same way every time. With a tyrant or a group of tyrants running the show.
Social-democratic parties have governed countries throughout Europe while maintaining elections, opposition parties, private businesses, and civil liberties. Modern social democracy generally functions within a mixed economy rather than eliminating private enterprise.
So, where does DSA fit?
That is where Americans should actually read what DSA says rather than relying on either conservative caricatures or progressive marketing.
DSA says it wants to replace capitalism with democratic socialism, with the end goal being communism. Its current program calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. Sounds like Communism to me; how about you? It also advocates abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate, and replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with an executive and a judiciary selected by and subordinate to Congress. Think Politburo!
Those aren’t minor adjustments to the tax code. They want to fundamentally transform America. As Mark Levin says, it is still America with a “C” not a “K”. The DSA wants to spell Amerika with a “K”! DSA’s National Electoral Commission goes further, stating that the organization’s goal is to become an independent mass socialist party and that its program ultimately seeks to “end capitalism.”
People can agree or disagree with those ideas. That’s what elections and political debate are for. But we should at least describe them accurately. The strongest lesson from the twentieth century isn’t that every person who calls himself a socialist is secretly waiting to become Stalin. That argument is too easy to knock down.
The better lesson is about power. Whenever government gains enormous control over the economy, institutions, and people’s livelihoods, the safeguards around that power become incredibly important.
Independent courts matter. Competitive elections matter. A free press matters. Private organizations outside government matter. The ability to tell political leaders “no” without losing your freedom matters.
Maybe that’s the part we ought to remember whenever somebody makes a political system capable of fixing everything. The promises are always the easy part. History tells us to spend a little more time asking what happens after someone gets the power to deliver them.
Endnotes
1. Democratic Socialists of America, “What Is Democratic Socialism?”
DSA’s description of democratic socialism and its stated rejection of authoritarian socialist systems.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
2. Democratic Socialists of America, “Workers Deserve More: Our Program.”
DSA’s current political program, including proposals concerning public ownership, the Senate, the Electoral College, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
https://program.dsausa.org/
3. Library of Congress, “Internal Workings of the Soviet Union: Revelations from the Russian Archives.”
Historical records concerning Stalin’s consolidation of power, political repression, purges, executions, and Soviet labor camps.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html
4. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, “Situation in Communist China and United States Policy Alternatives.”
Historical material discussing Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward, and the political upheaval surrounding the Cultural Revolution.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v30/d303
5. Freedom House, “Cuba: Country Profile.”
Current assessment of Cuba’s one-party political system, political pluralism, independent media, and civil liberties.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/cuba
6. Dag Einar Thorsen, “Introduction: Social Democracy in the 21st Century.”
Academic discussion of modern social democracy, democratic institutions, and the development of European social-democratic politics.
https://openarchive.usn.no/usn-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2755391/2021ThorsenIntroduction_POSTPRINT.pdf?sequence=4
7. DSA National Electoral Commission, “What Makes a Good DSA Campaign?”
DSA’s electoral strategy, including its stated objective of building an independent mass socialist party and ending capitalism.
https://electoral.dsausa.org/what-makes-a-good-dsa-campaign/
James Thompson is a junior writer on Maryland politics and public policy for Direct Line News.
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.
About The Author
