who am i?
- i am a canadian that lives in windsor, ontario, canada
- i have no us citizenship. i am not a us illegal. i have never tried to vote in the united states and don't want to. i barely vote in canada.
- i am highly critical of what i call a fake left
- however, i don't align with what is called a centre in the united states. i consider myself to the left of what is claimed to be "progressive" in the united states, and consider these "progressives" to in truth be quite obviously conservatives and quite frequently fascists
- i'm not going to call them communists. i'm going to call myself a communist. i'm going to call groups like the dsa fascists, not communists, and think this distinction is extremely important.
- while they may deny it, because their electoral success relies on it, i actually would argue that sinema or fetterman are to the left of the dsa and not to their right. i would prefer these politicians because i'm a communist and more left-wing.
- i'm extremely white. i don't like black or arab culture very much. i don't like the religion and don't like the bad hygiene. i'll call them names for believing in god or having poor hygienic practices, but this isn't racism, it's free speech. racism is structural state oppression and has nothing to do with individual name calling; that is a left-wing position. individual name calling is just venting and is harmless. if my dirty nigger neghbours smell like drug addicts and don't practice hair removal, there's nothing wrong with calling them dirty niggers for smelling terribly and walking around with ecoli on their face. that's just true, and these are issues they need to address to advance goals of social progress associated with increasing public hygiene and reducing the spread of disease. it doesn't mean i want to enslave them or think they have low iq or bar them for working due to their skin colour or something. actual racism is largely specious nonsense, and no science-first secularist would support it, even if they insist on criticizing the smell and poor hygiene, which are real issues grounded in real science. the orwellian policies of political correctness have made people afraid to discuss real issues. i don't cower in fear from the thought police. fuck off. they stink. they're dirty. their culture and religion suck. it's a real problem and needs to be fixed.
- i don't consider racism to be a serious issue in the united states in 2026. it's there, but it's a minor concern. groups experiencing more serous systemic attacks are jews (as always), trans and queer people, religious groups that are not judaic in origin (like pagans or polytheists like hindus) and the remaining racial target, the indigenous. arabs, blacks and hispanics do not experience substantive racism in north america in 2026. some groups like muslims and sikhs are privileged groups and experience muslim privilege and sikh privilege.
- there are groups trying to colonize north america on behalf of islam. they're far right groups. they want to convert you rather than replace you. they want to enforce crazy rules on you and tell you how to live. i consider that a threat to my freedom and yours and something that needs to be aggressively addressed by a left in solidarity with it's own ideals. this is explained well by engels in socialism: utopian and scientific.
with those caveats stated up front, let me be clear about my perception of a few things.
what is the real left? the real left is worker ownership of the means of production. this is an abstract and general idea and means many things, not something specific. there's lots of ways to enforce distribution of resources to the proletariat, the working class that has nothing to sell but labour. if your movement is not about redistributing wealth, it is not a left. it may make many excuses for why it doesn't advocate wealth redistribution, and you may accept those excuses, but it still positions you outside of the left and, depending on your other politics, as a moderate liberal capitalist or a right-wing extremist. what's happening in the democratic party today is that powerfully funded lobbies are ejecting liberal capitalists and replacing them with right-wing extremists, who have horrible social policies and little to say about wealth redistribution, except to oppose it or support distributing wealth to the more wealthy, when challenged. one example of a policy to redistribute wealth from workers to the rich was the abandoned public groceries political scam in new york, and i'll get to this.
it seems to be true that the dsa is trying to take over the democratic party. they complain about corporate financing, but they are awash in funds from foreign states trying to change the direction of american politics. i have looked rather deeply into the dsa and interacted with it's members in detroit (metro area) and i have the following to say about it:
- the dsa does not debate it's policies or allow dissent of them. dsa polices are developed by head office and mailed out to the members. you accept the policy or you leave the party. you're thrown out if you try to argue a policy is wrong or should be changed
- the purpose of dsa community meetings and townhalls is not for workers to debate or develop policies but for dsa employees/members to "educate" people about dsa policies
- this has no resemblance to democracy but rather implements a system called corporatism to a tee that was articulated by mussolini and opposed by gramsci and was given the name fascism
- dsa policies do not support proletarian revolt or the shift of power to the working class (the socialization of production, or socialism) but support a top down corporate structure that is historically and ideologically derived from the collectivist corporatism of mussolini, called fascism. the dsa is not a non-hierarchical structure but rather has a clear top down command structure.
the dsa is not a communist or socialist organization. it's members are not socialists. it is not a left. nor is it a democratic party in any way at all. the republicans are more democratic than the dsa.
rather, the dsa is a fascist organization and it's members are openly promoting fascism, if you understand what they're saying. many of these fascist ideas ended up in the right-wing abortion that called itself leninism and succeeded in enacting a counter-revolution to overthrow the 1917 communist revolution in russia, and enforce a system of collectivist corporatism, or fascism, in russia. this system explicitly argues against and seeks to aggressively prevent almost every fundamental point advanced by marx, and was opposed violently both by marxists and the kropotkinists to marx' left throughout the entire soviet period, often from ukraine. this is not a positive association. there is consequently something to the attacks on these people from the right that smear them as communists, in the sense that they are often leninists or stalinists or maoists, as opposed to being marxists or kropotkinists or trotskyists. orwell wrote the books about this. while this distinction may be lost to the right, the left will and should mostly take offense to it. i get the argument, but you should stop calling them communists and start calling them fascists, corporatists, maoists, stalinists, etc.
vijay prashad is an academic that has spoken vaguely in these terns, often by quoting chomsky. there are others.
it's increasingly clear that the dsa has picked up on foucault's arguments in favour of the iranian revolution and tilted towards a pro radical islam strategy in the misguided and objectively wrong belief that promoting islam will facilitate an advance of communism. this has led the dsa to take explicitly pro-irgc, pro-hamas, pro-hezbollah, pro-houthi and even pro-isis positions. there were fake leftists that used to argue in similar terms about promoting christianity at one point, but they've fallen into obscurity. the argument, which traces to engels, is that embracing islamic tribalism will get us closer to council democracy, and socialist redistribution. foucault truly believed this near the end of his life. foucault is widely influential but highly controversial in real left circles. the intelligence of his arguments is widely questioned. he died before any of it happened and it's not clear what he would have thought, but the history is clear that these movements did not lead to communism but to fascist states, both in far right iran and russia-backed syria. these systems led to fascism, not communism. promoting them here generates a threat of fascism and not of communism.
they will respond by calling me an islamophobe, which is a smear job intended to change the topic. i do admit to disliking islam and fearing it, but that's not relevant to my arguments, which are explaining why it's frightening and why you should dislike it, too.
in recent cycles, and we've seen this in new york and wisconsin and maybe less so in michigan, these dsa backed candidates have adopted a strategy of running on absurd policies with no likelihood of implementation that will appeal primarily to young voters that may educate themselves as they age but at the time of voting lack the education to be able to deconstruct the policies as foolish. the public grocery thing is a good example of this. it was dumb, but the naive children didn't understand and voted for it out of a misguided belief in it. when these candidates are elected, they don't advance left-wing policies, but rather act like the failed islamic revolutionaries that foucault supported, which today are the dsa's main source of funding. it's for this reason that you get these pro-hamas marches with people holding up signs supporting the houthis, which are disgusting.
we have a problem in front of us that chistopher hitchens warned us about: right-wing islamic fascists co-opting the left and taking advantage of people making the same mistakes as foucault to try to seize power in the united states to enforce islamic law and create a society like the one in the handmaid's tale. that is what the dsa is. it is not a democratic or a socialist group, and it's not a vehicle for socialism, it's a vehicle for the far right, that wants to enforce islamic fascism, and is being funded by those governments to get to that outcome here. we'd better figure that out.
campaign finance reform might sound like a good idea at first, but the corollary is that your own messaging becomes limited. voter education is a better idea. but advocates also need to understand that it's an empty promise in the united states without a constitutional amendment, which you don't get without winning power first. this isn't a winning strategy, but it's not meant to be. it's an empty promise intended to win votes to advance a different hidden agenda with.
left-wing voters need to be more careful and more critical. your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend. some of these candidates are legitimately frightening, have terrible actual politics (behind the facade of empty nonsense intended to trick people into voting for them) and need to be aggressively stopped.