Second DSA Debate with Erik Engheim

Disclaimer

Original

Source

I get that the DSA conversation is confusing and exhausting. It feels like unproductive infighting while the far right keeps being an existential threat. There's a lot of talking past each other, and people are fighting over definitions and terms over and over again.

But at its most fundamental level, this is a fight for the future of a leftist movement. This is because there is a small but influential subset of people (most purely represented by Megan Romer or Hasan Piker) who like to call themselves leftists but have views that many see as incompatible with ours.

• They oppose the separation of powers (Democratic Centralism).

• They are as opposed to social democratic parties as they are to conservatives or fascists.

• They want to abolish capitalism.

• They hate the Western multilateral world order. To that end, they will implicitly or explicitly support imperialist aggressor states like Russia or terrorists like the Houthis and Hamas.

If these people aren't loudly denounced but passively legitimized by the left, they will gain support and advance their agenda. Until people like Erik Engheim, Rational Lib and Terentev Valerii recognize this, the underlying tensions will persist. Probably, at some point, the camps will split (you bet the far right will capitalize on that).

The European component of this is that American discourse often infects ours, and many Europeans don't have the terminology to deal with it. Americans have the words “tankie” and “illiberal,” while Europeans can only say “radical left” or “far left,” which implies that the tankies are just more radical versions of leftists. Not to mention the different usage of “socialism,” which is basically interchangeable with “social democracy” in European minds. This confuses a lot of people and further complicates the situation.

Engheim Response

And it is great if they advance their agenda. Their agenda is not the problem. It is your dishonest portrayal of their agenda. When DSA talks about Democratic Centralism they really just mean ordinary party discipline that most political parties practice.

And even if DSA practice Democratic Centralism in the academic sense of the word that would still not mean ending separation of power. It is only about how a party organizes internally, not how a whole state operates.

Here is Article III, Section 5, of DSA constitution which makes it very clear that they don’t practice Lenin style Democratic Centralism. Quite the contrary they specifically ensure members can oppose the party.

Article III Section 5.

Chapters must ensure that their bylaws or other standing rules uphold the following standards:

• Members have the freedom to organize for shared political perspectives and take part in DSA’s democratic processes towards that end. DSA members and factions may organize to change DSA’s policies and program and may openly critique them, while accepting majority decisions as legitimate.

• There shall be no higher decision-making body in a chapter than a synchronous General Meeting or Convention open to all members in good standing. This shall not prevent an elected leadership body from acting between such meetings.

• No candidate may run their own election.

As usual David you are just talking complete nonsense because your hysterical anti-socialism. Doesn’t matter what we actually stand for. You will twist and turn and manufacture whatever BS you can to present democratic socialism as some kind of scary Stalinism.

Here is a suggestion for you David Žižek: Before writing whatever dystopian fantasy you have about democratic socialism and post it. Do a quality check with ChatGPT. Paste it in and have it critique what you write, because really you just don’t check sources when you talk.

If you just ChatGPT as a simply quality check before posting, we wouldn’t have to waste so much time getting the facts right and could actually debate genuine socialist policies and ideas, rather than your alternative reality perception of them.

My Response

I would encourage you to read my reply rules. They say that non-responsive answers get deleted or hidden. I made an exception for this answer because I felt like it, but I won't make one in the future. I'll just give you a few questions, because you'll just ramble otherwise:

First, a clarification. This is not a critique aimed specifically at the DSA; it is more about the problem of them promoting people with worldviews that I find problematic. I think I describe this more clearly in the article.

• Have you seen the DSA proposal to abolish the Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court and subordinate everything to a parliament? Are you aware that this would get rid of the separation of powers?

• Do you think it's a problem that not only the DSA, but also their adjacent media sphere, favors proposals that structurally benefit the Russian Federation? Do you have a problem with the implicit endorsement of terrorism by Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis?

• What is your opinion on the DSA not endorsing Kamala Harris? Do you think that's indicative of them being a net negative for the Democratic Party?

Again, if you do not want to answer these questions, just don't. A non-responsive answer will be exactly as visible as no answer.

E1

I have trouble seeing how my answer didn’t address your claim. You present a position, that is based on numerous premises that are simply not true.

You make new claims here about them somehow ending democracy. Abolishing the senate and presidency and subjugating it to parliament is how Norway and many other European countries run already. So how are you going to convince a Norwegian this is some kind of horror show? I absolutely support making the US system more like we have. I think it is a better model.

The main sticking point is separating the courts from parliament. But here to my knowledge the DSA has simply not clarified how exactly they will retain judicial independence. So whether this is a problem or not is unclear.

Either way, most countries do not have has independent supreme court as the US. In fact I will claim that the US is governed far too much by the supreme court and that it is profoundly undemocratic. So it is very understandable that the left wants to reign in the US supreme court. It routinely places itself above the people in a way that just does not happen here in the Nordics, and I pretty sure not in the rest of Europe either.

I am only partially down the points you listed and already we yet again run in to the problem that the premises of your claims just don’t hold water.

It is a bit like asking me if I oppose that Obama installs a fascist dictatorship. And then accuse me of avoiding to answer when I question the premise that he is installing a fascist dictatorship.

I don’t want to go into all the other claims you make, since I assume much the same. That you make claims that just aren’t true.

I’ll concede this about my fellow leftists. They are indeed often going much further on the Palestinians side of things, and not always being as critical of Hamas as I would be. But again same applies in Norway to leftists here. That doesn’t mean they are somehow a threat to Norwegian democracy.

I am not a socialist because I agree with every single little thing other socialists claim. Some of it I think is dumb as hell. I am supporting the core idea, and that is about creating a more democratic and fair society. The overall goal is good. Every detail is not good.

You’ll have to decide how you want to proceed on this. Pick one thing you want to debate, because you make a lot of claims, and I cannot investigate every little claim you make, when I see that all the first claims you make are dubious. That isn’t very encouraging.

M1

Sure, I'll just re-explain my initial argument and we'll go from there.

My issue isn't with socialists. I think there are perfectly reasonable socialists out there and while we have policy disputes, we don't have a fundamental clash of worldviews. That's why I didn't mention socialism in the post, the article I linked or in my response to you.

The real issue I have is with the people who hold the cluster of positions I listed in the original post. I think those political positions are incompatible with any political project I can imagine supporting. That's why I'm not supportive of DSA, because they elevate people who hold these positions.

Do with that what you will.

E2

To keep it simple can you pick one person. And it has to be someone of significant influence and power in the organization and explain what positions you find bad? Please if possible quality check your claim. Check the claim with ChatGPT first, so I don't have to waste time proving some obvious misrepresentation as false.

M2

Before we do that, do you concede that the principle of my argument is reasonable and not anti-socialist hysteria? If I managed to prove someone having those beliefs, would you consider that person worthy of serious pushback?

E3

I don’t think random crazies in the DSA is a problem unless they have undue influence on the party and its direction.

Also it matters how they are crazy. As long as they support the core mission of socialism, are not anti-democratic, or morally compromised by e.g. being a rapists, having 5 sexual assault claims against them, or accused of domestic violence. Or if they preach homophobia, misogyny, racism etc. And then I don’t mean they said an offensive thing 10 years ago that they since repudiated. But rather this is a common pattern.

Point is I am not a tribalist. I am not a purist. I tolerate a lot as long as you don’t break core human values. Tolerance for different identities, respecting democracy and your fellow human beings.

People don’t need to agree with on say NATO, tax policy etc. You cannot have a working organization if you are too nitpicking.

M3

That's why I asked the question, because I want to have the exact criteria you find disqualifying nailed down. But you didn't answer so I ask again:

Do you concede that the principle of my argument is reasonable and not anti-socialist hysteria? If I managed to prove someone having those (as in the 4 criteria I listed) beliefs, would you consider that person worthy of serious pushback?

E4

I just clarified what would be required on my part to accept your position. Basically I tightened the requirements so you don't pick some horrible fringe person in the DSA which has no real influence on the party.

This is also so you cannot accuse me later of moving goalposts if I reject the person you pick.

M5

I'm fine with the qualification that you made of them having to be influential. I also accept that if they repudiated it later, it doesn't count. I just don't know why you wouldn't say yes to the 4 criteria I listed (all of them in tandem of course).

Also, no worries, I would ask you before I pick a person. There’s a reason I’m being so annoying with this, I don’t want to waste time putting together a document with sources and stuff when there’s no agreement on what I have to prove.

E5

Well I was also hoping to save you frustration of feeling like I reject anyone you bring up after you provide good evidence. That is why I want to make it clear that I like accept a wider variety of people than you. Not because I agree with them or would not fight their policies but because for me it is about being acceptable on the core issues such as democracy and human rights and dignity.

Like I can be strongly opposed to someone wanting tax cuts for the the rich but I don't view such a person a danger to democracy or our civilization.

I don't agree with those criteria though. So I guess the debate has to be on the criteria rather than specific people.

You can pick a criteria you want to focus on. Basically I think you bake in a lot of assumptions each of these criteria I would not agree with.

I suggest you pick one of the criteria you think are most important and we focus on that first.

M6

2 clarifications

• It doesn't quite work to pick out one of these at a time because it is about the larger worldview. While I'll try, do keep in mind that I find the combination to be the worst, not the individual things.
• If you want me to make an objective moral claim which justifies why someone who fits all 4 deserves serious public pushback, I'm not going to be able to do it. I can present my thought process but that's the best I can do.

I can start with the criterion of opposing the separation of powers. This is a huge deal because it is a rejection of probably the most important tenets of liberal democracy, without which a descent into authoritarianism is unstoppable. If you give all the legislative, judicial and executive power to one organ, it functions as an unrestrained dictatorial office.

You could see a soft version of this in Hungary, where Orbán put his cronies into both the legislative and judicial branches. It incentivized corruption and power grabs.

Clarification

I tried to reach out to my interlocutor, he didn't respond after my last message at the time of writing (20.8.2026).

#Debate