There is a moment in every ideological movement when the mask comes off and the true underlying intentions are revealed.
For the Bolsheviks, that moment arrived in January 1918 after losing the only free nationwide election Russia had ever held.
They dissolved the Constituent Assembly at gunpoint and their slogan “All power to the Soviets” revealed itself for what it had always been: all power to the Party.
For Fidel Castro, it came after he had already consolidated control.
The guy who spent years insisting he was no communist stood before the cameras in 1961 and declared himself a Marxist Leninist for life. The supposed “democratic”, “anti-dictator” revolution had been a necessary facade, I suppose.
And a similar sobering moment is happening inside our own nation.
A significant faction inside the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is called The Marxist Unity Group (MUG).
They state their end goal pretty plainly on their own website:
“a world free of the market, borders, classes, and all other oppressive structures that exist under capitalism—in a word, communism.”
This is their goal. Not “democratic socialism” or “social democracy.”
These are merely masks, a means to arrive at their real destination...
Which is communism.
This is the same organization that has sitting members of Congress in its ranks.
The same organization whose members and allies are running cities, staffing mayoral offices, and shaping policy in ways most Americans do not even realize yet.
They are not hiding it anymore.
They frame democratic socialism as a transitional stage. This is directly from the horse’s mouth.
“Marxist Unity Group works towards adopting a minimum-maximum program for DSA. We view both the “minimum” and “maximum” program as essential…
Essentially, they intend to roll this out in stages. The minimum program first, the maximum program eventually.
“The minimum program refers to the party’s comprehensive platform: the policies that it will immediately implement upon taking power to establish working-class political rule and place society on the path of a socialist transition out of capitalism. The maximum program refers to the results of this process: a world free of the market, borders, classes, and all other oppressive structures that exist under capitalism—in a word, communism.
So this isn’t democracy and it’s not socialism. So why use the cover “democratic socialist”? (whatever that means)
Well, I’m glad you asked…
“Centering programmatic politics will restore the sense of unity and purpose that socialists enjoyed during the Sanders campaigns. However, our program will have much more ambitious aims, and instead of belonging to a single candidate, it will be developed democratically by the entire socialist movement.”
Got it. So they honestly view America as a modern day Troy to infiltrate. Socialism is their Trojan Horse and within it awaits a world where the government wields the political power, the means of production, and property.
And if you think, “Mitchell, this is the Marxist Unity Group, not the DSA.”
Sure, but MUG is a recognized caucus inside the organization and the DSA has not repudiated any of it. And many of the intellectual leaders within the DSA share the same language.
Cea Weaver for example, who works on Mayor Mamdani’s staff, tweeted “Elect more communists.”
Yea, real subtle Cea.
The mayor of the largest city in the United States chose to bring someone with that public position onto his team.
Mamdani himself has been clear about the end goal. In 2021, speaking to the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), he said:
“But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it’s BDS, right, or whether it’s the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.
And what I want to say is that it is critical… that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem… to ensure over time we can bring people to that issue.
This is a direct quote.
And yes, I know people will say…
“But that was 2021 and he’s walked it back since. He’s called himself a democratic socialist. He’s denied being a communist in interviews.”
I hear you. But notice what he DIDN’T do.
He’s never clarified that his end goal changed.
He never said seizing the means of production was a mistake or something he no longer believes in. That is exactly how the transitional approach works.
They use the raw language when they’re talking to the movement, but dress it up when they’re talking to the broader public.
And Mamdani also campaigned with Hasan Piker.
Probably the most blatantly radical of them all.
Hasan Piker is a leftist streamer and political activist with millions of followers.
On the record, he has called Mao Zedong “one of the great leaders of this world,” a man who “changed the entire universe, the entire planet,” while dismissing the tens of millions who died under his rule as mere “excesses.”
He has also declared that the fall of the Soviet Union was “one of the greatest catastrophes of the twentieth century.”
If that isn’t enough, he also said this regarding home owners:
“Yeah kill them! Kill those m-therf-ckers and murder those m-therf-ckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their f-cking red capitalist blood, dude.”
He later disputed that it was merely hyperbolic.
Really?
Was this comment hyperbolic too, Hasan?:
“If you cared about Medicare or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick Scott.”
How long will we dismiss these calls for violence as mere hyperbole? I don’t think they are. His hero, Mao, murdered an estimated 40-70 million people.
Not to mention the estimated 20+ million deaths at the hands of the USSR, which he said was a tragedy…
And he meant the fall of the USSR was the tragedy, not the deaths.
This is the company Mamdani chose to keep while asking New Yorkers for their votes.
Now, if you are tempted to roll your eyes, I understand. For years, the term “communist” has been thrown around so loosely in American politics that it lost its weight.
But that is exactly what makes this moment dangerous. This is a classic “boy who cried wolf” predicament. But let’s just genuinely contend with the logic for a moment.
What’s the true definition of communism? This is worth clearly defining because definitions are the first casualty of any ideological takeover.
Communism is a totalizing political philosophy. It begins with the abolition of private property, the means of production and ends with the concentration of all meaningful power to a centralized state.
A centralized state that answers to no one.
Private property is treated as the original sin of social life: the root of exploitation, hierarchy, and alienation.
Once private ownership of productive assets is eliminated, the state becomes the only real owner.
This puts the state in the position to becomes the only REAL decision maker about who works, who eats, who speaks, and who is allowed to exist outside its plans.
The same logic extends outward.
National borders are dismissed as artificial constructs that divide the working class and the family is viewed as a competing source of loyalty and formation that must eventually be subordinated to the collective.
Religion, independent associations, and any moral authority that claims to stand above the Party are treated as threats to be managed or dismantled.
Don’t take my word for it.
Observe history.
Every major communist regime of the twentieth century followed the same sequence…
Utopian promise → win over the people → gain power → seizure of total control → and then the absolute systematic destruction of those who objected or simply stood in the way.
So then why does it end in so much death?
Because dissent is perceived as violence. This is the historical pattern.
Dissent becomes obstruction of progress, and obstruction must be removed.
This is what they have consistently done.
Now, for this sequence to unfold in the United States, the existing constitutional system would have to be dismantled or rendered meaningless.
How would they do this, you might ask? The first necessary step, would be the careful work of making Americans hate their own system.
The only way to do this successfully, would be to begin teaching a different story about our history.
By redefining words until they lose their original meaning.
“Colonialism” for example, will no longer be a historical description of settlement and expansion. It becomes an original sin.
Notice the selectivity.
The same standard is almost never applied to the Islamic conquests that erased Christian societies from the Middle East and North Africa…
Or to the Mongol expansions that reshaped China and Central Asia, or to the long history of Russian imperial growth.
Conquest and displacement are among the most common patterns in human history.
Nearly every people group that holds territory today arrived there, at least in part, through force.
But they will use “colonialism” differently.
The will treat it with unique moral horror. This is reserved for Western and American expansion specifically…
…and it reveals that the real target is not conquest itself, but the legitimacy of OUR history and OUR systems.
Why?
Because once people are convinced that their inheritance is fundamentally evil, the hard work of preserving it starts to feel immoral.
At this point, the soft language of “democratic socialism” begins to sound like moral progress.
This is why it is vital for all of us to know what we believe and WHY we believe it.
To look deeper.
The entire worldview of these communists, is simply not compatible with ours.
This isn’t just a difference in “political preference”, but of two completely different views on morality, human nature, and ultimately God.
For example, our founding fathers understood something the communists either denies or despise and it’s this…
Power does not purify the person who holds it. Power REVEALS the person who holds it.
And because every person is fallen, every person given unchecked authority will eventually abuse it.
History has proven this to be true.
This comes from the doctrine of original sin, from the Bible.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” - Rom 3:23
The founders firmly believed this and so when they applied it to our government, it became the single most important idea ever baked into a constitutional system ever.
Thomas Jefferson said:
“…in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
And in 1963, Ayn Rand expanded on this idea…
“There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.”
The Constitution does not assume leaders will be virtuous.
It assumes they will NOT be, and it builds guards around them to prevent them from abusing power.
Separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
A Bill of Rights that does not grant you your freedoms but recognizes them as pre-existing, endowed by your Creator, beyond the legitimate reach of any government to revoke or redefine.
The founders did not trust concentrated human will because they had studied both Scripture and history.
And so must we.
Our founders had watched what happens when men claim the right to remake society according to their vision.
They designed a system to protect us against that.
The communist tradition inverts this entirely.
It puts its faith in the planners, the vanguard, the Party.
It treats the state as the instrument of human perfection rather than a necessary restraint on human fallibility.
The American constitution restrains power because it assumes people are fallen.
Communism demands unlimited power because it assumes an enlightened few can perfect humanity, even against those very people’s will.
So the are two different anthropologies, two different accounts of what a human being is, and therefore two different accounts of what government is even FOR.
And I want to be fair here.
Most people who call themselves democratic socialists are not automatically secret communists.
There are people who look at the flaws in our system like poverty, healthcare costs, the housing crisis, and they want something better.
I get that, I really do.
Because I think lot of the people supporting these candidates are not thinking about Marxist theory.
But the correct diagnosis does not automatically validate the prescription. You can diagnose the problem and be correct in that, while also having the wrong solution to said problem.
And unfortunately, sometimes that solution can be deadly.
The policies you see right now (rent freezes, government owned grocery stores, higher taxes on the wealthy) are popular for a reason, because they speak to real needs.
But some of the same people pushing them have already told us this is just the start.
Those policies are the minimum program. The maximum probram, by their own words, goes further.
And ignoring the difference is exactly how these parties have accumulated power, historically, every time.
In this case, we’re staking our entire government system on this.
An entire group of people who are only looking to seize more power. Eventually, far too much power.
It’s been said that a nation can vote itself into communism more easily than it can vote its way out. History shows that once the machinery of total control is built, it rarely gives the keys back willingly.
Decisions like these are one way doors.
I’ll give the majority of the supporters the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they don’t understand where this movement is headed, but these leaders are pretty dang clear in what they want.
The Marxist Unity Group is not hiding it. Cea Weaver is not hiding it. Hasan Piker is not hiding it. Neither is Mamdani.
We can either dismiss it and take that chance or we can believe them.
and honestly, here is what I have learned, in my own life and in studying history.
The story you believe about yourself determines how you live.
That is true for a person, and it is true for a nation.
America currently suffers from what I can only describe as identity dysphoria at the scale of a nation.
We no longer know who we are.
We are not sure if we were ever the good guys.
Between classrooms, newsrooms and entertainment, we have been beat over the head and told that our founding was evil, our history uniquely predatory, our prosperity stolen, and our system a vehicle for oppression.
And the tragedy is we’ve started to believe it.
We’ve become ashamed.
A people who are ashamed of their own inheritance will accept almost any ideology that promises to make them feel righteous again.
This is Achilles’ heel of America right now.
This is exactly how an ideology that has produced more corpses than any other in human history rebrands itself and walks through the front door of our government.
It does not arrive with a hammer and sickle. It arrives with a promise to fix what is broken: housing, healthcare, inequality, injustice.
It counts on a population taught to despise its own story not to ask what comes after the “fixing”.
When you no longer believe your civilization has moral legitimacy, you become uniquely vulnerable to those who offer a new legitimacy in its place.
To those who promise to make you righteous and moral again.
Members and allies of this movement now sit in Congress, influence or control city governments, and hold the mayor’s office in the largest city in the United States.
This is happening now.
Their staff have called for electing more communists, described private property as a weapon of white supremacy, and are now writing housing policy.
Influencers who praise Mao and mourn the Soviet Union’s fall are treated as legitimate political partners.
The soft branding of “democratic socialism” does what transitional language always does: it lowers defenses long enough for the harder ideology to establish real power.
None of this is new.
We need only to look at history and use the power we already hold.
That may surprise you, but the truth is the founders gave us everything we need to resist this…
A system of government designed to resist concentrated power, a Bill of Rights that draws a line the state cannot cross, and a governing philosophy that roots human dignity not in the government’s permission but in God’s design.
We have more power than we realize.
What they could not give us, because no generation can hand this to the next, is the will to defend it.
That part is on us.
Read history and our founding documents.
Know what you are being asked to give up. Refuse to let anyone tax the exchange of truth, whether the tax is social, reputational, or eventually something worse.
And do not be fooled by the language. When a movement’s own leadership says plainly where they are headed, believe them.
The truth will set you free.