The DSA Knowingly Embraces Socialism's Horrors in Pursuit of Power, So Dialogue Won't Change Them
Source: Brianna Lyman. "The DSA Doesn't Need To Hear From More Castro Victims." August 20, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that talking to more Castro survivors won't change the DSA's mind because DSA leaders already know about socialism's atrocities and just don't care—they're after power, not workers' welfare. She uses two DSA leaders' own words and family histories as evidence that they minimize or rationalize socialist failures rather than being ignorant of them.
Conclusion
Encouraging the DSA to talk to more survivors of socialism/communism (like Castro's Cuba) is futile, because DSA members already know the horrors of socialism and simply don't care since they prioritize gaining political power over preventing suffering.
Premises
- DSA activists are demonstrably aware of Castro's record of death, repression, and political tyranny.
- Danny Valdes, co-chair of DSA's Cuba Solidarity Working Group, has a grandfather who was imprisoned by Castro's regime, yet Valdes still promotes socialism and urges Cubans to join the DSA.
- Valdes acknowledges Cuba's problems (bureaucratization, inefficiency, protests) but attributes them to the U.S. embargo rather than socialism itself, revealing willful rationalization rather than ignorance.
- DSA co-chair Ashik Siddique, when asked if Cuba was a 'beacon of democracy,' avoided directly condemning the dictatorship and instead pointed to Cuba's healthcare system as a justification.
- Socialists use appealing promises (free healthcare, housing) to make their pursuit of power palatable, and treat authoritarian measures (jailing, starving, killing opponents) as justified means to those ends.
- Since knowledge of socialism's horrors doesn't change DSA members' support for it, additional survivor testimony will not alter their position either.
Assumptions
- All or most DSA members share the same views and motivations as the two individuals cited (Valdes and Siddique).
- Acknowledging historical context or systemic factors (like the U.S. embargo) for Cuba's problems is equivalent to excusing or ignoring socialism's failures.
- Support for socialism is inherently and primarily about a desire for personal/political power rather than genuine belief in the ideology's stated goals.
- There is no legitimate distinction between historical authoritarian socialism (Castro's Cuba) and democratic socialism as practiced or advocated by DSA today.
- Personal family history with a regime should determine one's political ideology, and failing to reject an ideology due to family suffering indicates malice rather than differing analysis of causation.