Listen to the article
Democratic Socialists of America Embraces Chinese Economic Model in New Seminar Series
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) launched a new monthly seminar series Thursday focused on “modern China and lessons for US socialists,” signaling a growing interest in Chinese Communist Party policies among American left-wing activists.
The virtual session, part of the DSA’s “political education” offerings, featured speaker Ben Norton, an American studying Marxism in Beijing and founder of the Geopolitical Economy Report. The two-hour presentation, which drew dozens of eager participants despite technical difficulties, centered on China’s economic model and its potential applications in the United States.
“This series started last year with an internal program, and it went well enough that we wanted to take it public,” explained Anlin Wang, a member of the DSA’s International Committee who hosted the event.
Throughout the seminar, Norton made several controversial claims about China’s governance and economic system. He described China as having “some of the highest levels of government approval on earth” and characterized the nation as having a “strong democracy,” though by different metrics than Western countries typically use.
Norton made no mention of China’s well-documented restrictions on freedom of expression, which experts say significantly influence how citizens respond to government approval surveys.
The speaker also advocated for the U.S. government to follow Beijing’s approach by taking greater control of private companies across sectors like banking and technology. According to Norton, such intervention would help rein in billionaires and benefit workers.
“China is now the largest economy on Earth,” Norton claimed incorrectly – China remains the world’s second-largest economy behind the United States by GDP measurements. “There’s no comparison to the level of output coming from China right now. And this was not just because of private market forces.”
Norton further asserted that “reducing inequality is literally the number one goal of the Chinese Communist Party” and complained that “people just make up so much nonsense about China.”
These assertions stand in stark contrast to assessments from China experts like Jack Bernam of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Bernam points out that China’s economic boom began only after the Communist Party relaxed its control over businesses in the late 1970s, following a period when excessive state control under Mao Zedong led to catastrophic famine that killed an estimated 45 million people.
“The allowance of market forces is directly responsible for China’s rise as a contemporary, modernized economy,” Bernam explained. He argued that China’s recent economic struggles, including deflation and stagnation over the past five years, stem directly from the government’s renewed tightening of control over private enterprise.
The seminar highlights a potential contradiction for the DSA and its prominent figures like NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who routinely distinguish themselves as socialists rather than communists. While socialism traditionally seeks to reform capitalism through democratic means, communism aims to eliminate private ownership altogether. The organization’s growing interest in China’s state-controlled economic model blurs this distinction.
This isn’t the DSA’s first display of interest in Chinese Communist Party policies. In September, a five-person DSA delegation including Wang traveled to Beijing to participate in celebrations marking China’s 80th anniversary of victory against Japan.
“It was an impressive display of ‘unity in multi-polarity’ featuring Russian President Putin and Indian Prime Minister Modi, as well as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un,” wrote NYC DSA member Dee Knight in a report. “Beijing buzzed with excitement.”
As the DSA continues its monthly seminar series on China, the organization’s increasing alignment with Chinese Communist Party ideology may raise questions about its political positioning in the American landscape and its vision for economic reform in the United States.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
I appreciate the DSA’s desire to learn, but I hope they approach this topic with rigorous analysis and an open, critical mindset. China’s system has complexities that shouldn’t be oversimplified or idealized, especially when considering potential applications in the US context.
As someone with an interest in mining and commodities, I’m curious to hear how the DSA’s exploration of China’s model might impact those industries. Any insights into potential policy ideas or implications would be interesting to consider.
I’m curious to hear more about the potential applications of China’s model in the US. What specific policies or approaches are they highlighting as potentially beneficial? A balanced discussion is important given the complex realities in both countries.
The claim that China has “some of the highest levels of government approval on earth” seems quite dubious. Authoritarian regimes often exaggerate their popular support through propaganda and repression. I’d want to see robust, independent polling data to evaluate that assertion.
Characterizing China’s system as a “strong democracy” is highly questionable. The lack of free and fair elections, suppression of dissent, and concentration of power in the CCP are antithetical to democratic principles. We should be wary of whitewashing authoritarian rule.
Well said. Describing China’s system as a “strong democracy” is a concerning misrepresentation that obscures the reality of its authoritarian governance. Nuance and objectivity are critical when examining different political-economic models.
Interesting to see the DSA exploring China’s economic model. While I appreciate the desire to learn, I’d encourage a critical eye and balanced perspective. China’s system has benefits but also notable downsides that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Agreed, any examination of China’s system should be nuanced and consider both the positives and negatives. Promoting a single political ideology without nuance raises concerns.
The claim of “strong democracy” in China is highly dubious and concerning. Authoritarian regimes often make such claims to legitimize their rule, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story. I’d urge the DSA to approach this topic with a critical eye.
While I’m always eager to learn about different economic approaches, I share the concerns raised here about the potential for political messaging and the need for balanced, fact-based analysis. I hope the DSA can foster a nuanced discussion on this complex topic.