The DSA’s War on Wealth

Communism is gaining momentum within the United States and has now permeated mainstream Democratic Party politics.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is poised to expand its congressional representation from two members to at least six by January, potentially more. This figure does not include Sen. Bernie Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist.

Francesca Hong, a DSA member, came close to securing the Democratic nomination for governor in Wisconsin—one of the nation’s largest and most significant states. Hong was narrowly edged out in the August 11 primary by Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.

It’s important not to mistake all self-described socialists as alike. Some may be moderate Democrats who support the Scandinavian socialist model. However, others are disguised communists who exploit the socialist label to conceal their true aims.

Interestingly, numerous new socialists openly embrace their radical views, proudly identifying as socialists.

Given America’s victory over communism in the Cold War and the anti-communist efforts of the 1950s, many Americans might believe communism no longer poses a threat to the country’s political system and way of life.

This assumption is incorrect.

Communist and Marxist philosophies remain very much active in the U.S., thriving within universities, think tanks, foundations, the media, and other institutions Americans generally trust to have positive intentions.

The Evolution of Revolution

While the ideology follows Marxian economics, the tactics of contemporary communists align with predictions made by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci in the 1920s and 1930s.

Gramsci supported Marx’s goal of abolishing private property but argued this should be achieved, not by violent upheaval, but through a prolonged effort to seize control of cultural and political institutions.

This approach later became known as “the long march through the institutions.”

Rather than confronting directly, communism would succeed by gradually permeating education, culture, and governance while eroding critical thinking skills.

American institutions would transform into ideological training grounds and propaganda centers, persuading citizens that communism—disguised as “socialism”—was the superior choice.

From this foundation, dismantling traditional constitutional frameworks such as the Senate, the Electoral College, and an independent judiciary would become straightforward.

The ultimate goal would be centralized communist dominance without the need for an outright revolution—merely slow decay akin to the spread of mold or termites.

A telling example of this process is visible in the Smithsonian Institution controversy and the congressional testimony of Anthea Hartig, director of the National Museum of American History.

The debate focused on whether America’s national museums have increasingly concentrated on slavery, race, and inequality while downplaying the country’s founders and accomplishments. Hartig defended the museum’s approach, asserting it remains politically neutral.

For instance, the Smithsonian’s portrayal of Benjamin Franklin highlights his role as a slaveholder, yet Franklin was also a leading scientist, founding father, and later an abolitionist.

He served as president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and petitioned Congress in 1790 to end slavery.

Franklin was also the nation’s first postmaster general, co-founded an early fire insurance company, and helped establish the institution that evolved into the University of Pennsylvania, where I attended law school.

The core issue lies in the emphasis: should America’s museums primarily celebrate the nation’s achievements or focus increasingly on slavery, race relations, inequality, and related shortcomings?

Engaging in this conversation matters because these institutions influence how Americans perceive their own history.

A Very American History of Communism

Communist ideology never fully disappeared in the U.S. It gained traction in organized political groups after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and surged during the Great Depression.

The New York Times’ Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty notoriously downplayed Stalin’s engineered famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s, helping conceal the harsh realities of the Soviet regime.

American communism faced a blow after the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a nonaggression agreement between the USSR and Nazi Germany. This pact disillusioned American communists and sympathizers because it aligned Stalin with Hitler, widely seen as the embodiment of fascism.

Anti-communism intensified during the Cold War with events like the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 for espionage, the Alger Hiss case, accusations of communist infiltration by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Despite these obstacles, the radical left revived in the 1960s and 70s and is now prominent through the growth of the Democratic Socialists of America, currently the largest socialist group in the country.

Castro’s American Alumni

Cuba played a significant role in inspiring the American radical left during the Cold War. Many U.S. activists visited Cuba or absorbed the influence of Castro’s revolution, including figures such as Stokely Carmichael and Angela Davis.

Karen Bass, the current mayor of Los Angeles, made numerous trips to Castro’s Cuba in the 1970s as part of the Venceremos (“We Will Conquer”) Brigade, where young left-wing American activists collaborated with Cubans and immersed themselves in the communist revolution.

Cuba was not the only communist influence. As a teenager in Hawaii, Barack Obama was acquainted with Frank Marshall Davis, a writer and activist linked to the Communist Party. Obama later reflected on Davis’s impact on his perspectives about race and identity in Dreams from My Father.

For those curious about why race relations continue to be tense despite significant progress since the 1960s, and why socialism is rising in urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, it helps to understand the American radical left and its ties to global socialist movements.

Although the labels and tactics have evolved, the fundamental struggle over property, markets, and political authority remains unresolved.

Politics Comes for Your Portfolio

The surge of socialism within the Democratic Party is an important political development on its own, but it also poses substantial consequences for investors.

Many democratic socialists advocate for increased taxes on wealthy households, expanded government-run healthcare and education, and major reforms to policing, immigration, and other systems. Several prominent left-wing figures have supported “wealth taxes”—levies on assets such as property, stocks, and bonds, rather than just income.

Depending on the design of such taxes, investors might have to liquidate retirement holdings simply to meet new tax liabilities.

Beyond causing social and economic upheaval, these policies could undermine retirement savings due to tax burdens necessary to fund them, potentially followed by additional taxes to address resulting complications.

In these scenarios, gold and silver could be wise holdings, as they are physical assets independent of digital banking systems and difficult to seize electronically.