This piece covers the court fight over a $5.2 million retirement account, how the Democratic Socialists of America claimed to be the successor to the New American Movement, and the outcome that delivered a windfall to the DSA.

This story flew under most radars, but it landed a clear win for the Democratic Socialists of America. A leftist professor at NYU left his $5.2 million retirement account to the New American Movement or “it’s successor organization.” That language opened a legal door the DSA walked through and the stakes mattered to both donors and political watchers.

The DSA went to court and claimed they were the “successor organization” to the New American Movement. And they won. The court accepted the DSA’s claim of lineage, and that legal conclusion turned an old bequest into fresh funding for a modern political group.

The entire post reads: This is the quoted passage below, provided in full to show the original language and context. The text that follows is presented exactly as it appeared in the source that documented the DSA’s claim and the group’s history.

In and of itself that’s pretty wild, but it’s actually even more interesting.

https://x.com/VickieforNYC/status/2083266973597618403

The New American Movement was a Marxist organization formed in 1971 as the successor to Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1971, as SDS fell into chaos courtesy of their members committing an unprecedented wave of domestic terrorism across the country.

In 1982, after a merger with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the New American Movement became the Democratic Socialists of America.

There is a straight line between today’s DSA and SDS, the Weathermen, and the domestic terrorism that wracked the country for years. They bombed the United States Capitol Building, the Pentagon, numerous military facilities, police stations, and targeted cops for murder.

Now they just got a five million dollar cash infusion courtesy of a radical NYU professor.

That block of text explains why people see a historical and ideological throughline, and it helps explain why this decision hit nerves. The optics are difficult for anyone who doubts the DSA’s direction, because a legal ruling turned a retirement account into operational money. For critics, the win looks like a pattern: say one thing publicly but pursue power and cash privately.

From a Republican perspective this is exactly what opponents warned about—political groups that push radical policy but are happy to accept private windfalls. The DSA has campaigned on taxing inheritances and seizing wealth, yet here they are on the receiving end of a major gift. That contradiction fuels anger among taxpayers and donors who expect consistency.

No, no. They only do that with our tax dollars. That observation is short, sharp, and accurate for those watching the politics closely. The pattern of rhetoric versus behavior throws light on motivations and priorities inside the organization.

The irony is not lost on us. People who preach redistribution often act very differently when a large check arrives for their own movement. That kind of hypocrisy is what keeps this story in the conversation across the political spectrum.

That’s (D)ifferent, comrade. The phrase captures the mix of surprise and frustration many feel about the legal result. It also points to how language and symbolism still matter when old groups transform into new outfits.

Yes, they are. Communism is their goal, and that means you and your loved ones will be left to live in crime, poverty, and squalor while they hoard millions for themselves. It’s a deadly, dangerous grift that pits ideological promises against practical choices about money and power.

Any time someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos makes money, Democrats scream about how many people could get housing, healthcare, or child care for those millions. How many people could $5.2 million feed? A lot, but the DSA will not spend a dime of that on the needy; instead it’s now part of the group’s financial engine. That shift matters to voters deciding who to trust with public policy and private donations.