LATEST Update on DSA’S New proposal for drastic governmental changes
DSA has finally revealed on its website what dramatic governmental changes it is promoting. As previously noted, it would be to eliminate the U.S. Senate and replace the President and the Supreme Court with an Executive and a Judiciary chosen by, and subordinate to, a new Congress.
However, there was no mention of when a vote was taken to adopt this as the new DSA program. The decision simply came down from their National Political Committee (NPC). Although the authors of this measure say they worked on the draft for months and “involved the political breadth of our big tent organization,” it is unclear who selected the members who drafted this platform.
The final decision to pursue these changes was not approved by DSA’s National Convention but instead by a majority of 27 members of their National Political Committee. Five factions are represented in the NPC, and it appears that the majority believe “radical change brought about by workers to transform culture and the economy” is necessary.
If this is DSA’s permanent decision-making process, it could easily breed the top-down decision-making of the old Soviet model of Democratic Centralism: policy is derived from a small upper-level central committee and then executed by larger lower-level bodies, such as a convention or an assembly of “workers.” It will be interesting to see whether any objections to the new program are expressed at DSA’s National Organizing Conference on July 31st in Chicago.
The piece below is the same as before; nothing else has changed, although it goes into greater detail than this short update.
There is a power struggle within the Democratic Party. It is often framed as a clash between far-leftists and moderate Democrats. That framing is simplistic and inaccurate. It only reinforces stereotypes about each faction and does not lead to a better understanding of the dynamics shaping this struggle.
The clash is essentially between democratic socialists and social Democrats. Many Democrats, inside and outside the party, may not subscribe to either orientation. But the conflict between these two orientations will determine the party’s future.
The root of their disagreement is reflected in the labels for each group that promote democracy and social welfare. Democracy is a process for achieving a range of objectives. Socialism is both an objective to achieve and a condition to maintain.
For Democratic socialists, democracy is a means to achieving socialism. The objective is to build a democratic socialist society. The Democratic Socialists of America is pushing the Democratic Party to adopt the principles articulated in DSA’s platform.
As with all ideologies, socialism has many interpretations and proponents of those interpretations. Nevertheless, the baseline for socialists is the concept of creating a more perfect society. Socialism is an aspiration much more than a process, whereas democracy is a process through which aspirations are pursued.
Democratic socialists and social democrats share objectives, including a more equitable distribution of resources. It is an established socialist belief that it’s both possible and necessary to achieve a sustainable state in which economic equality, social justice, and peaceful harmony prevail. Social democrats recognize conflict as a permanent condition underlying the democratic process. There is no final, harmonious paradise, only a constant journey toward one, without assuming a perfect, stable destination.
Socialism, as interpreted by DSA and many who consider themselves socialists, holds that a socialist state is possible when capitalism is replaced with workers’ control of the trifecta of power, which is the means of force, access to resources, and dominant beliefs (see A Paradigm of How POWER Works). In this narrative, there is a conflict between the capitalist and worker classes over the acquisition of those powers.
The Social Democrats are at a disadvantage compared to the Democratic Socialists because they lack a clear goal for victory. They do not subscribe to the notion of an inherent class conflict that will lead to the end of the marketplace and a capitalist class. Unlike socialists, they accept that there will always be a marketplace and private property (see A Rational View of Capitalism vs Socialism in America & History).
But Social Democrats also believe the marketplace must be regulated to address the social and economic needs of all people. They want more equality, not in the form of equal outcomes, but in the form of fair opportunities for all to improve their lives and to be protected from discrimination based on the color of their skin, gender, beliefs, or culture. In other words, diversity in these areas is accepted as a permanent condition that a democratic society accepts and protects.
Consequently, social democrats’ social policies are not based on class conflict but on the assumption that a democratic process, equally accessible to all citizens, can lead to ongoing improvement in their material and social conditions.
DSA is the primary organization challenging the perceived lethargy and incompetence of the Democratic Party’s policies, similar to what social democratic parties have promoted in Europe.
How big is the DSA? How effective has it been at gaining support for its candidates? And what government and economic changes does it propose?
How big is the Democratic Socialists of America?
DSA announced on social media X that it recently surpassed 120,000 members, calling itself “the largest socialist organization in United States history.” Previously, the Socialist Party of America, under Eugene Debs, reached its peak in dues-paying membership in 1912, with 113,000 members. Keep in mind that America’s population is now more than three and a half times larger, so, to be comparable in size, DSA would need to have over 420,000 members.
Another comparison could be drawn with the fastest-growing group in the Republican camp, the reactionary Turning Point USA student organization (see The unspoken label for a growing political movement is “Reactionary”). A ChatGPT review of all relevant data indicates that TP USA currently has about 50,000 active, dues-paying student members nationwide. TP USA claims 650,000 lifetime student members; however, this is a cumulative total over the organization’s history, not current membership.
How effective has DSA been in electoral politics?
DSA was founded in 1982 and had 6,000 members in 2015. It wasn’t organized to endorse or campaign for candidates. Rather, as initially led by Michael Harrington, DSA’s formal “strategy” was to realign the Democratic Party further to the left by working from within. When Senator Bernie Sanders ran in the 2016 presidential campaign as a self-identified democratic socialist, membership grew by more than 100,000.
Since 2016, DSA has endorsed and canvassed for candidates who align with its values, including Democrats, independents, and third-party candidates. Nevertheless, its most notable successes have come from challenging incumbent Democrats in high-profile races and securing victories for its candidates as democratic socialists. These include U.S. representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib (both elected in 2018) and New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani (elected in 2025).
As of 2025, over 250 DSA members were elected to public office across 40 states. That’s a lot, but one must consider that there are over 500,000 elected public offices, including 537 federal and roughly 7,000 state legislators. In comparison, there are 3,200 state legislators and hundreds of mayors in the nation’s major cities who are declared members of the Democratic Party. DSA has a long way to go to have a national impact, despite President Donald Trump and the Republican Party broadcasting that their elections are a national security threat.
Their successes have largely been concentrated in large, democratic cities. DSA members hold seven of 50 seats in Chicago, four of 12 in Portland, Oregon, four of 13 in Minneapolis, and four of 15 in Los Angeles.[72] By winning elections in major cities, DSA benefits from national media coverage, and consequently, its importance and its message for change are amplified many times over those of an organization of its size.
But candidates who call themselves democratic socialists may not be DSA members or even receive DSA’s endorsement. For instance, Katie Wilson, who self-identifies as a socialist, won the election for Mayor of Seattle, running against a moderate incumbent. Individual DSA members supported her, but she did not receive DSA’s official endorsement. DSA refused because she was not willing to commit to the organization’s formal “party strategy” and strict platform requirements.
So, what does DSA stand for? Looking at their platform is a good place to begin. Still, traditionally, party platforms, while consisting of core statements of beliefs and goals, are aspirational, not binding, and not comparable to contracts. DSA’s platform is a mix of sweeping objectives and specific changes to pursue.
Highlights of the DSA Platform
The general tone of DSA reflects the classic narrative of 19th-century socialist founders, beginning with Karl Marx. Its five-page Platform’s Preamble & Mission Statement nicely summarizes its major objectives. Workers are identified as its constituency a dozen times, and that emphasis continues throughout the remaining 15 pages of its platform.
In comparison, the 2024 92-page Democratic Party platform mentions workers frequently, though not as often, with no mention of the “working class” and more than half a dozen mentions of the “middle-class”. As expected, DSA makes no mention of the middle-class, but the working-class is scattered throughout.
DSA’s mission is that “working people should have power over our lives, and that includes a government and economy by and for the working class.” This raises the question of who represents the working class. If you go down the road of the two most prominent countries that tried to develop a socialist society, Russia and China, that would be the socialist party.
DSA sees itself as “a working-class alternative to the Democratic Party, capitalists, Democrats, and the far right” that “perpetuate violence and injustice at home and abroad.” As such, it “stands against the capitalist class and the politicians that serve their interests.” Basically, it’s class warfare, and DSA is leading it. Not sure how that’s going to go over as a campaign slogan – but hey, they got DSA members elected in the big blue cities.
The rest of the DSA platform is divided into four sections outlining what they are fighting for: working-class communities, an economy for the working class, a working-class foreign policy, and a working-class democracy.
Choosing just one specificity from each of the above sections, we would have the following. For working-class communities, universal healthcare with no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. For a working-class economy, a 32-hour workweek with no reduction in pay or benefits. For a working-class foreign policy, end economic sanctions that affect the sovereignty of countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. For a working-class democracy, replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote for President.
These are aspirations, not detailed programs for amending the Constitution, balancing the budget, or enforcing the measures through the federal government. That gap would likely be highlighted by voters, the public media, and candidates running against DSA members.
Could DSA take over the Democratic Party?
This question is existential for some Democrats, like Jonathan Cowan, President of Third Way. He argues that the far-leftDSA is poised to take over the Democratic Party if it isn’t stopped. That is stretching the imagination, even though DSA’s mission statement says, “an independent political party, rooted in the working-class majority is necessary,” implying that it could be them or they could take over the Democratic Party.
Cowan’s main point is that the DSA’s program will turn off voters and cause Democrats to lose elections in swing districts or states. He cites the slogan “defund the police,” which few Democratic candidates endorsed, as an example. Cowan concluded that it “helped lead to a dozen unexpected House losses for the party. The DSA’s rise could do the same. Every viral statement from a socialist will become a mailer in the swing districts.”
“The DSA’s main target isn’t moderate incumbents but progressives,” Cowan notes, pointing to Diana DeGette (D-Colorado), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who lost re-election to a DSA challenger. The CPC has nearly 100 members who promote progressive ideals, grounded in the belief that “government must be the great equalizer of opportunity for everyone.”
The closest CPC has to a platform is its Progressive Promise. There is a significant difference between CPC’s Progressive Promise and DSA’s platform in what they hope to accomplish.
The DSA embraces the traditional socialist future of a worker-controlled government without capitalism. CPC makes no mention of doing so; it is committed to regulating the marketplace to ensure a satisfactory level of welfare for all. Income inequality and racial justice are listed as CPC’s objectives; DSA makes no mention of them in its preamble or mission statement. Instead of reforming the economic system, DSA declares that the “capitalist economic system is the cause of violence, unemployment, and a climate crisis,” and that it needs to be abolished.
However, evaluating DSA solely by its published positions may not accurately reflect its members’ beliefs. This is because DSA has a decentralized structure, with local chapters and ideological caucuses enjoying significant autonomy.Like all political organizations, it will have factions spanning the left-to-right political spectrum. The beliefs an organization promotes depend on who controls its equivalent of an executive board.
DSA has a 25-member National Political Committee (NPC) that serves as an executive board and is elected at its national convention every two years. The majority faction on the NPC promotes revolutionary socialism, which opposes social movements that seek to gradually ameliorate capitalism’s economic and social problems through political reform.“Revolutionary” action is understood as a radical change brought about by workers to transform culture and the economy. Violence is not necessary, but it is not excluded as a last resort for achieving a non-capitalist state.
Bottom Line
DSA is not a national threat, and it will not take over the Democratic Party. It has, however, tapped into the national anger against established authorities who appear unable to adjust the economic system to meet their daily needs.
That may be why, according to a Fox News poll this past March, 49% of registered voters, including 72% of Democrats and 60% of independents, described capitalism as working “not very” or “not at all” well. CNN cited a Marquette Law School poll showing that DSA now has higher favorability than sitting congressional Democrats among Democratic voters and leaners.
Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor, aptly summarizes the Democratic Party’s major problem as having “lost the plot” broadly, becoming mired in niche concerns rather than mainstream voter priorities. DSA may be a serious problem for the Democrats if it hinders their chances of winning swing districts. However, spending time trying to kill the squeaky canary in the coal mine isn’t the solution – it’s getting the hell out of the mine to live another day.
Nick Licata is the author of Becoming A Citizen Activist and Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties. He is the founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of over 1,300 progressive municipal officials and a former Seattle City Council President.
