United States: Lessons from the DSA Convention

By Paul Le Blanc
Published
DSA Convention

In the following remarks by Paul Le Blanc, the author reflects on what he could learn from the current state of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the possible way forward after having participated as an observer at the recently concluded DSA National Convention 2025, which was held in Chicago from August 8 to 10.

These remarks are now being published simultaneously on LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal and Communis with Paul Le Blanc’s authorization.

***

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) currently has grown to more than 80,000 members, with many joining after Trump's second-term victory and Zohran Mamdani's win in the Democratic Party's New York City mayoral primary. According to one participant-observer (Stephan Kimmerle, a delegate from Seattle), “a wave of radicalization is bubbling up across the US reflecting a surge of resistance against Trump, the genocide in Palestine, and a new cycle of socialist electoral campaigns. The left-wing of these movements is finding an organized expression in DSA. All signs point to DSA being on track to make a new surge forward, likely surpassing 100,000 members in the coming months.”

It is important to understand that 100,000 represents the membership on paper, not an active membership. My native Pittsburgh illustrates the larger reality. In Pittsburgh, the paper membership has fluctuated around 700. Of these, between 400 and 500 have been members “in good standing,” that is, those who have paid their dues. Of those, roughly 10% could be considered active – in the sense that they attend monthly membership meetings (which are hybrid, in-person/on-line attendance) and/or are involved in one or another working group. I have begun to attend monthly meetings in-person, and I have generally seen between 50 and 80 participants at each.

This would translate into a national total of active DSA members in the range of 8000-to-10,000, which is still a substantial force and certainly makes DSA far larger than any other left-wing group in the United States today.

An invaluable source for those seeking a political understanding of DSA is a new collection edited by Stephan Kimmerle, Philip Locker, and Brandon Madsen, A User’s Guide to DSA: 5 Debates That Define the Democratic Socialists. This provides over 450 pages made up, primarily, of 38 articles representing a full range of opinion within DSA. A paperback can be acquired for $15, an e-book for $9.50.

Who was at the Convention

The highest decision-making body within DSA is the delegated national convention, held every other year, which takes place after several months of written and oral pre-convention discussion. Conventions select a national leadership, make decisions on structure, policy, campaigns, etc. They are highly structured, heavy on procedure (some feel overly heavy), but on the other hand they are relatively democratic.

At the 2025 national convention in Chicago (August 8-10), there were approximately 1500 people in attendance — almost all of whom were members of DSA, and the overwhelming majority of whom were elected delegates. Looking at how many voted on the various resolutions and motions brought before the body, the number generally fluctuated between 1100 and 1200, with the high-point that I was able to find being 1229 — which would place the number formal observers (like me) and guests at around 271.

The age range was overwhelmingly on the young side — perhaps a few teenagers, but most in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Those in their 50s and 60s were relatively fewer in number, with only a sprinkling in the 70s and 80s bracket.

While a majority of those present could be identified as “white,” there were significant numbers of Hispanic, African, South Asian, East Asian, and Middle Eastern extraction. The gender balance struck me as fairly even, including a significant percentage of those identifying as trans and “non-binary.” What especially stood out for me was that the vast majority of those present appeared to understand themselves to be part of an occupationally diverse working class. It was class identity that seemed to be central in the discussions at the convention.

This meant that topics common to many left-wing conferences (analyses of a variety of identities, modern-day abolitionism, race and anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, explanations of theory, the environmental crisis, etc.) were not the focus of discussion here. Some of these things were, in fact, already integrated into the perspectives of the participants, but the vocabulary and focus of their discussions had to do with the practical political application of a working-class oriented Marxism seeking to replace capitalism with socialism..

Political orientations at the Convention and within DSA

It seemed a fairly serious body of convention participants — most of those in attendance remained present during the sessions at which the various resolutions were presented, discussed and debated, and voted on. There was a numbing quantity of proposed amendments (some adopted, some not), procedural motions, points of order, challenges to decisions of the chair, etc., etc. — turning much of the convention into a fairly grim slog. But most of the comrades seemed to stay with it and were able to cast knowledgeable votes when the time came to vote.

While I have been inclined to be distrustful of the various caucuses in the organization — initially perceiving them as essentially parasitic, and unhelpfully artificial — my experience at the convention has now caused me to see them as having become a relatively organic component of DSA, helping foster a democratic culture in DSA and contributing to the organization’s growth and development. Although there was initially a tendency to group the various caucuses into a Left Bloc and a Right Bloc, the complexities of the actual situation suggest three blocs — while also requiring a recognition that the situation remains dynamic and fluid, and that on-the-ground complexities push against reducing the organization to any cut-and-dried schemas. But first, let us identify the three blocs. (This three-bloc schema is drawn from a convention report by Stephan Kimmerle, who belongs to the minority current within Reform and Revolution. I have felt a need, however, to modify the way he characterizes the three blocs, in order to align it more closely with my own perceptions.)

  1. A moderate wing that emphasizes mass work, aims for DSA to resonate with a broader working-class audience, and adopts an opportunistic approach toward DSA’s elected officials, and inclines toward “progressives” and liberals among Democratic Party politicians and among leaders in the labor movement. This wing reflects some continuity with such original founders of DSA as the late Michael Harrington. Until recently, their orientation tended to be predominant in DSA, but this has changed dramatically. Caucuses in DSA representing this orientation include Groundwork and the still-sizeable Socialist Majority Caucus. On the right fringe of this wing is North Star, quite small but more explicit in its adherence to the Harrington tradition.
  2. A far-left wing that is inclined to break decisively from liberal-reformist perspectives favored by the moderate wing. It generally reflects the sentiments of left activists within the Palestine movement and also contains advocates for a campist variation of “anti-imperialism” — which essentially means aligning with, and being more or less uncritical of, all forces who are in the “camp” that opposes the US empire. (Within that “camp” are authoritarian dictatorships — some claiming to be socialist, and others that are conservative and openly anti-socialist, in some cases ultra-religious.) Included in this wing of DSA are Red Star and Springs of Revolution.
  3. A Marxist center-left that seeks to merge an orientation towards the mass of working-class people with a strategy aimed at building an independent socialist party, while promoting class struggle and socialist ideas within labor and social movements. This includes Bread and Roses, Reform and Revolution, and Marxist Unity Group. Yet within each of these there is a spectrum of perspectives — with an explicit division opening up between minority (the former leadership) and majority within Reform and Revolution. Some elements of Bread and Roses are concerned to avoid a final rupture with the moderate wing. Some elements of Reform and Revolution and Marxist Unity Group are not inclined to separate themselves from perspectives of the far-left wing.

Related to the complexities just alluded to, there is a positive tendency within the various caucuses for comrades to listen and give serious consideration to what comrades outside of one’s own caucus have to say. There are, also, some serious-minded caucus members who end up shifting to a different caucus if they are persuaded of the merits of that caucus’ perspectives. We have seen that the organization as a whole has shifted from the moderate orientation to a more left-wing orientation. At the 2023 convention, and again in 2025, there have been further tilts leftward as a radicalization process continues to unfold within DSA — reflecting what is happening in the larger world outside of DSA.

Recently new caucuses have come into being. The Carnation Caucus has advanced a four-year program designed to place the organization in an orbit blending center-left Marxism with far-left perspectives, insisting that DSA itself should be considered a political party. Another newly formed caucus self-describes as “Liberation — A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Caucus,” advancing positions that have yet to make sense to many DSAers.

There are also caucuses that do not fit neatly into the three blocs — in some cases tending to straddle two of the blocs, in other cases evolving in a manner inconsistent with placement in any of the blocs. In the former category there are two caucuses that have succinct descriptions in A User’s Guide to DSA. The Communist Caucus (with which I feel some affinity) is described this way: “A multi-tendency communist caucus. They focus mainly on labor and base-building, including tenant organizing.” Emerge is described similarly: “A multi-tendency communist caucus in NYC-DSA. They are active around questions of anti-imperialism and tenant organizing.” There is also the anarchist-influenced Libertarian Socialist Caucus, a serious formation with popular projects but which, as the editors of A User’s Guide to DSA comment, “makes it an outlier on the left of DSA — most other members of the organized left of DSA come from caucuses that claim Marxism as their foundation.”

I suspect that most of DSA nationally is similar to the DSA branch in Pittsburgh — a majority of members belong to no caucus. But they value the ideas, contributions, and commitment of various caucus members and are quite prepared to elect a high proportion of them to represent the Pittsburgh branch as delegates to the national convention. Still, they are unaligned and inclined to do their own thinking, under the dual impact of larger events and of their own experience.

Debates, decisions, discussions

The three days of the DSA convention were too tightly packed to allow for a thorough blow-by-blow account, which could be adequately presented, perhaps, in a book, but not a relatively brief account such as this. That is especially true of the more than 13 hours of Deliberation Blocks — thick with reports, resolutions, amendments, procedural motions, points of order, votes and more among 1100 to 1200 delegates.

These unavoidable monstrosities were distributed in the mornings and afternoons of the three days, interspersed with a keynote address here, a Programming Block or two there, acceptance speeches of some comrades who had been elected to internal DSA positions, and even some very nice singing, at a couple of points, from the “Sing in Solidarity” choir. Altogether there is simply too much to cover except through quick notes and relatively impressionistic sketches.

The debates at the convention tended to focus on several concerns.

  • What structures and policies would ensure greater membership participation and control within DSA and also greater cohesion and effectiveness.
  • How independence from Democratic Party establishment could best be accomplished — with attention especially focused on the 2028 Presidential election.
  • What should be expected of candidates that DSA endorses. This also involves what should endorsement consist of? (Comrades working on the campaign? Ongoing consultation and collaboration between DSA and the candidate?) What should be expected of an endorsed candidate? Should they run as an open socialist, on a platform that has DSA input? If the candidate wins, how can accountability be ensured?
  • How far to the left should DSA move in order to be true to its core socialist principles.
  • How best to realize a genuine and meaningful internationalism (involving such issues as imperialism and anti-imperialism, relations with various organizations and coalitions, solidarity with Palestine and specifics of anti-Zionism, and the issue of “campism”).

Debate took place in conjunction with motivating, supporting, or opposing resolutions about to be voted on. Some sense of the direction in which the organization is moving is conveyed by one experienced Pittsburgh DSA delegate in this way:

While a strong anti-Zionist resolution on Palestine had failed to win at the 2023 Convention, it is highly significant that at the 2025 Convention such a resolution won 56% of the votes, with 44% against. One point of contention involved new standards that candidates would be required to meet to be eligible for DSA endorsement: full and public support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and for the Palestinian struggle. This would seem to preclude DSA’s support for many candidates that it has endorsed up until now, including Bernie Sanders. “However,” notes Stephan Kimmerle, “it will be up to the new NPC [National Political Committee] to interpret this resolution and the emphasis even of the people moving the resolution was that DSA would remain flexible in its implementation of that resolution.”

A decision that many of us regret involves the fate of an amendment to the international resolution that explicitly challenged “campist” perspectives, which was defeated — with 43% of the votes in favor and 56% against.

Attention was given to how DSA-endorsed candidates will campaign and perform their duties in office. The consensus resolution presented by DSA’s National Electoral Committee, and passed, focused on running candidates who represent DSA and come from the ranks of DSA, not simply giving endorsements to “progressive Democrats” seeking support. The resolution demanded that DSA endorsed candidates “openly and proudly identify with DSA and Socialism, including by: Expressly encouraging people to join DSA” and “identifying publicly as a ‘Socialist’ or ‘Democratic Socialist.’” It urges chapters to demand from candidates “a commitment to building a socialist slate and political independence.” It remains to be seen, of course, how this policy is actually applied.

Many resolutions — for which there was no time to discuss and vote on — ended up being referred to the National Political Committee (NPC), which oversees the functioning of the organization between it bi-annual conventions.

Elections to the NPC which took place at the convention are another indication of the leftward shift taking place in the organization. Of 24 slots on the NPC, only 9 went to caucus members in the moderate wing, while 18 went to those associated with the left — as it turned out, evenly divided with 9 positions won by caucuses in the far-left wing, and 9 won by caucuses of the Marxist center-left bloc.

It is important, however, to not make more of this than may be merited. “Our new NPC is ‘further left,’” commented one savvy delegate from Pittsburgh, “but it remains to be seen what that will mean.” This is related to the desire of many (though hardly all) activists in various caucuses to avoid splits and fissures that could result in a diminished DSA. At the same time, there is an extreme fluidity within some of the caucuses, and in our volatile times it is impossible to predict with any certainty how the internal situation will evolve.

In addition, there were discussions at the convention — not connected to resolutions or voting — that gave a vibrant sense of the political perspectives prevalent in DSA today. These included: 1) a remarkably radical speech by Rashida Tlaib and the convention’s response to it; 2) panel presentations by key organizers of Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in NYC; 3) a dynamic three-hour “First Ever Cross-Organizational Political Exchange” (two minutes per speaker) involving guests from a variety of movements and struggles interspersed with contributions of DSA members active in struggles. Eloquent and meaningful comments were offered by members of the Chicago Teachers Union, Caucus of Rank-and-file Electrical Workers (CREW), Essential Workers for Democracy, a rank-and-file caucus in the National Association of Letter Carriers, and Railroad Workers United, the Arise Chicago Workers Center, the Debt Collective, the Sunrise Movement, BDS and the Palestinian Youth Movement, both PSOL and the PT from Brazil, Belgium’s Workers Party), La France Insoumise, Morena from Mexico, Puerto Rico’s Democracia Socialista, and Japan’s Democratic Socialists.

The speech by Rashida Tlaib generated roars of approval and a standing ovation. Stephan Kimmerle aptly describes it:

Keynote speaker Congressmember Rashida Tlaib addressed the Convention with a powerful and emotional message against the war on Palestine. She linked the votes in Congress that fund the genocide with the lack of funding for reforms such as Medicare for All and clean water. Tlaib condemned “the establishment of both parties” for their role in financing the genocide, pointing out that both the Republicans and Democrats are funded by billionaires.

In a clear contrast and apparent criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib stated, “A weapon is a weapon.” AOC had voted in July in favor of US funding Israel’s Iron Dome, justifying it by saying there is a difference between supplying “defensive weapons” and “offensive weapons” to Israel. In contrast, Tlaib and Ilhan Omar correctly voted against this. (AOC later voted against the military funding bill as a whole.)

Tlaib spoke out against “capitalistic systems of exploitation” and emphasized, “the working masses are hungry for revolutionary change… That is why DSA is so important. We are able to honestly and truthfully diagnose the problems facing working-class Americans.” She urged DSA — referring to the organization as “we” — to use language that is understandable to working-class people, those who corporate Democrats and Republicans have abandoned, in order to explain “what democratic socialism can mean for their lives.” Tlaib urged DSA to orient our work toward the broad mass of the working class and bring more people of color into our organization by convincing them of democratic socialist ideas — very necessary tasks for DSA.

Does it make sense for revolutionary Marxists to be part of DSA?

The reality of DSA — as reflected by the convention — was qualitatively different from my preconceived notions. It was much further to the Left than I expected, far more critical of, and inclined to reject, both capitalist parties. I was expecting something within which the kind of politics represented by DSA moderate wing dominated — with some opportunities for left-wing discussion, educational work, and involvement in some good and practical social action. The fact that this was the largest socialist organization in the United States and had grown dramatically, containing a very large number of young socialist-minded activists who were essentially part of our occupationally diverse working class — all of these were primary factors in my decision, over the past several years, to become involved in it.

The DSA that I have experienced in Pittsburgh over the past twelve months persuaded me that (1) it made sense for me to become seriously involved in this organization on the local level, and (2) that I must go to the national convention — as an observer — to get a more adequate sense of the organization as a whole. And this experience was a revelation for me. In this account I have tried to give some sense of what I found in the course of the organization’s national convention of August 8-10, 2025. I found a far more open, vibrant, leftwardly radicalizing reality than I had anticipated — replete with frustrating limitations and imperfections, but also open and evolving, with opportunities to help create a more effective socialist organization. There are also opportunities to learn much from the experience. DSA has great problems but enormous potential. So, yes, for me as a revolutionary Marxist, it certainly makes sense to be part of DSA. Not to “intervene” in DSA, but to be a genuine part of it.

It also makes sense to me to be part of Solidarity and of the Tempest Collective. Figuring out how these pieces fit together is a challenge to be dealt with through being actively involved in these organizations, while helping to build an effective movement for socialism.

Democratic Socialists of America United States
This work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Subscribe to our newsletter

Ecosocialism 2025

Ecosocialism 2025 ecosocialism.org.au

Search LINKS