DSA’s future: Socialism, elections and the limits of relying on the ballot line

Paul Le Blanc’s review of A User’s Guide to DSA: 5 Debates That Define the Democratic Socialists performs a useful service, as it treats the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) seriously. That alone is welcome. Too much of the socialist left either dismisses DSA as hopelessly reformist or romanticises it as the embryo of a mass workers’ party. Le Blanc does neither.

Instead, he maps debates and identifies the caucuses. He recognises the organisation’s democratic vitality and shows that DSA is now a central terrain on which the future of socialism in the United States is being contested. Taking DSA seriously also means recognising its limitations. DSA is not, at present, a party oriented toward comprehensive socialist transformation.

Instead, it functions as a combination of an election-focused group, an activist network, a debate forum, and an educational organisation. That combination gives DSA its importance, but it also sets real limits on what it can achieve. The issue is not whether DSA matters — it clearly does. The question is whether it can evolve beyond a project aimed at moving the Democratic Party to the left within the existing political system.

The Democratic Party problem

The main question remains DSA’s relationship with the Democratic Party. A User’s Guide to DSA lists the usual options: stay in, leave later, leave now, use the ballot line for now, or build a new party. These debates matter but may distract from the central issue. The Democratic Party is not simply a ballot line. It is a central mechanism through which US capitalism incorporates social movements, channels labour politics, manages protest and turns radical demands into bargains compatible with the system. This is not accidental — these functions are built into the party.

So, the issue is not simply whether socialists should run as Democrats. The question is whether the party gains more by absorbing socialists than socialists gain by using its ballot line and infrastructure. Candidates may begin with clear programs, strong principles and real grassroots energy. But after the election, they confront the routine pressures of capitalist governance: donors, media narratives, committee hierarchies, legislative bargaining, party discipline and the demand to seem “serious” or “responsible.” In practice, “responsible” usually means managing within capitalist limits — not building an independent working-class organisation.

This is not only about individual missteps. It is about how the system operates. The state can turn radicals into reform managers without always needing to defeat them through force — sometimes it just gives them a committee seat.

Elections and class power

This is not a call for socialists to avoid elections. Electoral campaigns can spread socialist ideas, expose capitalist hypocrisy, win reforms and create openings for class struggle. Figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Zohran Mamdani have helped bring socialism to a mass audience. That shift in visibility matters. Still, increased awareness of socialism does not automatically translate to actual socialist power.

A socialist in office who lacks dedicated support from organised workers and others is likely to adapt to the system. The real base is not the person in office, but the ability of workers, tenants, students, immigrants and others to organise and act. This means unions, rank-and-file caucuses, tenant organisations, strike committees, anti-war coalitions, immigrant defence networks, socialist education and democratic groups of struggle are essential. Elections should support this work, not replace it.

The risk for DSA is that elections become the main focus. Campaigns are exciting: they raise money, get media coverage and can win. Organising at work or with tenants is slower and harder, and political education often receives less attention. Building strong working-class groups is not as thrilling as election night. But without those groups, socialist politics depend too much on individuals and election cycles.

That dynamic raises another critical question: the state’s role in shaping outcomes. A widespread problem in DSA is an unclear understanding of the state. The state is not a neutral institution. Electing better people does not, by itself, change its core functions: protecting property relations and preserving the existing order. Courts, police, prisons, the military and government agencies do not go away if socialists win office. Even if reforms are passed, they must be carried out by institutions that still operate under the rules of capitalism.

For that reason, socialist strategy must go beyond passing laws. The working class cannot just take over the existing state and run it better. It needs to build its own democratic power through struggle. This is not an argument against reforms. Reforms matter when they empower people, improve lives and reveal class divisions. But reforms are misleading if they foster the belief that socialism can gradually develop within capitalism simply by upgrading public services. Socialism is not only about better services — it is about democratic working-class rule over production, distribution and society.

DSA’s democratic vitality — and its limits

Le Blanc rightly sees DSA’s internal pluralism as a sign of vitality. The existence of caucuses, debates, resolutions and contested strategy is not a scandal. This is normal in a living socialist organisation. Even so, internal diversity of views alone does not guarantee that DSA has a unified or clear strategy.

DSA includes social democrats, Marxists, election-focused members, labour activists, anti-imperialists and others. Some see socialism as just a better welfare state. This range can help, but it also makes it hard to move forward.

Every serious socialist organisation must answer basic questions: What is the road to power? What is the role of elections? What is the relationship between reforms and revolution? What is class independence? What obligations do endorsed elected officials have to the organisation? How does DSA relate to unions, social movements and the Democratic Party?

Labour: The strategic core

The strongest and most important debates in DSA are about labour. Joe Burns points out in A User’s Guide to DSA that even the strongest union is still working within capitalism. That reality does not make unions unimportant. Unions are necessary, but they are not enough.

They can fight over wages, hours, safety, dignity and power on the job. But they do not automatically generate socialist politics. A strike can raise consciousness, yet it can also remain limited to bread-and-butter demands unless socialists help connect workplace struggles to the fight against capitalist rule.

That is why the rank-and-file strategy is important. Socialists should not see workers as people to be organised by experts. They should also not assume that sudden action is enough. The goal is to build democratic groups within unions that can challenge bosses and union leaders who oppose change. The working class does not need heroes — it needs to be organised, clear about its goals, and sure of its own strength.

Class, race and oppression

Le Blanc also highlights one of DSA’s strengths: its broad understanding that class struggle cannot be separated from struggles against racism, sexism, xenophobia, queer oppression and imperial violence. This is not identity politics. It is a basic Marxism. Capitalism exploits a working class that is divided by race, gender, citizenship, sexuality and geography. These divisions are not minor. They are the means by which capitalism maintains control. 

Socialists should go beyond viewing socialism as a simple alliance among oppressed groups. The task is not to choose between class and oppression, but to understand that confronting oppression helps the working class learn to act together. The working class does not become united by ignoring its divisions — it becomes united by facing and overcoming them.

Internationalism against campism

The debates over imperialism are especially important. Socialists in the US have a primary duty to oppose US imperialism. In practical terms, this includes opposing sanctions, occupations, coups, military aid to colonial violence, and the bipartisan machinery of empire. Opposing imperialism, though, does not mean supporting every state or group that opposes the US. That is not real internationalism.

The point is not to pick a camp, but to maintain class independence in every conflict. For socialists, this requires unambiguous opposition to Israeli apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Yet supporting Palestinian liberation does not mean politically aligning with Hamas or other non-socialist forces. Liberation depends on mass democratic struggle from below, strengthened by regional working-class solidarity and the defeat of imperial domination.

The Lenin question

Le Blanc’s review closes by invoking Vladimir Lenin’s insistence on learning. That emphasis matters: the left needs more learning and less preaching from people who think they already know everything. Lenin also forces questions about organisation, rupture and state power. 

The real question for DSA is not about calling people Leninists. Labels do not matter much. What matters is whether DSA can go beyond talking, campaigning and elections to become a group capable of acting in real political crises.

Can it be organised beyond election cycles? Can it discipline its public representatives? Can it root itself in workplaces and communities? Can it help build united fronts without breaking down into liberal coalitions? Can it fight the far right without becoming an appendage of the Democratic Party? Can it oppose imperialism without campism? Can it educate members not only to vote correctly at convention but to act strategically in struggle?

These are the questions that count.

What DSA might become

DSA’s future is not settled — that is precisely why it matters. DSA could become the left wing of the Democratic Party, using socialist words for reform politics. It could become a loose group of activists, moving from one campaign to another without a clear plan. It could also break apart because of disagreements. Or it could become part of the process through which a real socialist party is born in the US.

Reaching that outcome will require more than growth, more than caucus competition, and more than elections. DSA will need to break away from dependence on the Democratic Party — first politically, and then organizationally. It will need to focus on labour organising, tenant work, anti-imperialist action, political education and real democracy.

DSA remains at a crossroads. It must decide whether to build a true alternative rooted in working-class self-organisation or remain mired in elections and tenuous alliances. To rise to the challenge, DSA must be unambiguous about the state, the Democratic Party and internationalism. Its priority must be to construct organisation, clarity, independence and genuine power. Socialism demands nothing less.

Socialism is not simply an identity, a brand or a set of local policies. It needs to be taken literally. DSA is a place where people are trying to turn this idea into an organised force. Le Blanc’s review helps us see what is happening. But seeing is just the start. Next comes the harder job: deciding what to do. And unlike a magazine symposium, a DSA convention agenda does not allow unlimited debate time.

Anthony Teso is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Tempest Collective and Solidarity in the United States.