A Hidden War

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) stands today as the largest socialist organization in United States history. On July 4, 2026, it surpassed 120,000 dues-paying members, eclipsing the peak of the old Socialist Party of America under Eugene Debs in 1912. This milestone caps years of explosive growth—from roughly 5,000 members a decade ago to over 90,000 by late 2025, nearly doubling in the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s successful 2025 New York City mayoral campaign. Once a modest vehicle for democratic leftists, DSA now shapes primaries, city halls, and congressional races while championing a platform of expansive government intervention, wealth redistribution, and foreign policy radicalism. Its ascent reflects real frustrations with inequality, housing costs, and corporate influence. Yet this influence has revealed deeper flaws: an economic vision that collides with fiscal and incentive realities, a foreign policy fixation that alienates allies and echoes historical errors, and internal dynamics marked by factionalism, purity tests, and selective historical memory. Far from evolving Harrington’s pluralistic democratic socialism, the modern DSA often substitutes ideological fervor for pragmatic governance, risking disillusionment even as it claims victories.

From Harrington’s Vision to Contemporary Radicalism: A Historical Pivot

Michael Harrington founded DSA in 1982 by merging the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement. He sought a distinctly American path—democratic, anti-authoritarian, and committed to civil liberties—explicitly rejecting Leninist vanguardism and embracing social democratic reforms within a capitalist framework. Early DSA supported Israel as a Jewish homeland and focused on labor, welfare expansion, and anti-poverty work without revolutionary rupture. Today’s DSA has diverged sharply. It has embraced anti-Zionism as a core tenet, with 2025 national convention resolutions advancing “For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA” and tying candidate endorsements to support for Palestinian liberation and BDS principles. Structural changes expanded the National Political Committee from 16 to 25 members and eased earlier safeguards against “democratic centralism,” once viewed as a bulwark against entryism by authoritarian factions. Communist-identifying caucuses now hold sway in leadership debates, while older members have departed, lamenting the shift from Harrington’s anti-totalitarian ethos. Membership surges—fueled by Mamdani’s rise and post-2024 election mobilization—have brought energy but also churn. Retention challenges persist, and rapid onboarding risks diluting deliberative culture. The organization’s platform now routinely includes calls for industry nationalization, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and, in some factions, abolition of institutions like the Senate. These positions energize activists yet strain broader electoral viability.

The Economic Vision: Bold Experiments, Tangible Strains

DSA’s economic agenda centers on decommodifying essentials and curbing corporate power through public ownership and heavy redistribution. Proponents highlight successes in spotlighting affordability. Critics point to governance outcomes where ideology meets bureaucracy and voter expectations. New York City under Mayor Zohran Mamdani provides the most prominent test case. Sworn in January 2026 as the city’s youngest mayor in a century and its first Muslim and Asian American mayor, Mamdani—a DSA member and former state assemblyman—campaigned on transformative affordability: a $30 minimum wage by 2030, city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, universal childcare, social housing for 200,000 units, and tax hikes on high earners and corporations to fund CUNY/SUNY tuition relief. Early tenure has mixed signals. Mamdani touts a “whole of government” approach yielding the safest start to any year on record in the first half of 2026, with major crime down nearly 6 percent, record-low murders, shootings, and victims. His administration secured the largest-ever civil penalty against negligent Bronx landlords—$31 million—and advanced tenant protections. Yet approval ratings tell a more cautious story. A Marist Poll at the 100-day mark showed 48 percent approval—below predecessor Eric Adams at a comparable point. While 61 percent viewed him as a good leader and 75 percent as hardworking, concerns linger over experience managing a $115+ billion budget and 300,000 municipal workers. Critics, including The New York Times editorial board during the campaign, argued his agenda ignores unavoidable trade-offs. Endorsing progressive challengers who defeated incumbents in 2026 congressional primaries further strained relations with Democratic establishment figures like Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. Implementation hurdles for ambitious pledges—funding mechanisms, business retention, and service delivery—remain live questions. Chicago under Mayor Brandon Johnson, bolstered by DSA-aligned alderpersons, reveals parallel tensions. Elected in 2023 with strong progressive and teachers’ union support, Johnson pursued expansive social spending, criminal justice reforms, and education investments. Outcomes have been rocky: persistent budget pressures, school system conflicts (including clashes over pensions and leadership), and public safety challenges. Approval ratings have hovered in the mid-20s to low-30s throughout 2025–2026, with polls showing widespread dissatisfaction and net negatives. Voters rejected a key real estate transfer tax for homeless services; the City Council has overridden or distanced itself from several mayoral initiatives. Critics cite inexperience, loyalty-driven appointments over expertise, and over-reliance on ideological allies as contributors to governance friction. Even some on the left question whether the administration has delivered tangible improvements amid ongoing crises. These cases illustrate recurring patterns. DSA-influenced policies often prioritize decommodification and redistribution without fully grappling with revenue realities, administrative capacity, or behavioral responses (e.g., business flight or work disincentives). Historical parallels—from Venezuela’s resource mismanagement to strains in high-tax, high-regulation U.S. cities—underscore risks of centralized ambition outpacing execution. While targeted wins on landlord accountability or crime metrics occur, broader structural challenges persist, eroding public confidence.

Foreign Policy: The Israel Fixation and Moral Selectivity

DSA’s international stance has become a defining—and divisive—feature. The organization endorses BDS, frames Israel as settler-colonial and apartheid, and demands an end to U.S. aid alongside a broad “right of return.” This hardened dramatically after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks. DSA statements condemned violence generally but emphasized Israeli response, prompting widespread criticism for insufficient focus on terrorism’s victims. The 2025 convention codified the shift. Delegates passed resolutions conditioning endorsements on anti-Zionist commitments and exploring mechanisms to hold members accountable for deviations—moves that effectively elevate Palestine solidarity as a litmus test. This prompted further departures among longtime members who viewed it as a betrayal of democratic socialist universalism. Electoral consequences followed. DSA-backed “Squad” members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush lost primaries amid heavy spending tied partly to their Israel stances—Bowman decisively in New York’s 16th district, Bush in Missouri. Even within progressive circles, the rigidity alienated moderates and Jewish allies. The selective lens—intense scrutiny of one democracy alongside softer treatment of left-aligned authoritarian regimes or other global conflicts—undermines claims of consistent human rights advocacy. It has fractured coalitions and invited charges that anti-Zionism functions, in practice, as a vehicle for older antisemitic patterns repackaged in progressive language.

Internal Dynamics, Electoral Strategy, and Party Impact

DSA’s growth strategy blends electoral entryism with movement-building. Successes include Mamdani’s mayoralty and subsequent primary wins for endorsed candidates. Yet this approach breeds dependency on the Democratic Party it often critiques as captured by donors, while internal conventions reveal factional battles over democracy, labor strategy, and ideological boundaries. The 2025 gathering featured debates over “One Member, One Vote” (defeated), expanded NPC structures, labor independence, and anti-Zionist enforcement. Resolutions emphasized party-building and worker-led movements but also tightened endorsement criteria. Rapid membership influx has strained capacity—chapters report both enthusiasm and retention issues—while caucus rivalries complicate unified action. Broader impact on the Democratic Party is double-edged. DSA has shifted discourse leftward on economics and foreign policy in safe districts. In competitive areas, however, associated positions (defund-adjacent policing, expansive immigration stances, or foreign policy maximalism) have contributed to backlash and losses. Mainstream Democrats increasingly view the organization as a source of chaos or liability, prompting pushback against “hijacking” narratives. Mamdani’s “kingmaker” role in 2026 primaries amplified this tension.

Conclusion: Ambition Without Reckoning

DSA’s trajectory embodies a classic tension in radical politics: the gap between inspiring critique and governing competence. Membership milestones and electoral footholds demonstrate resonance with younger voters disillusioned by stagnation. Yet Chicago’s low approvals, New York’s mixed early results, foreign policy alienation, and internal purges suggest that ideological consistency often trumps adaptability. America’s pluralistic republic rewards persuasion, coalition-building, and evidence-based iteration over purity spirals or imported revolutionary templates. DSA’s economic experiments highlight real inequities but frequently underweight trade-offs; its foreign posture reveals selective moral accounting; its internal evolution drifts from founding pluralism. As influence grows, the organization faces a choice: evolve toward pragmatic democratic socialism that delivers measurable gains, or remain a vehicle for symbolic radicalism that energizes the committed while repelling the broader public needed for durable change. The stakes extend beyond DSA. A left unable to reconcile ambition with realism cedes ground to alternatives—populist or otherwise—that better navigate complexity. History favors movements that temper zeal with humility before incentives, institutions, and human nature. DSA’s current path offers valuable warnings as much as inspiration: passion alone rarely sustains progress when detached from results.