DSA held its 2025 National Convention earlier this month, and the ‘DSA Left’ landed another series of wins. From anti-Zionism to a new NPC with a larger ‘left’ majority, the DSA Left built and expanded on its work at the 2023 Convention. In response, a variety of people claimed that ‘entryists’ have taken over DSA and held its members hostage to their ‘revolutionary socialist’ demands.
But they ground these claims in a misunderstanding of DSA. They miss how and why DSA grew around the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries and general election.
Let’s take a closer look at the details.
Revolutionary Socialist Entryists?
We need to set some context here. Why do people claim that revolutionary socialist entryists are leading DSA in a direction unpopular with its own members?
First, these claims come from a variety of sources. Internally, the right-leaning caucuses appeal to it from time to time. DSA North Star does so the loudest. But they’re a rather small and (imo) uninteresting group. More interestingly, we see it coming from Socialist Majority – a caucus with an actual mass following among DSA members and real power in the org.
But even more often than Socialist Majority, I hear the claim from elements of progressive politics outside of DSA. Specifically, it comes from leaders of progressive NGOs, progressive segments of organized labor, and Alinskyite activist groups.
Socialist Majority, progressive organized labor, and Alinskyite activists share a (loosely) common vision of how to build left politics. Their idea goes something like this: we build power by putting together a ‘big progressive coalition’ of social democrats, labor, progressive Democrats, and (usually professional class, very liberal or progressive) members of marginalized groups. Through converting disaffected liberals to the right team, we slowly build this bloc into a numerical majority that takes power.
From this starting point, it’s easy to see why these folks don’t like the ‘revolutionary socialist’ elements of DSA. They believe most rank and file DSA members want to build the ‘big progressive coalition.’ And they think the DSA left – Red Star, Communist Caucus, Libertarian Socialist Caucus, MUG, and so on – turn off the very disaffected liberals they want to recruit. They think the DSA left blocks their intended majority.
Why They’re Wrong
It’s a tight, coherent theory. The problem is that it rests on a false picture of the U.S. public.
The last decade has shown clearly that the ‘big progressive coalition’ is a failure and will likely never put together a numerical majority. There’s little demand for progressivism outside of heavily Democratic parts of the country.
Furthermore, DSA’s membership has moved away from the ‘big progressive coalition’ vision.
For one, that vision isn’t even the major reason why DSA grew in 2015 and 2016 in the first place. I documented this extensively a few years ago, pointing out that DSA’s ‘Old Guard‘ tried to build a big progressive coalition in 2015. But the actual base of new members in 2015 and beyond came from disaffected working-class college students and graduates who have fallen on hard times. Growth also came, in no small part, from revolutionary socialists.
In short, DSA aimed for disaffected liberal Democrats who wanted to build the kind of coalition Socialist Majority, progressive labor, and Alinskyite activists wanted to build. But they hit something different.
Second, DSA periodically surveys its members. These surveys show a gradual shift of members away from progressivism and toward the revolutionary left. There’s no ‘hidden majority’ of progressives in DSA. The best explanation here is that the DSA Left wins elections because that’s what DSA members want.
That’s not entryism. It’s democracy in action.
Actual Entryism
Entryism is an old idea in leftist politics, and the last major wave of it happened in the 1960s and 1970s. What did it look like? Coordinated groups of people actively tried to take over another org by posing as ‘real members,’ but stuffing a key meeting or vote with their own people.
That’s not what’s happening in DSA. In DSA, revolutionary socialists joined and became active, participating members. Other members tended to turn toward their views through their own engagement and experience.
Furthermore, DSA remains an open, big-tent org. It rarely, if ever, expels people for disagreement on a single issue or vote. It does have its concerning moments – such as the clause in the anti-Zionist resolution allowing for expulsion of people who persistently disagree with BDS – but it still, by and large, features an open culture of political debate and disagreement.
Frankly, I find in DSA a far more open and healthy culture than most progressive NGOs, labor caucuses, and Alinskyite activist groups.
So, no, revolutionary socialist ‘entryists’ aren’t running DSA against the will of most of its members. DSA still isn’t a sectarian org.
That’s not a thing that’s happening.
