Part Two: Who Is Steering the Democratic Socialists of America?
At this point, someone might object that every large political organization contains ideological factions.
That observation is true enough.
But it misses the point.
Marxism, communism, and revolutionary socialism are not simply alternative schools of political thought within the broad family of democratic politics. They are revolutionary ideologies with a well-documented history. During the twentieth century, regimes explicitly organized around Marxist-Leninist principles imprisoned, impoverished, and, in many cases, murdered tens of millions of people. History does not permit us to treat these labels casually.
That does not mean today’s Democratic Socialists of America seeks to recreate Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Historical comparisons should always be made with care.
But neither should Christians shrug their shoulders when leaders and influential factions within a significant American political movement 1DSA’s reports 95,000+ members, 250 elected officials, and Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 election as NYC mayor as evidence of its influence. openly describe themselves as Marxists, revolutionary socialists, or even communists. Such language deserves to be taken seriously—not because it settles every question, but because ideas have consequences and history has already shown where some of these ideas can lead when joined to political power.
Which brings us to the question that actually matters.
The issue is not whether revolutionary caucuses exist within the Democratic Socialists of America.
The issue is whether they exercise meaningful influence over the organization’s leadership, conventions, political strategy, and long-term direction.
If these groups are merely isolated voices on the fringes, then Mr. Connelly’s comparison to Scandinavian social democracy may still be substantially correct.
But if they increasingly shape the leadership of the organization itself, then we are dealing with something quite different.
That is precisely what the DSA’s own internal literature reveals.
Exhibit A: “A Small Coalition of Communist Caucuses…”
One of the most illuminating documents I encountered was not written by a conservative journalist.
Nor by a Republican politician.
Nor by an anti-socialist think tank.
It was written by Vincent Lima, chairman of the Political Committee of the Socialist Majority Caucus—one of the more moderate factions within the Democratic Socialists of America.
His article bears the remarkable title:
“Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: A Primer on Caucuses in DSA Leadership.”
[PLACEHOLDER: Link to Socialist Majority article]
Lima begins by recalling the aftermath of the 2023 National Convention.
A Rochester DSA leader updated the chapter’s orientation materials with the following sentence:
“A small coalition of communist caucuses now hold the majority on the National Political Committee.”
Read that sentence again.
Notice what makes it remarkable.
This is not an accusation.
It is an internal description written by democratic socialists for democratic socialists.
The article then asks the obvious question:
What is this “small coalition”?
The remainder of Lima’s essay answers exactly that.
He explains that the National Political Committee—the organization’s principal governing body—has increasingly been directed by what he repeatedly calls the sectarian bloc, consisting largely of representatives from:
- Marxist Unity Group (MUG)
- Red Star
- Bread & Roses
- allied revolutionary organizations
Meanwhile, Socialist Majority and Groundwork represent what he calls the mass-politics bloc.
Notice something important.
The disagreement is not between capitalism and socialism.
It is between different strategies for achieving socialism.
That distinction cannot be emphasized enough.
Exhibit B: Even the Moderates Are Arguing Inside a Socialist Framework
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Lima’s article is what he doesn’t argue.
He never argues that socialism is the wrong destination.
He argues that the revolutionary caucuses have adopted the wrong strategy for getting there.
Again and again, the disagreements concern tactics.
Should DSA work inside the Democratic Party?
Should it become an independent socialist party?
Should it cooperate with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Should it build broad coalitions?
Should it embrace a more disciplined revolutionary strategy?
These are family arguments.
Not arguments between socialism and liberal democracy.
The center of gravity has already shifted.
The debate now concerns how socialism should be built.
Not whether it should be built.
That realization fundamentally changed my understanding of today’s DSA.
Exhibit C: The Revolutionary Wing Speaks for Itself
The next document I examined came from Reform & Revolution, another caucus operating openly within the DSA.
Its self-description could hardly be more direct.
It introduces itself this way:
“Reform & Revolution is a revolutionary Marxist caucus in the Democratic Socialists of America.”
There is no attempt to soften the language.
No effort to substitute phrases like “progressive” or “social democratic.”
The organization continues:
“We are fighting to transform DSA into a mass socialist party…”
Not merely an advocacy organization.
Not merely an electoral coalition.
A mass socialist party.
The statement continues:
(We) “…organize to end economic inequality, racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression, and to overthrow the capitalist state.”
Again, I ask the reader to notice something.
These are not hostile summaries written by conservative critics.
These are self-descriptions.
The organization goes even further.
It proudly explains the intellectual tradition from which it draws its politics:
“We trace our politics to the Bolshevik Tradition… applying the analysis of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg…”
At this point, comparisons with Scandinavian social democracy begin to look increasingly inadequate.
Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they belong to a different political family. This is not Scandinavian social democracy.
Exhibit D: A Roadmap for Revolution
Perhaps the most revealing section of Reform & Revolution’s platform appears under its Points of Unity.
Among them are commitments to:
- building a mass socialist party,
- merging class struggle with anti-oppression movements,
- Black liberation,
- overthrowing white supremacy,
- socialist feminism,
- anti-imperialism,
- revolutionary Marxism. [Link Who’s Who in DSA_A Guide to DSA Caucuses_Reform & Revolution]
One statement especially caught my attention:
“Merge the Class Struggle and Anti-Oppression Movements.”
That sentence deserves careful reflection.
For years, many commentators have discussed Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory, Queer Theory, intersectionality, and post-colonialism as though they were separate intellectual movements.
But, they are not.
The revolutionary wing of the DSA openly seeks to integrate traditional Marxist class analysis with the modern politics of anti-oppression.
Suddenly, many seemingly unrelated political causes begin making sense together. (For example, Queers for Palestine.)
- Economic socialism.
- Critical race theory.2Critical Race Theory is fundamentally about challenging how race, racism, racial power, and white supremacy get constructed and show up in legal systems and society broadly.[1] The framework rests on four central ideas: the normalcy of racism, the hiddenness of racism, the centrality of lived experience, and the interlocking nature of oppression.[2] Let me unpack each one. CRT treats racism as normal, permanent, and pervasive—not just individual prejudice but systems and structures that produce unequal outcomes even without anyone explicitly intending harm.[2] Second, racism hides beneath ideologies like colorblindness and meritocracy, disguising mechanisms that perpetuate racial hierarchies even as society appears more just than it once was.[2] Third, CRT prioritizes the lived experience of people of color as essential to understanding racism, since they can recognize how majority culture marginalizes them and thus possess a unique “voice of color” when interpreting their experiences.[2] And fourth, racism is understood as one of many interlocking systems of oppression including sexism and classism—intersectionality has been foundational to CRT since its inception in the late 1980s, not something added later.[2]
[1] Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer, Critical Dilemma (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2023), 143–144.
[2] Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer, Post Woke: Asserting a Biblical Vision of Race, Gender, and Sexuality (Harvest Apologetics, 2026), 126–127. - Gender ideology.
- Queer theory.3Think of queer theory as a framework that challenges the idea that categories like gender and sexuality are fixed or natural. At its heart, it rejects all norms and works to destabilize all categories—not just a few, but fundamentally all of them. explore how dominant norms—especially those around sexuality—exert oppressive power on those who can’t or won’t conform to them, and they contribute to a politics and ethics of difference by analyzing how “the normal” functions. More specifically, queer theory examines mismatches between sex, gender, and desire, treating these as distinct and socially constructed rather than natural or inevitable.
- Decolonization.
- Anti-imperialism.
- Identity politics.
Rather than isolated movements, they increasingly function as parts of one larger revolutionary worldview.
That insight, more than anything else I encountered during my research, explains the political landscape of the last decade.
It also explains why the DSA increasingly appears less like a traditional political organization and more like the political home for a much broader ideological coalition.
[continue on next page]