[[{“value”:”
By: Mike Saridakis
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.
Winners and losers is such a small and mean way to think about politics, especially in a deliberative and democratic body. Nevertheless, I’ve found it helpful for me in framing what I experienced during the 2025 DSA Convention in Chicago, especially on what worked and what fell flat.
From left to right: Springs of Revolution, Sara, Red Star, Libertarian Socialist Caucus, Marxist Unity Group, Reform & Revolution, Bread & Roses, Carnation, Groundwork, Socialist Majority Caucus. Courtesy of @adornos_soul and @reesericdotci on twitter.
Winners:
MUG, R&R, Springs of Revolution, Rashida Tlaib
Marxist Unity Group (MUG)
The Marxist Unity Group locked in. Their communications were on point, their delegates were highly visible and continually advocating, and their candidates for National Political Committee ran great campaigns, starting early and having prescient, respectful commentary online on the day’s controversies and discourses. They’re nerds, and they used their skillset to its greatest effect.
On the issue of partyism, the farthest right position spoken at convention was basically “we’re not ready yet.” This is a far departure from nearly anything people were saying even in just July this year. R07 passed with flying colors. Resolved: we are leaving the Democrats in the dust.
R34-A01, A Fighting Socialist Program, MUG’s signature proposal and collaboration with Reform and Revolution, failed. Despite being voted down, the proposal’s sponsors were impressed with how well it fared, garnering 45% of the vote. Notably the hesitation from the delegates was not the content of the proposal per se but its implementation mechanism (with plenty of open partisanship greasing the wheels). In contrast R25: DSA and the Democratic Road to Socialism did not make it to the convention floor, and is unlikely to pass given both the NPC’s makeup and how it fared in the delegate survey: 445 support, 425 oppose, 104 unsure. That is to say, poorly.
There is an increasing awareness of what is to be done. Indeed, looking at the new NPC we see a majority of revolutionary (at least on paper) caucuses: SoR, RS, MUG, RR, BnR (I don’t have time to argue this one, they talk about it on their website), LSC, and Carnation (again, see website). Furthermore, the definition of “center” has shifted to the left with the introduction of Carnation and the shrinking of the reformist right, who themselves are confronting what a break means. Moreover, DSA proudly and enthusiastically recommitted to its support and solidarity with the people of Cuba and the revolutionary, socialist path they have chosen. Cuban deputy foreign affairs minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío Domínguez received a standing ovation during his recorded remarks. This is all to say MUG is finding itself really, truly becoming the beating heart at the center of Marxism within DSA.
Given the passage of R07: Principles for Party Building and the arguments against the Fighting Program largely being about its processes and procedures, rather than on the content or politics of it I think MUG has a real shot at passing their program in 2029. And, I think they could guarantee this by putting their politics into practice, making stronger connections in labor and tenant organizing, putting their electoral theory into practice, and using their strong NPC position to build relationships across tendencies. As the first line of their Tasks and Perspectives reads, “Our task is to merge socialism and the workers’ movement.” Time to get to it.
Springs of Revolution: Return of the Anti-Zionist Slate
Springs of Revolution’s phoenician rise (that’s ‘of, or related to a phoenix,’ not a person from Carthage) to a strong position on the NPC is a testament to their correct understanding of Israel’s genocide and serious internal organizing efforts. I don’t think there’s a group at this convention more vindicated than the anti-Zionist/Springs of Revolution slate. In 2023, they were prepared for the escalation in Israel’s genocide on Palestine where the rest of the org buckled under procedural motions, leaving it flat-footed to deal with what was to come and forcing it to tail liberal causes like the Uncommitted movement, rather than seizing the opportunity to be the center of a socialist and truly anti-imperialist Palestine solidarity movement. They were serious. They did the work. They came prepared. They worked across tendencies. They were loud and organized. I probably ended up with twice as many SoR pamphlets and cards as any other caucus. These are good organizers and we should be thankful they stuck around. Our organization should learn from this and become even more intolerant to bad faith dilatory abuses of the rules of order. Every caucus benefits when we put politics, not partisanship, first.
Anarkiddies and Tankies working together? That’s life in the DS of A, baby!
Speaking of Anarchists, it was exciting to see the Libertarian Socialist Caucus take a seat on the NPC. I think this speaks to how strong the anti-imperialist wave was at this convention and how honest and serious its coalition was about anti-Zionism, even willing to work across historically irreconcilable differences. I wish I had more to say, but my organizing experience has not given me much contact with LSC comrades, nor did I personally see much of them at the convention.
I have similarly not had the pleasure to meet or work with many Communist Caucus-aligned comrades, nor did their agendas or mine ever seriously cross paths. Therefore, in light of my ignorance I shall not speak on them! I hope that in time I will get the chance to change this.
Reform and Revolution (RnR)
As much as R&R itself locked in, I think the real winner here is Sarah Milner. Following 2023’s rout and the intense criticism they received for their statements on the Palestinian Resistance, R&R did some soul searching and emerged a new and welcome voice on the left/center-left, in spite of facing this same issue during debate on the Palestinian proposals. Positioning themselves as the ones best able to bring left and right together, R&R got started early, running a nationwide campaign for Sarah, who travelled to chapters big and small across the country, observing and reporting on the state of DSA chapters and slowly building a caucus platform, and her own social media platform. Her synthesizing posture and eye for the positive lessons of DSA’s many tendencies cut through the often tense discourse online. And, who doesn’t love a letter carrier?
This paid off. Despite many of their key proposals ranking low or being voted down, R&R’s work with MUG on their signature platform showed that they do not have a toxic brand, and many of their proposals showed wide support, losing on votes largely due to timing, minutiae, and caucus politicking. I leave this paragraph on their ultimate assessment open-ended, with several of R&R’s major policy initiatives being referred to the NPC (though they’re looking pretty good).
R&R’s crowning achievement was Sarah Milner sailing to a smashing victory in the NPC elections. As yet another example of hers and R&R’s political instincts, Sarah recognized her mandate, and asked on social media, “I am still thinking about convention. I would like to ask for comrade’s perceptive and advice. I got the 2nd most first place votes and it looks like I will hold a very important place on the NPC. What do you think my mandate is? Why do you feel people voted for me?”
Responses included:
“You are principled, thoughtful, and willing to engage with the best possible version of other tendencies’ thoughts, even when other comrades don’t express themselves well. So, uh, do more of that.”
“You stretch to seize the moment in a way that reminds me of the first trump bump organizing. You’re principled but practical. I think your mandate is to help prevent deadlock while continuing to push the whole npc forward to be ambitious.”
“I think that your Twitter presence has convinced many of us that you are genuinely committed to find a way through the ideological impasse that exists between the two wings of the organization. I’m glad to see that reflected in your likely position as the swing vote.”
“I was encouraged by your earnest commitment to goals and principles and willingness to listen and adapt. i was going to rank you 4th before my caucus bound me to do so. But then you took the time to come to the small chapter meetup. That meant a lot.”
“i ranked u bc i heard enough to think you’re quite contemplative of what this moment means for our org at all levels and actually meeting you after i submitted my ballot confirmed that. it also means a lot to me to see other working class people, other trans women in leadership.”
We would be remiss furthermore to ignore the clear support for R&R from YDSA, where they secured three seats on the NCC and a co-chair position, meaning R&R also holds two seats on the NPC. For a small caucus, they punched way above their weight, largely by heeding the lessons SMC failed to learn. (more about that later)
Rashida Tlaib
Losers:
Red Star, Groundwork, SMC, Bread and Roses, and also into the dustbin of history with Zionism
Red Star (RS)
Much like how AOC’s Iron Dome vote was bad, but her defense was worse, Red Star doubled down and argued in a way that came off as dishonest to other Democratic Socialists in group chats and across social media after they announced that they would divide the overwhelmingly popular DemCom consensus proposal against the wishes of the DemCom committee. Their motion was defeated soundly, and the proposal passed with one of the highest margins of the convention. Despite this, Megan Romer sailed to a clean first place victory in the co-chair race, and John “Budget Jesus” Lewis doubled the first round vote share of second place Sarah Milner. Nevertheless, given the overwhelming plurality of specifically John’s vote and Megan’s prominent status as incumbent co-chair, it is entirely likely that their success was not due to their caucus affiliation and organization, but their reputations as individuals. Considering how their less-prominent members fared much worse, it is possible their DemComm procedural move may have worked to prevent John and Megan from carrying the rest of their slate to office.
I can speak to this personally. Red Star’s conduct disappointed me, but John earned my respect for him personally through his work. Indeed, RS only has 3/25 NPC seats now, including Megan. This is a huge loss from a historically strong left caucus. Furthermore, their support of the MUG/R&R program failed to take it across the finish line, in one of the few places where independent delegates broke from the left. That is to say, Red Star now will likely be a junior partner in whatever coalition(s) it finds itself in, both on the NPC and in chapter work. I think their relationship to the SoR slate will be a key part of any takeaways from this convention for Red Star.
I have heard from some Red Star comrades that they’re disappointed with the results of the NPC, but they’re otherwise not dissatisfied with their performance at this convention. They do grant that my critique is fair. Appreciation to them for their feedback.
Groundwork (GW)
Despite different politics, and despite GW pulling off a huge win against Alex P of BnR, the caucus suffered a major reputational loss for their procedural motions and rhetoric, both of which delegates panned as dishonest and cynical. GW suffered some crushing blows to their signature One Member One Vote (1m1v) proposals. In both cases, near supermajorities shot down the proposals early on Friday, setting the tone for the rest of the convention. An experienced delegate at my table remarked that the caucus’ green hats combined with their vocal and visual support for speakers and resolutions served to reverse polarize many against the caucus’ increasingly toxic brand, especially following a particularly shocking speech by a GW-aligned SMC member likening 1m1v opposition to Jim Crow. Despite a comfortable margin of victory, co-chair Ashik and the largest single faction entering the NPC will not be entering his second term on stable ground, because…
Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC)
The Socialist Majority Caucus faced near total collapse, appearing totally unprepared for convention. In the leadup to the convention, SMC claimed singular (or, at least primary) credit for the truly paradigm-shifting Zohran campaign, despite the move in the rest of the organization to celebrate cross-tendency collaboration and unity. This is not to diminish the impressive and valuable organizational role of SMC, which they had every right to celebrate –indeed I had several amazing SMC comrades whose strategic and organizational advice I happily took– but, they failed to read the room and approach their comrades accordingly, culminating in a request from GW delegates that SMC stop speaking on behalf of their proposals. Their rhetoric suggested an increasing myopia on the DSA project, where they presumed everyone else held their same priors, often employing catastrophizing language to argue votes for “serious” and “pragmatic” responses on routine measures. Sorry, dear comrades, budget requirements for staffing are not the only thing standing between us and full fascism. It was clear the convention hall —including their close ally Groundwork— did not appreciate this. SMC is going to need to take a serious look inwards and ask themselves why they chose this approach and why their conduct and rhetoric fell on deaf ears.
My recommendation is to turn to your rank and file for new thought leadership.
This myopia I think is best evidenced by the regional distribution of their vote share: nearly entirely on the coasts, and among those, mostly New York City. SMC’s Zohran message failed to take root in places where the Democratic Party is weak, unpopular, or doesn’t exist, like Indiana and Florida, places where the political and social conditions do not reflect those in NYC. As a foil, Springs of Revolution pulled off a strong performance in nearly every state.
God bless you, North Dakota’s SMC voter. Credit: @maevehove
This posture has already cost them dearly. SMC elected only four of their seven(!) NPC candidates, a shocking omen for the largest caucus in DSA. The expanded NPC, their baby, ironically seems to have hurt them in this election, further diluting their delegation significantly. Despite being the second largest delegate at convention, SMC seems to have failed in building a coalition across tendencies, as their candidates were not the ones receiving votes in the later rounds.
What’s more, with the classic GW-SMC alliance no longer able to swing their weight around on the NPC, Groundwork, in the much stronger position, may have to reevaluate who its friends are and look to the growing center-left, whose proposals fared much better on the convention floor (and certainly reputationally). A clear sign of the beginnings of this shift is GW’s friendliness to Abdullah of Carnation, who scored endorsements across the center-left and the GW-BnR joint proposal R33: Unite Labor & the Left to Run a Socialist For President and Build the Party, which cruised to victory, itself another sign of the rising partyist tide even on the DSA right.
Furthermore, GW/SMC’s labor strategy and Anti-Zionist resolutions were defeated soundly. The organization has moved decisively away from their approach to labor and internationalism.
Bread and Roses (BnR)
I really don’t know what you call what happened to BnR. I think they definitely are licking some wounds. They lost their co-chair race pretty badly. The word in the caucus is that this is due to a lack of cross-caucus support. Despite the unexpected breaking of the Communist Caucus with Red Star to endorse Alex, the last-minute MUG endorsement of Megan Romer (likely in exchange for support of R34-A01 A Fighting Program) was the death-blow to Alex’s co-chair bid One delegate reflected, “It’s difficult to run a center candidate in a three-way race against a left and a right candidate.” It seems independent endorsements only go so far; Red Star’s reputational loss on Day 1 was not enough to cost them a chair thanks to Megan’s strong personal brand and respect among members, particularly on the left.
Nevertheless, the rank-and-file strategy continued to be the Holy Spirit breathing into the delegates and all of the proposals on the floor, and BnR served as a crucial swing vote for nearly every resolution. New NPC member Sarah Milner joked after R&R lost an amendment vote to BnR, “my dad spent his whole life at DSA conventions divided by a B&R swing vote. My grandpappy before him. for as long as anyone can remember us milners have been losing every time b&r opposed and winning whenever they support. i’ll be damned if my kid ain’t gonna do the same.”
All that said, BnR’s signature Workers Deserve More platform of “non-reformist reforms” passed unamended, becoming Workers Deserve More, Forever, to remain such till another Convention changes the program. MUG and R&R’s Fighting Program amendment, billed as the “next step” for our organization developmentally, failed. One must imagine Zohran’s “bread and butter” campaign fresh in the minds of delegates as they voted. Though, to state again, neither MUG nor R&R were at all disappointed by the final vote share.
BnR also suffered from the growing crowd in the center space. Carnation and Mountain (and by some estimates, MUG) have all arrived on the scene in force, likely draining centrist energy from BnR.
Ultimately, this is the tragic heroics of Bread and Roses. Their spirit is found in basically every resolution that came forward, win or lose. They have been instrumental in DSA’s attempts to re-merge the socialist and worker movements. Their guiding principles hung like a spectre over every debate and every proposal, from Antizionism to Zohran. It’s hard not to feel a little bad for them once you see this. They’re everywhere and in everything, with very little credit.
It is clear that the consensus is that BnR has its hand on the pulse of where our organization currently stands, but, in a position like King Lothair, Charlemagne’s middle grandson, whose kingdom sat between two ambitious brothers, it’s hard not to be worried about their future. Until then, BnR serves as kingmaker. Their three elections to NPC will be key to any initiative, despite the contraction of their vote share.
As a final aside, I cannot recommend enough my comrade Robert H’s ode to meetings. I think it cuts to the heart of what makes BnR BnR.
And, of course, Zionism.
There is a contingent online who saw the names of the proposals with their votes shares and concluded DSA still has a large (though minority) Zionist contingent. This is not true. On top of the fact it’s basically a meme how dishonest resolution titles are, the contour of the debate showed unwavering support for Palestinian liberation (though chauvinism did rear its head). It is worth noting that the contentious expulsion clause in R-22, often serving as proof of DSA’s tolerance for Zionists, is little more than a clarification. Indeed, comrades in my chapter had been preparing an expulsion hearing against a member based on his history of Zionism. Ultimately the prosecution decided to charge him for his harassment and public defamation of Black, female, queer, and anti-Zionist comrades due to the simple preponderance of evidence. He was removed by unanimous vote. That is to say, there simply are not Zionists left in DSA. The trash has largely taken itself out. Whatever cranks remain are isolated and impotent. It is simply not worth the effort to find those last few holdouts.
Author’s note: I think it’s basically everyone, not just SMC and GW, who do this.
Despite the beliefs of outside observers, who seem to measure commitment not by the convention’s roaring refrain of “free Palestine” but the title page of a complex document, we never debated Zionism. The debates and votes only truly show that there is ongoing discussion as to how we are anti-Zionist. Alleging that 40% of delegates who voted against R22’s expulsion clause are Zionists again refuses to engage with their actual arguments or DSA’s state. Zionism already is a sufficient disagreement for expulsion. As a last matter, I think a better indicator of DSA’s positioning on the matter was R22-A01 Align with the BDS Movement, where the body chose to pass the much harder-line positioning.
While the AOC censure just barely avoided making it to the floor, the collateral damage of many dilatory motions, Rashida Tlaib’s keynote speech took huge swipes not only at AOC’s now infamous Iron Dome vote and statement, but even DSA’s godfather, Bernie Sanders, to standing ovations.
Between the resolution to run an independent presidential candidate (that is, not a Democrat; that is, not AOC), banners reading “Rashida 2028” and R07’s passage, it’s clear DSA has broken up with our once golden child. If anything, the way it went is probably for the best. While on one hand, the Convention adding legitimacy to the censure motion would go far to show pro-AOC hardliners in the New York City chapter that there exists a broad consensus within the organization, it really would not be necessary. Rubbing it in would be unproductive in the face of DSA’s mounting internal positioning against her personal ambitions. Making “her” leave “us” also positions us as the center and forces her to be the breaking party. A censure like this potentially signals weakness, and DSA is decidedly not weak in this regard. (Though certainly we have a long way to go).
This ends up speaking to DSA’s “style” when it comes to purges and issues of ideology: the purge tool is rendered largely unnecessary, because DSAers vote with their feet. Someone in significant ideological difference and hostile in demeanor quickly finds themself isolated and unable to organize, while those who serve and work with the majority (or minority!), even if they have ideological differences, will often find their positions advanced through increased capacity and synthesis into the majority ideological position. DSA has built an intriguing internal mechanism that largely prevents its liquidation by self-serving entities and individuals while also advancing the interests of its majority.
The point is Michael Harrington’s DSA is dead. Anyone who cannot see this has failed to investigate properly.
Conclusion
I think it’s best to consider the national convention largely descriptive rather than proscriptive. We delegates did not engage in deliberation to dictate the course of DSA over the next two years. Instead we reflected on the previous two and worked together to parse and clarify the lessons of that time and praxis, evaluating both our chapter decisions and previous convention resolutions. Our final decisions were not to tell chapters what to do, but to say, “okay, it’s time to move on and move forward. Let’s let history be history.”
I think this is why the dishonest rhetoric and procedural chicanery were so poorly-received. We were, frankly, sick of discourse. We wanted resolution. We wanted to give the past its due to unburden ourselves to go home and plot the future of Socialism in our communities. We did not commit to anti-Zionism and Palestinian liberation at the convention. Rather, we recognized that we had already committed to anti-Zionism and Palestinian liberation. This is why the failure of R01: DSA for One Palestinian State was meaningless. We were not deciding that DSA is an anti-Zionist organization. It already is. We were deciding what do we do about this reality, and found the proposal’s recommendations –not its title, not a tweet, the words of the proposal itself– wanting. We did not decide to build a new party and abandon the Democrats. We have already been building a new party, and we simply acknowledged that the Democrats have largely already abandoned us. Indeed, I believe we made history, in the sense of the original Greek word ἱστορία ((h)istoría): we investigated and came to a conclusion, and now having learned its lessons, we may use it to plot our path forward.
It was an honor to join my comrades and serve my chapter in deliberation. I am more convinced than ever that the DSA project is the best hope for socialism in this country. Solidarity Forever.
Mike Saridakis is a member of Central Indiana DSA.
Appendix: Highlights
Guest spotlights
Many exhausted delegates skipped out on what ended up being a stirring expression of international and cross-tendency solidarity. Hopefully more delegates will attend next time.
Messages from Cuba and Jeremy Corbyn
I cried a little. It’s so inspiring that our organization stands firmly with Cuba.
Incidental conversations and meeting all the funny people from my phone.
Having a conversation in Latin with someone at the BnR-Commie Caucus party.
Clicker Comrades!
One thousand people loudly standing up to transmisogyny
The Dunkin’ Donuts down the street
My God that saved my ass Saturday morning. Apologies to the comrades whom I led on a circuitous route back.
Trans people everywhere!! Wow!!
Doodling a silly joke that social media adopted as the unofficial mascot of the convention
Convincing a comrade to vote against his caucus whip
The city of Chicago and her people
The post OPINION: 2025 DSA Convention – Winners, Losers, Bread and Roses appeared first on Working Mass.
“}]]