[[{“value”:”
By: Dalton Galloway
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.
Reflecting back on the 2025 election season, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has major accomplishments for which to be proud.
In a year without federal elections, DSA nonetheless captured lightning in a bottle and secured Zohran Mamdani the Democratic nomination and ultimately the mayoralty in New York City. Locally, meanwhile, Boston DSA nominated four candidates, supporting Willie Burnley, Jr. for Mayor of Somerville, Marcos Candido for Lowell City Council, and Ayah al-Zubi (first) and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler (second) for Cambridge City Council.
Both Cambridge City Council candidates were victorious; Candido lost an extremely close race by fewer than forty votes with 49% of the vote; Burnley captured around 45% of the vote. In New York City, Mamdani swept to victory with more votes than any mayoral candidate in decades, a victory already swelling DSA’s ranks by the thousands. Membership has already surpassed 90,000 in good standing — the highest-ever.
All four candidates endorsed by Boston DSA are DSA members – as is Mamdani. This is something that, in 2025, practically goes without saying. However, it was not always the case that DSA endorsees were consistently members of the organization or that a non-socialist candidate was essentially an endorsement non-starter.
What Does It Mean To Be a Socialist Candidate in 2026?
We have learned from experience that endorsement of candidates who do not organize within our fold leads to a situation where DSA is easily cast aside once elected, placing DSA in the unenviable position of no ability to influence decisions made by candidates whose political failures we are nonetheless tied to upon endorsement.
The consensus view that DSA candidates ought to be avowed socialists (and nearly always members) emerged out of bitter disappointments felt by comrades across DSA’s internal political spectrum, but also from years of internal deliberations and debate.
Now, it is my hope that a similar inflection point is at hand on how DSA ought to select its candidates and how we should relate to candidates – and officials, upon their election. While some of the results of the 2025 DSA Convention suggest the partyist wing of DSA holds a bare majority, the organization is clearly not yet to the point of consensus around how we collectively address and support our candidates.
Instead, we must contend that disputes around our relationship to elected officials remain some of DSA’s most hotly contested debates.
All factions of DSA proclaim the need to “build power,” none more than would-be DSA office-holders. However, there are dueling perceptions of what this phrase means. For some, it means increasing the number of elected officials who are sympathetic to democratic socialist ideals: candidates who may or may not be DSA members, may or may not receive our endorsement, but who will work with DSA on certain priorities. Certainly, this approach would result in more boxes we could tick when tallying up the numbers of DSA endorsees in office.
However, this vision-of elected officials as allies of DSA and the socialist movement rather than as representatives thereof must be cast aside if DSA is serious about its aspirations to function as a political party. Raising the bar for endorsement to being a member of DSA is insufficient when the organization and wider movement need a broader paradigm shift; paying a few dozen dollars a year to the organization is important, but far more important is a willingness to represent our platform and organization while in office.
What Are We Building in 2026?
For the partyist wing of DSA to make the case that we collectively should make decisions and priorities based on a vision of elected officials as representatives of our organization, the first priority is illustrating the importance of the organization: the party. That means defining what exactly a party is. The United States does not have political parties in the classical sense of the term- rather, it has ballot lines, and undemocratic organizations which are vaguely affiliated with those ballot lines but in most cases do not directly determine who runs on them. The Democratic “Party” is at the center of a much larger financing, influence, turnout, and policy network that exerts real control over politicians. But it is voter registration or even self-identification that makes the average “Democrat,” not participation or identification with the labyrinthine workings of the organization itself.
When we speak of a party, we mean a democratic mass-membership organization which has its own independent political program. Indeed, these principles were codified as the basis of DSA’s structure at the 2025 National Convention with the passage of a resolution entitled “Principles for Party Building.”
Our ability to implement our goals and to agitate workers toward the socialist party is compromised when we lend our full support to candidates who have not committed to a socialist program, and who see DSA not as their party but as merely one member of a coalition which supports them – a coalition which includes liberal and bourgeois-progressive forces. That is not to say that DSA members running for office should not seek out any external sources of support – it’s difficult for any of our candidates to win if they aren’t at least winning over Warren Democrats – but if DSA is seen not a party to be built, but an interest group to be placated, there is little incentive in building the organization or in agitating for its long-term program.
Building power must not just mean electing DSA endorsees, or even DSA members, to elected office. Building power means electing candidates who will legislate according to the platform of, be accountable to, and ultimately be elected on behalf of DSA.
DSA enters 2026 with the most members we have ever had, fresh off our highest-profile victory ever. Whether or not one believes electoralism ought to be the primary focus of DSA, there can be little doubt engagement in elections has been the primary driver of membership growth. DSA should run focused campaigns at the federal, state, and municipal level. These candidates must be willing to put forward an oppositional, independent, and socialist political vision on the campaign trail and, should they win, from the halls of power, adhering to the DSA platform at all stages.
Otherwise, while we may help to build a progressive mandate, we cannot help but fail to build the Party.
Dalton Galloway is a member of Boston DSA and contributing writer to Working Mass.
The post OPINION: Oppositional, Independent, and Socialist Candidates appeared first on Working Mass.
“}]]