[[{“value”:”
By: Dan Albright
As DSA chapters grow, members often ask whether we are taking on too much or not enough. This DSA capacity debate is unfolding in Boston right now as members are currently debating whether running multiple electoral campaigns would overextend us. This question comes up in chapters nationally. Campaigns require time, coordination, and energy, which are often in short supply for voluntary organizations like ours. But how we think about capacity might be leading us to the wrong answers.
A useful way to approach this is dialectically. That means examining both sides of an argument and asking how their tension can lead to growth rather than paralysis. Organizations don’t develop by avoiding contradictions — they develop by working through them.
The Case for Caution
People who urge caution have an argument. State-level campaigns cover large areas and require tremendous ongoing volunteer work. Running several races at once can pull people away from other important efforts, such as tenant organizing, community ICE defense, or international solidarity. Many believe the focus should be on building independent, working-class institutions outside of the electoral sphere.
Some people worry that a small group of elected socialists can’t effect real change in the bourgeois government, or that working in coalitions can make it harder to hold elected candidates accountable. Others think focusing too much on elections can reinforce the idea that we must outsource our power to politicians rather than build our own collective power. These are important considerations.
Sometimes people use the limited-capacity argument when they have deeper political disagreements as well. This isn’t because anyone is being dishonest, but because it can feel easier to talk about logistical issues than political ones. As socialists, we often discuss the limits of reform, the role of social democracy, and how openly socialist candidates can or should be. Some believe in gradually improving working people’s lives, while others (myself included) maintain that openly acknowledging a revolutionary socialist horizon is essential. Electoral campaigns can be a space to debate these differences openly, which in turn helps educate people on politics and, over time, helps improve electoral discipline.
But if we only see campaigns as a drain on resources and capacity, we might miss all they actually do for us.
Capacity Is Built, Not Allocated
Everyone wants DSA to be fully embedded in our electoral campaigns. This is already happening in many cases. Electoral working groups offer guidance, chapter leaders often take key roles, and DSA volunteers keep coming back as staff or leaders. From the outside, it can seem like the chapter and the campaign are the same thing.
But the reality is more complicated. Usually, the candidate’s campaign committee does most of the direct organizing, with its own budget, staff, and legal authority. The chapter acts more like an organizing ecosystem that campaigns tap into. Endorsing a campaign doesn’t mean the chapter will manage everything. It’s a political choice whether a campaign organizes openly within the chapter’s space.
Once we understand this difference, the question of capacity changes. Supporting another campaign does not always split up our efforts — in many cases, it actually increases them.
Enthusiasm Is a Resource
Most chapters have many inactive members, and even the most committed volunteers find it hard to keep everyone involved or offer regular ways for eager new members to participate. Campaigns, on the other hand, often have staff who organize phone banks and canvasses, train new volunteers, and knock on doors. When these efforts focus on DSA members and sympathizers, the campaign’s resources become extra capacity for the chapter, even if only temporarily.
This is especially true for new members. Electoral work is often the first thing that new members gravitate toward, since mainstream political culture ingrains in us the idea that elections are the arena for politics and making change. While DSA has many priorities besides elections, most people are already familiar with this kind of participation when they join.
In a volunteer group, people always spend more time on the work that they care about. The question is how to use that energy without ignoring other important tasks. In my experience, it usually works better to support people’s interests and bring in others for less popular work, rather than trying to force everyone to do everything.
Campaigns Can Generate Capacity
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t challenges. Campaign staff report to the candidate, not the chapter, and candidates are under enormous pressure during elections. This happens in every endorsed race. Still, taking on an additional campaign within reason often brings more new people than new problems. Members canvass for the first time, campaign supporters organize for the first time, and relationships are built that last beyond one election.
The same thing happens with money. Chapters rarely provide most of the funding for campaigns. Most donations come from the candidate’s district or from people the campaign reaches out to. Supporting another candidate doesn’t necessarily divide a limited pool of money. Instead, it often brings in more resources that would not otherwise be there.
This is even clearer in bigger chapters. In New York City, ongoing electoral work has helped elect at least eleven officials at different levels of government, and the chapter is now backing its largest slate of candidates yet. Contesting more elections makes it easier for new candidates to run together, and the chapter’s processes for vetting, developing, and holding people accountable continue to improve as the organization grows.
Success builds on itself. When a strong DSA candidate wins and does well in office, it makes it easier for future DSA candidates.
Meeting the Political Moment
This debate is happening in a larger context. Many people are unhappy with national leaders, the cost of living keeps going up, and there is anger about war, ICE violence, and growing authoritarianism. No matter how you look at it, most people feel the system is letting them down.
In that context, visibility matters. If DSA is not putting forward as many strong candidates as it reasonably can, it risks being seen as missing in action. Electoral politics is only one terrain of struggle, and labor organizing, tenant unions, and community campaigns remain essential.
But even within a capitalist democracy, elected officials can make meaningful improvements to people’s lives through legislation, and when they cannot pass laws, they can still use their platform to amplify struggles and support movements on the ground.
Strength does not look identical in every candidate. Some are stronger communicators, others are stronger legislators or organizers. A clear set of principles is necessary to maintain accountability, but variation in skills can be an asset if the organization knows how to channel it.
On the DSA Capacity Debate: Capacity Grows When We Use It
Taken together, these dynamics point to a broader conclusion. The pressure of competing for the time of the most active members is real. But focusing only on already-activated volunteers misses the bigger picture. Campaigns don’t only consume capacity. They can also generate it — by training new organizers, activating inactive members, and creating political momentum that makes taking part feel meaningful rather than draining.
Capacity isn’t just about what we have today. It’s also about what we can build tomorrow. Whether a campaign helps us grow or stretches us too thin depends more on how well it brings in new people and sets clear goals than on how many campaigns we endorse.
Backing more candidates does not guarantee success, and there are always risks. But if we refuse to endorse because we think our capacity is fixed, we might end up making that true. If we want to run strong campaigns in the future, we need to focus on what helps us grow our collective capacity now. Despite their tension, campaigns are still one of the best ways to do that.
Dan Albright is chair and an editor of Working Mass and a member of Boston DSA.
The post OPINION: The Myth of Limited Capacity in DSA appeared first on Working Mass.
“}]]