I was in a Leninist style vanguard party many years ago. For many decades there were always 5-10 little parties like this in the US, all variously Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist, etc. selling newspapers and constantly imploding or splitting.
Those groups had literally zero to show for all their work, at best they were keeping the candle lit for a political tradition, but they weren't meaningfully growing in size, they weren't generating news, they sure as hell weren't capturing any political power, and they weren't taken seriously by anyone as a genuine alternative. Most no longer exist at all.
As bad as things are now in the American political system overall, 10 years ago the environment was much much more static for any socialist politics. Not long before that the great hope of progressive politics was Dennis Kucinich. Things were fucking grim.
Socialism entering the discourse, becoming the boogeyman of the right, and growing in popularity among younger demographics, exactly tracks the rise of the DSA.
There's a long long way to go, and there's no guarantee that this approach will work, but I can sure fucking tell you that the kind of politics Caitlin Johnstone would sign off on was going absolutely god damn nowhere. We have some traction now, we did not before.
Which is what makes me so puzzled to hear her say her politics are "vindicated." They haven't done anything! Even if DSA's approach went up in flames, that would mean their's was validated!
It's vindicated if "vindicated" means being correct online. You can never be wrong if you never put your own skin in the game. I often agree with critiques of the DSA, and I'm a member. It's like... ok this or that thing about the DSA sucks - well, alright, then do something about it???
There's an infinite number of writers and online posters who all have their own reasons to be dismissive of the actually existing socialist left in the US. And I too can also find many angles to criticize. It's pretty easy to do! Flawed people, flawed organizations. That's the reality.
Participating in politics means that you're going to work with people you disagree with, you'll be associated with factions that are annoying and sometimes wrong, and shit will happen that you're not in control of that you dislike. The answer isn't to take your ball and go home (or more often never play ball in the first place).
I just find myself with less and less patience for people who have little to add beyond tearing down the only real game in town from the outside. It feels like clinical-depression-as-politics. And I'm not really talking about Caitlin Johnstone at this point, this is something running rampant in online leftist "communities" and I think these people would be happier (and they'd be actually useful!) if they genuinely contributed instead of throwing rocks.
This is my point. Both these groups are microparties with little political presence. They're more interested in bickering internally than building effectively.
FRSO is in the midst of a scandal because members left a severed pig's head on the front door of another member who accused an FRSO leader of sexual assault. PSL's top propagandist, a 17-year member of the central committee, resigned and called the party a dead end.
So, you're just going to ignore the actual organizing that PSL and FRSO do? Or are you going to say "that doesn't count because I say so"? Or are you going to repeat the lie that they somehow co-opted their own stuff?
If you want to promote DSA, fine. But don't be tone deaf to the criticisms of them. And don't attack non-DSA groups, because you're doing exactly what you're accusing the "far left" of doing.
It’s not an attack to point out political failures. What effective organizing do these groups do against American imperialism? I think they can do good local work. But beyond that, they have little to show for decades of existence.
Yes the PSL is the best example of the democratic centralist model right now in the US, though they are still much smaller than DSA. They have their own internal problems but obviously the DSA does too. I really don't have any major beef with them and they've found a model that's been able to grow. There are plenty of instances of DSA and PSL cooperating on local issues.
FRSO is extremely small though and not much different than it was 20 years ago. ISO basically folded into DSA, SAlt seems almost dead, SWP seems almost dead, SEP seems almost dead, I'm not clear on if WWP is still active at all. A lot of these Leninist zombie parties can probably keeping treading water for awhile but I'm not sure to what end other than they act as little fiefdoms for a delusional core cadre, however well intentioned they may be.
I think the core problem is they modeled themselves on Bolshevism. What worked for Lenin in Tsarist Russia won't work in a modern liberal democracy. And Lenin knew this. He insisted upon different tactics for different situations. At the end of the day, his revolutionary conditions do not exist in the United States. So trying to force a program that doesn't match the conditions isn't going to work out.
We have to contend with Palantir style mass surveillance that is only going to become more effective, social media and algorithmic culture, and a historically unprecedented atomized/alienated society. While capitalism is still capitalism and Marxist critiques of it obviously still apply, the current social expression of capitalism is radically different. We will not know what organizing model works in our current situation, until it actually works! And neither did Lenin! Larping as Lenin under current conditions in 2026 USA is something Lenin himself would find totally absurd!
I wonder if there's something about Australia itself that makes people believe this is "vindication". It sounds tremendously similar to another fairly famous Australian naysayer (Bad Empanada).
You nailed it Dick. Thank you for your comment and much appreciated as the daughter of a card-carrying Communist whose family lived through the McCarthy Era. All that hair-splitting for what. Anyhow thank you and Joe for your analyses. And yes. We're moving forward!!
The online discourse gets caught up in labels (and tedious purity tests), but I think a huge part of DSAs recent successes is simple; they’re meeting people where they’re at instead of the other way around.
To be honest, I think most people claiming labels are playing leftist Hogwarts Houses. A lot of these ideologies are dead in the water, and they have online fans who enjoy arguing about them.
I think you're right. DSA ignores all that and says, "We want to make your life easier." And people like that!
You will win by expanding your coalition of voters and party members to reflect the United States of America better. Just being largely white and college educated isn’t going to give you the broad support you need of people of color and people without college degrees. Just govern effectively like Mamdani and continue to organize and really reach out to people not in blue urban areas but states like Texas and Florida and North Carolina! When we have a DSA that can win in purple states and win over the many independents you will have a real winning party 🎉 😎
"After all, “far left” isn’t really a political movement. It’s mostly the small but vocal audience of bloggers and podcasters who are focused on monetizing their niche, not driving change, revolutionary or otherwise."
Waitwaitwait. David Pakman assured me the "far left" was infiltrating the DSA and they were about to become MAGA but left. Are you telling me that's not true?!
I wonder why these people think someone can be a Democrat and still parrot "anti-New Deal" talking points and enable human rights abuses in other countries.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "every accusation is a confession" before. What have centrists accomplished other than simply bending over to Reagan's legacy? They just refuse to recognize that a large contingent of Democratic voters, thanks to Bernie's consistent messaging, reject the donor theory of power and the pro-choice Nikki Haley types that come with it
Bernie's critique of "the establishment" is arguably the most effective political message in modern America. He's routinely on message and sticks to his points, which Americans love.
Johnstone plays the role of the perpetual outsider and naysayer for one reason: she simply doesn't know how to succeed any other way.
She's often correct ahead of the pack, and for that, is generally worth reading. But let's not pretend she's a competent judge of political movements - that's clearly far, far, outside her wheelhouse.
I do think we need to realize that subject matter experts don't transfer their expertise from one subject to another. We can appreciate someone's coverage of one topic, say American imperialism, while acknowledging their insights in domestic politics is pretty low.
Joe, thank you for this piece. You make a compelling case that DSA is building real power, 38 wins this year, 120,000 members, shifting the Overton window on Palestine. That is not nothing.
But I want to press you on something both you and Caitlin Johnstone leave out.
You're both debating how to capture state power. Neither of you is asking: What is the state, actually, under our current monetary system?
Today, all money is created by private banks as interest-bearing debt. The government does not create money; it borrows it. The government prints and mints the currency and sells it to the banks at cost for their customers’ cash needs. Every dollar of spending must be borrowed from private creditors at interest. That interest compounds into a national debt that can never be repaid, only serviced. That is a principle applied across the board in capitalism, ‘treatments are more profitable than cures’ and since profits are mandated in the rules, we get treatments, not cures.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the operational reality documented by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve.
Why does this matter?
• Caitlin is right that electoral politics within a captured system produces diminishing returns. But "real revolution" that doesn't change the monetary plumbing just replaces one set of debtors with another.
• You are right that DSA is winning seats. But what happens when those socialists get into office? They inherit a fiscal system where every policy is negotiated with the bond market. They can pass all the progressive legislation they want but, if they cannot control the money supply, they are not sovereign. They are managers of a debt-servicing apparatus.
The "establishment" you're fighting is not just AIPAC or the DNC. It is the entire financial architecture that determines what is possible as the Gilens and Page study proved.
Sovereign money, where the state creates and issues currency directly, without private bank intermediation, changes the game. It removes the debt-growth imperative. It allows investment in the regenerative infrastructure we actually need. It returns the seigniorage to the public.
You quote Bobby Seale: "You can't drop out of the system." True. But you can change the system for everyone if you understand what it actually is.
Let's add monetary sovereignty to the DSA platform. Without it, every electoral win is just a negotiation with the creditor class.
The DSA also endorsed Kamala Harris, who actively supported genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and endorsed Tom Steyer, a billionaire who made his money off private prisons. Not exactly a great look.
Further, the prominent Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, AOC and Zohran Mamdani aren't particularly good on American Foreign Policy, regularly demonizing official enemies of the United States and repeating propaganda about them. Bernie is even a staunch Zionist and Zohran walked back his promise to arrest Netanyahu.
The DSA has had positive consequences on the domestic front but it seems like the main goal is just Social Democracy, reforming Capitalism within while doing nothing about Imperialism abroad (because Social Democracy is dependent on Imperialism). And you can argue around the entryism thing all you want, it is a major aspect of the plan.
The simple truth is, you can't reform your way out of Capitalism.
None of this is true. DSA didn't endorse Harris or Steyer. Whoever told you that is lying. We also don't believe you can reform your way out of capitalism. To say DSA does "nothing about imperialism" is also a lie. Our candidates run on ending the genocide.
The people who have done nothing about imperialism are those sitting on their couch posting about DSA while doing nothing to change the system they claim to despise.
Many people from DSA endorsed both Harris and Steyer so your first claim wasn't even true.
The entire strategy of the DSA is reformism and it's amazing to me you're pretending otherwise.
And I pointed out the problems with prominent Democratic Socialists on Imperialism, which you didn't even respond to (and have defended them on in the past).
The people who aren't doing anything about genocide are those who still think electoralism is a path forward.
Funny how every aspect of your "response" wasn't even true.
That's not in the fucking platform, what the hell...? Take it up with those specific people, whoever it is. The DSA National Platform is explicitly anti-imperialist. It's a democratically functioning group, obviously everyone is going to adhere to the platform to different degrees, and are going to be censured or conflicted with regularly. Why is your expectation that a *democratic* national group that contains 150k people is going to be authoritarian regarding whatever you consider "state department propaganda about official enemies", at all times?
IT'S NOT IN THE PLATFORM! The national platform says "END THE U.S. WAR MACHINE" and "END BLOCKADES, EMBARGOES, AND SANCTIONS":
You seem to treat electing nominal socialists as an achievement of our goals in and of itself. I agree it’s an encouraging indication of appetite for socialist politics, but winning elections is NOT our actual objective; building working class power is. Having self-declared socialists in office is meaningless if they operate as “empire managers”, fail to uphold our platform, and focus more on winning reelection rather than advancing the movement’s goals.
By all means we should run socialists for office, but I think it is critical that “electability” concerns must never cause us to water down our politics. It is a losing game. If a “socialist majority” was close to being achieved, all pretense of democracy in this country would be dropped immediately — we already see smaller examples of this happen routinely.
To believe that capitalists will tolerate the election of a socialist government is delusional, and so we must build power outside of the electoral sphere, not treat elections themselves as objectives.
I was in a Leninist style vanguard party many years ago. For many decades there were always 5-10 little parties like this in the US, all variously Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist, etc. selling newspapers and constantly imploding or splitting.
Those groups had literally zero to show for all their work, at best they were keeping the candle lit for a political tradition, but they weren't meaningfully growing in size, they weren't generating news, they sure as hell weren't capturing any political power, and they weren't taken seriously by anyone as a genuine alternative. Most no longer exist at all.
As bad as things are now in the American political system overall, 10 years ago the environment was much much more static for any socialist politics. Not long before that the great hope of progressive politics was Dennis Kucinich. Things were fucking grim.
Socialism entering the discourse, becoming the boogeyman of the right, and growing in popularity among younger demographics, exactly tracks the rise of the DSA.
There's a long long way to go, and there's no guarantee that this approach will work, but I can sure fucking tell you that the kind of politics Caitlin Johnstone would sign off on was going absolutely god damn nowhere. We have some traction now, we did not before.
Which is what makes me so puzzled to hear her say her politics are "vindicated." They haven't done anything! Even if DSA's approach went up in flames, that would mean their's was validated!
It's vindicated if "vindicated" means being correct online. You can never be wrong if you never put your own skin in the game. I often agree with critiques of the DSA, and I'm a member. It's like... ok this or that thing about the DSA sucks - well, alright, then do something about it???
There's an infinite number of writers and online posters who all have their own reasons to be dismissive of the actually existing socialist left in the US. And I too can also find many angles to criticize. It's pretty easy to do! Flawed people, flawed organizations. That's the reality.
Participating in politics means that you're going to work with people you disagree with, you'll be associated with factions that are annoying and sometimes wrong, and shit will happen that you're not in control of that you dislike. The answer isn't to take your ball and go home (or more often never play ball in the first place).
I just find myself with less and less patience for people who have little to add beyond tearing down the only real game in town from the outside. It feels like clinical-depression-as-politics. And I'm not really talking about Caitlin Johnstone at this point, this is something running rampant in online leftist "communities" and I think these people would be happier (and they'd be actually useful!) if they genuinely contributed instead of throwing rocks.
You do know that groups like the PSL and FRSO are a thing, right?
This is my point. Both these groups are microparties with little political presence. They're more interested in bickering internally than building effectively.
FRSO is in the midst of a scandal because members left a severed pig's head on the front door of another member who accused an FRSO leader of sexual assault. PSL's top propagandist, a 17-year member of the central committee, resigned and called the party a dead end.
https://www.geesemag.com/articles/psls-top-propagandist-resigns-publishes-tell-all
Neither holds a candle to DSA in regards to power, influence, or stature.
So, you're just going to ignore the actual organizing that PSL and FRSO do? Or are you going to say "that doesn't count because I say so"? Or are you going to repeat the lie that they somehow co-opted their own stuff?
If you want to promote DSA, fine. But don't be tone deaf to the criticisms of them. And don't attack non-DSA groups, because you're doing exactly what you're accusing the "far left" of doing.
It’s not an attack to point out political failures. What effective organizing do these groups do against American imperialism? I think they can do good local work. But beyond that, they have little to show for decades of existence.
Yes the PSL is the best example of the democratic centralist model right now in the US, though they are still much smaller than DSA. They have their own internal problems but obviously the DSA does too. I really don't have any major beef with them and they've found a model that's been able to grow. There are plenty of instances of DSA and PSL cooperating on local issues.
FRSO is extremely small though and not much different than it was 20 years ago. ISO basically folded into DSA, SAlt seems almost dead, SWP seems almost dead, SEP seems almost dead, I'm not clear on if WWP is still active at all. A lot of these Leninist zombie parties can probably keeping treading water for awhile but I'm not sure to what end other than they act as little fiefdoms for a delusional core cadre, however well intentioned they may be.
I think the core problem is they modeled themselves on Bolshevism. What worked for Lenin in Tsarist Russia won't work in a modern liberal democracy. And Lenin knew this. He insisted upon different tactics for different situations. At the end of the day, his revolutionary conditions do not exist in the United States. So trying to force a program that doesn't match the conditions isn't going to work out.
We have to contend with Palantir style mass surveillance that is only going to become more effective, social media and algorithmic culture, and a historically unprecedented atomized/alienated society. While capitalism is still capitalism and Marxist critiques of it obviously still apply, the current social expression of capitalism is radically different. We will not know what organizing model works in our current situation, until it actually works! And neither did Lenin! Larping as Lenin under current conditions in 2026 USA is something Lenin himself would find totally absurd!
I wonder if there's something about Australia itself that makes people believe this is "vindication". It sounds tremendously similar to another fairly famous Australian naysayer (Bad Empanada).
lol, my thought exactly
You nailed it Dick. Thank you for your comment and much appreciated as the daughter of a card-carrying Communist whose family lived through the McCarthy Era. All that hair-splitting for what. Anyhow thank you and Joe for your analyses. And yes. We're moving forward!!
❤️
The online discourse gets caught up in labels (and tedious purity tests), but I think a huge part of DSAs recent successes is simple; they’re meeting people where they’re at instead of the other way around.
To be honest, I think most people claiming labels are playing leftist Hogwarts Houses. A lot of these ideologies are dead in the water, and they have online fans who enjoy arguing about them.
I think you're right. DSA ignores all that and says, "We want to make your life easier." And people like that!
You will win by expanding your coalition of voters and party members to reflect the United States of America better. Just being largely white and college educated isn’t going to give you the broad support you need of people of color and people without college degrees. Just govern effectively like Mamdani and continue to organize and really reach out to people not in blue urban areas but states like Texas and Florida and North Carolina! When we have a DSA that can win in purple states and win over the many independents you will have a real winning party 🎉 😎
I agree! Growth and engagement is the way forward.
The current Dem frontunner for governor here in WI is DSA. Early primary voting’s just started. I hope she wins in a landslide.
Francesca Hong! She's fantastic.
She really is! Early primary voting started today; there was no question which lever I was pulling.
We do "have a DSA that can win in purple states"... There are *dozens* of local electeds, even in red states (Aftyn Behn, for example, was recently a very visible one). Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_public_officeholders
What's happening *now* is they're starting to win in national races. But they've been winning in "purple states" for a long time!
"After all, “far left” isn’t really a political movement. It’s mostly the small but vocal audience of bloggers and podcasters who are focused on monetizing their niche, not driving change, revolutionary or otherwise."
Waitwaitwait. David Pakman assured me the "far left" was infiltrating the DSA and they were about to become MAGA but left. Are you telling me that's not true?!
Lol. I think Pakman considers Ro Khanna the "far left" because he criticizes Israel.
When I was listening to his... concerns, I was really hoping he would elaborate because it was SO vague.
I wonder why these people think someone can be a Democrat and still parrot "anti-New Deal" talking points and enable human rights abuses in other countries.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "every accusation is a confession" before. What have centrists accomplished other than simply bending over to Reagan's legacy? They just refuse to recognize that a large contingent of Democratic voters, thanks to Bernie's consistent messaging, reject the donor theory of power and the pro-choice Nikki Haley types that come with it
Bernie's critique of "the establishment" is arguably the most effective political message in modern America. He's routinely on message and sticks to his points, which Americans love.
He's also a Zionist and Liberal Imperialist
Johnstone plays the role of the perpetual outsider and naysayer for one reason: she simply doesn't know how to succeed any other way.
She's often correct ahead of the pack, and for that, is generally worth reading. But let's not pretend she's a competent judge of political movements - that's clearly far, far, outside her wheelhouse.
I do think we need to realize that subject matter experts don't transfer their expertise from one subject to another. We can appreciate someone's coverage of one topic, say American imperialism, while acknowledging their insights in domestic politics is pretty low.
Absolutely; I agree wholeheartedly.
Joe, thank you for this piece. You make a compelling case that DSA is building real power, 38 wins this year, 120,000 members, shifting the Overton window on Palestine. That is not nothing.
But I want to press you on something both you and Caitlin Johnstone leave out.
You're both debating how to capture state power. Neither of you is asking: What is the state, actually, under our current monetary system?
Today, all money is created by private banks as interest-bearing debt. The government does not create money; it borrows it. The government prints and mints the currency and sells it to the banks at cost for their customers’ cash needs. Every dollar of spending must be borrowed from private creditors at interest. That interest compounds into a national debt that can never be repaid, only serviced. That is a principle applied across the board in capitalism, ‘treatments are more profitable than cures’ and since profits are mandated in the rules, we get treatments, not cures.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the operational reality documented by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve.
Why does this matter?
• Caitlin is right that electoral politics within a captured system produces diminishing returns. But "real revolution" that doesn't change the monetary plumbing just replaces one set of debtors with another.
• You are right that DSA is winning seats. But what happens when those socialists get into office? They inherit a fiscal system where every policy is negotiated with the bond market. They can pass all the progressive legislation they want but, if they cannot control the money supply, they are not sovereign. They are managers of a debt-servicing apparatus.
The "establishment" you're fighting is not just AIPAC or the DNC. It is the entire financial architecture that determines what is possible as the Gilens and Page study proved.
Sovereign money, where the state creates and issues currency directly, without private bank intermediation, changes the game. It removes the debt-growth imperative. It allows investment in the regenerative infrastructure we actually need. It returns the seigniorage to the public.
You quote Bobby Seale: "You can't drop out of the system." True. But you can change the system for everyone if you understand what it actually is.
Let's add monetary sovereignty to the DSA platform. Without it, every electoral win is just a negotiation with the creditor class.
I'd welcome your thoughts. Here is my framework: https://howardswitzer.substack.com/p/a-restorative-justice-campaign-for
The DSA also endorsed Kamala Harris, who actively supported genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and endorsed Tom Steyer, a billionaire who made his money off private prisons. Not exactly a great look.
Further, the prominent Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, AOC and Zohran Mamdani aren't particularly good on American Foreign Policy, regularly demonizing official enemies of the United States and repeating propaganda about them. Bernie is even a staunch Zionist and Zohran walked back his promise to arrest Netanyahu.
The DSA has had positive consequences on the domestic front but it seems like the main goal is just Social Democracy, reforming Capitalism within while doing nothing about Imperialism abroad (because Social Democracy is dependent on Imperialism). And you can argue around the entryism thing all you want, it is a major aspect of the plan.
The simple truth is, you can't reform your way out of Capitalism.
None of this is true. DSA didn't endorse Harris or Steyer. Whoever told you that is lying. We also don't believe you can reform your way out of capitalism. To say DSA does "nothing about imperialism" is also a lie. Our candidates run on ending the genocide.
The people who have done nothing about imperialism are those sitting on their couch posting about DSA while doing nothing to change the system they claim to despise.
Many people from DSA endorsed both Harris and Steyer so your first claim wasn't even true.
The entire strategy of the DSA is reformism and it's amazing to me you're pretending otherwise.
And I pointed out the problems with prominent Democratic Socialists on Imperialism, which you didn't even respond to (and have defended them on in the past).
The people who aren't doing anything about genocide are those who still think electoralism is a path forward.
Funny how every aspect of your "response" wasn't even true.
You moved the goal posts pretty quick there!
I didn't move the goalposts on anything
???? The DSA National platform is *explicitly* anti-imperialist. It's clear you've never actually read it.
Then why do so many in the DSA explicitly repeat US State Department propaganda about official enemies?
https://bestjive.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/chloe-meme.jpg
That's not in the fucking platform, what the hell...? Take it up with those specific people, whoever it is. The DSA National Platform is explicitly anti-imperialist. It's a democratically functioning group, obviously everyone is going to adhere to the platform to different degrees, and are going to be censured or conflicted with regularly. Why is your expectation that a *democratic* national group that contains 150k people is going to be authoritarian regarding whatever you consider "state department propaganda about official enemies", at all times?
IT'S NOT IN THE PLATFORM! The national platform says "END THE U.S. WAR MACHINE" and "END BLOCKADES, EMBARGOES, AND SANCTIONS":
https://program.dsausa.org/
Excellent piece, Joe. Thank you for taking this on.
You seem to treat electing nominal socialists as an achievement of our goals in and of itself. I agree it’s an encouraging indication of appetite for socialist politics, but winning elections is NOT our actual objective; building working class power is. Having self-declared socialists in office is meaningless if they operate as “empire managers”, fail to uphold our platform, and focus more on winning reelection rather than advancing the movement’s goals.
By all means we should run socialists for office, but I think it is critical that “electability” concerns must never cause us to water down our politics. It is a losing game. If a “socialist majority” was close to being achieved, all pretense of democracy in this country would be dropped immediately — we already see smaller examples of this happen routinely.
To believe that capitalists will tolerate the election of a socialist government is delusional, and so we must build power outside of the electoral sphere, not treat elections themselves as objectives.
I agree, which was my point in pointing out DSA's non-electoral avenues in labor, tenant organizing, and mutual aid.
By "raging antisemitism" you mean that she goes after Israel and Zionism and doesn't pussyfoot around it