Are the Democratic Socialists "Communists"? The DSA's Rise, Fact-Checked

01The uprising, by the numbers

<p>The word "uprising" fits the numbers. The DSA counted roughly <strong>5,000 members in 2016</strong>; it claims <strong>more than 100,000 today</strong>, up from about 70,000 in 2025.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup> That is a twentyfold rise in a decade for an organization that, for most of its life, was a small intellectual society on the margins of American politics.</p>

<p>The breakthrough is that it now <em>governs</em> somewhere that matters. <strong>Zohran Mamdani</strong>, a DSA member, won the New York mayoralty in November 2025 and took office in January 2026, the movement's biggest governing foothold to date.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup> Behind him is a pipeline: the DSA fielded around <strong>90 endorsed candidates</strong> in 2026 races, with a Mamdani-style democratic socialist, Janeese Lewis George, positioned to become mayor of Washington, D.C.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup> It now operates as an electoral machine the Democratic Party can no longer wave off.</p>

<h2><span>02</span>The "communist" label, checked</h2>

<p>The charge is everywhere. Trump called Mamdani a <em>"100% Communist Lunatic"</em>; a Heritage Foundation fellow said he is <em>"absolutely a communist"</em> who <em>"repeats lines out of the Communist Manifesto."</em><sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup> So: is it true?</p>

<p>By the dictionary the critics are implicitly invoking, <strong>communism in the 20th-century Marxist-Leninist sense</strong>, the answer is no. That model means a single vanguard party seizing the state (often by force), abolishing political opposition, and running a centrally planned command economy. The DSA's founding identity is a <em>rejection</em> of exactly that. In its own words, democratic socialists "reject" the Soviet model, "oppose the Stalinist political system," and root everything in "a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end."<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup> You cannot stand for multiparty elections and be a Leninist at the same time, and the DSA stands, loudly, for elections. It just won one.</p>

<div>
  <div>⚑ The "abolish private property" trick</div>
  <p>Critics quote Mamdani on "seizing the means of production" and abolishing "private property." The elision is in that second phrase. In socialist theory, <strong>"private property" means productive capital</strong>: factories, corporations, large landlords, <em>not</em> your house, savings, or toothbrush (that is "personal property"). The distance is between "workers should own the company" and "the state takes your stuff." The communist label works by quietly swapping the second meaning for the first.<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>
</div>

<p>So "communist" fails as a description of the <em>mechanism</em>. The critics are reacting to something, though, and the sympathetic framing shouldn't get a pass either, which is what §05 is for.</p>

<h2><span>03</span>Why the thing they're compared to actually failed</h2>

<p>To compare the DSA to "failed Marxism-Leninism," you have to be precise about <em>why</em> it failed, because the failure modes are the features the DSA doesn't share.</p>

<h3>The economic problem</h3>
<p>Soviet-type planning tried to run an economy <em>without market prices</em> for capital goods. With no prices to signal what was scarce and wanted, planners couldn't rationally allocate resources, the "economic calculation problem" identified by Mises and Hayek. The result was what economist János Kornai called an "economy of shortage": chronic misallocation, queues, and waste, propped up by forced industrialization.<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>

<h3>The political problem</h3>
<p>Worse than the inefficiency was the repression that <em>enforced</em> it. Questioning the plan was heresy; reform was blocked by hardliners; dissent was met with the gulag and the firing squad. In Stalin's purges, roughly <strong>60% of the delegates to the 1934 Soviet Congress were later killed.</strong><sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup> Across Marxist-Leninist states, the death toll ran into the tens of millions.</p>

<p>Both failures had the same root: <strong>concentrated, unaccountable power</strong>, with one party, no elections, no independent press, no market feedback. That is the machinery democratic socialism claims to reject. Whether the DSA's program would <em>work</em> is a fair debate; but the specific catastrophe of Leninism came from the parts the DSA throws out, not the parts it keeps.</p>

<h2><span>04</span>The family tree: where the DSA actually sits</h2>

<p>"Socialism" is not one thing. It splintered into rival families that have spent a century at each other's throats, and seeing the full tree is what makes the DSA legible, because the label "communist" collapses it into two boxes (capitalism / not-capitalism) when there are at least four that matter.</p>

<div>
  <div>
    <div>Brand</div>
    <div>Goal re: capitalism</div>
    <div>Method</div>
    <div>Democracy &amp; example</div>
  </div>
  <div>
    <div>Social democracy</div>
    <div><b>Keep it</b>, tame it — markets + a strong welfare state, redistribute.</div>
    <div>Elections, reform, gradualism.</div>
    <div>Fully democratic. <em>Denmark, Sweden.</em></div>
  </div>
  <div>
    <div>Democratic socialism <b>(DSA)</b></div>
    <div><b>Transcend it</b> — social/worker ownership of major industry, eventually beyond capitalism.</div>
    <div>Elections + mass organizing. <b>No vanguard, no coup.</b></div>
    <div>Multiparty democracy is the whole point. <em>DSA, Mamdani.</em></div>
  </div>
  <div>
    <div>Marxism-Leninism</div>
    <div><b>Abolish it</b> — full state ownership, command economy.</div>
    <div>Revolution; vanguard party seizes the state.</div>
    <div>One-party rule. <em>USSR, Mao's China, Cuba.</em></div>
  </div>
  <div>
    <div>Trotskyism</div>
    <div><b>Abolish it</b>, internationally.</div>
    <div>Permanent world revolution; anti-Stalinist but still vanguardist.</div>
    <div>Workers' democracy in theory; tiny in practice.</div>
  </div>
  <div>
    <div>Anarchism / libertarian socialism</div>
    <div><b>Abolish it</b> — and the state too.</div>
    <div>Decentralized, no party, no state.</div>
    <div>Direct/federated democracy. <em>Catalonia 1936.</em></div>
  </div>
</div>

<p>Read the highlighted row against its neighbors and the placement is clear. The DSA shares its <strong>goal</strong> (moving past capitalism) with the Leninists, which is why the "communist" charge gets a foothold. It shares its <strong>method</strong> (elections, democracy, no vanguard) with the social democrats, which is why the charge misleads. Almost no other socialist tradition combines a transformative end with strictly democratic means. Its closest historical cousin is <em>Eurocommunism</em>: the 1970s Western communist parties that broke with Moscow and embraced the ballot box.</p>

<h2><span>05</span>Where the critics aren't wrong</h2>

<p>Now the other side of the ledger, because the sympathetic framing ("they're harmless, it's a smear") fails its own fact-check. The critics are wrong about the <em>label</em>, and right that something larger than New Deal liberalism is in play.</p>

<div>
  <h3>The strongest case for the alarm</h3>
  <p><strong>The goal is anti-capitalist.</strong> The DSA's platform doesn't say "kinder capitalism." It calls for putting "the largest corporations under public ownership and democratic control" and a "new democratic constitution" with "a government by, for, and of the working class."<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup> That is a transformative vision, not a reformist one, and pretending otherwise is its own spin.</p>
  <p><strong>It is a big tent that includes actual Marxists.</strong> The DSA contains organized revolutionary factions: the Marxist Unity Group (founded 2022, orthodox Marxist, democratic-centralist) and the Liberation Caucus (2024), which explicitly advocates overthrowing capitalism on a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist basis."<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup> They are a minority of a pluralist organization, but critics pointing at them aren't hallucinating.</p>
  <p><strong>"Democratic socialism" hides an unsettled fight.</strong> The movement itself hasn't agreed whether the goal is to <em>reform</em> capitalism (social democracy in practice) or <em>abolish</em> it (the platform's letter). That ambiguity is real, and voters are right to ask which one a given candidate means.</p>
</div>

<p>So the fair verdict holds its shape. The sharper criticism is not "they're Stalinists" but "they want a bigger transformation than the affordability talk admits, and they should say so plainly." The sharper defense drops the Denmark comparison and says the real thing: they pursue that transformation through democracy, which is the moral line between them and the regimes they're smeared with.</p>

<h2><span>06</span>Why it's working now — after a century of failing to</h2>

<p>American socialism has tried and flopped for generations. Why is <em>this</em> branch breaking through? Four forces converged.</p>

<h3>1. The Cold War kill-switch stopped working</h3>
<p>For 40 years, "socialist" ended an American political career. But voters under 40 have <strong>no living memory of the USSR</strong>. To them "communism" is a textbook chapter, something from their grandparents' Cold War, not a threat they were raised to fear. The word lost its bite, and with it the most powerful weapon against the American left.</p>

<h3>2. 2008 broke the promise</h3>
<p>The millennials who entered the workforce into the financial crisis watched banks get bailed out while they got debt. The "markets reward hard work" story didn't match the lived evidence, and that cohort never fully bought back in. Capitalism's favorability among the young has slid since, with self-identified "capitalists" falling from 29% to 19% in five years.<sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></p>

<h3>3. Sanders built the on-ramp</h3>
<p>Bernie Sanders' 2016 and 2020 campaigns took "democratic socialist" from a slur to a self-description millions would claim, and routed a generation of organizers and small donors toward the kind of politics the DSA runs.</p>

<h3>4. The material crisis is concrete, and so is the pitch</h3>
<p>This is the engine. <strong>Housing affordability is now Gen Z's single top voting issue</strong>, with 91% calling it important, outranking abortion, the economy, and democracy itself.<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup> The DSA's winning move was to translate socialism out of theory and into <em>rent</em>: freeze it, fund the buses, build housing, tax the wealthy to pay for it. Mamdani didn't win on dialectical materialism; he won on the cost of living. Putting socialism in terms of rent and bus fare instead of theory is why this branch breaks through where abstract revolution stalled.</p>

<p>A caveat the movement's boosters skip: when young Americans tell pollsters they like "socialism," most mean fairness, health care, and housing security, not nationalizing industry. Surveys consistently show they're endorsing a stronger safety net, not the DSA's full platform.<sup><a href="#s15">[15]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup> The popularity of the word outruns the popularity of the program, which is at once the movement's opening and its ceiling.</p>

<h2><span>07</span>Mamdani in office: the actual record</h2>

<p>The way to judge a movement is by what it does with power, not what it says it wants. Here is Mamdani's ledger after roughly five months in City Hall (he took office January 2026), kept to the good, the stalled, and the compromised. The public's own read is split down the middle: a Marist poll put him at <strong>48% approve, 30% disapprove, 23% unsure.</strong><sup><a href="#s20">[20]</a></sup></p>

<h3>Delivered</h3>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Universal child care down payment.</strong> On day 8 he and Governor Hochul announced a $1.2B child-care investment; the city is rolling out full-day, full-year 2-K seats and 2,000 daycare slots in low-income neighborhoods. A concrete, fundable win.<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>Tenant executive orders</strong> signed January 1 to strengthen renter protections, the kind of thing a mayor <em>can</em> do unilaterally.<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>Filled ~100,000 potholes</strong> in 100 days. Unglamorous competence, and politically the point: govern the basics.<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>Stacked the Rent Guidelines Board</strong> with a sympathetic majority, the procedural move that makes a rent freeze <em>possible</em> (the board, not the mayor, sets it).<sup><a href="#s21">[21]</a></sup></li>
</ul>

<h3>Stalled or blocked</h3>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Free buses, not this year.</strong> State lawmakers declined to fund it; the mayor conceded it won't happen in 2026. The flagship promise is a casualty of needing Albany's money.<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>Rent freeze, pending.</strong> The stacked board is still deliberating; a freeze is plausible but unconfirmed.<sup><a href="#s21">[21]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>City-owned grocery stores, announced but not open.</strong> One per borough "by the end of his first term," starting in East Harlem. A multi-year promise, not a delivered result.<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></li>
  <li><strong>Tax the rich, stuck in Albany.</strong> His wealth and corporate tax needs state approval; the City Council rejected the approach, and he has warned he may raise property taxes instead, ahead of a tense June 30 budget deadline. He inherited what his office calls the "Adams budget crisis."<sup><a href="#s22">[22]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s23">[23]</a></sup></li>
</ul>

<h3>Caught between both flanks: the NYPD episode</h3>
<p>One story captures the governing bind. Mamdani <strong>cancelled</strong> the previous mayor's plan to expand the NYPD to 40,000 officers, holding the force near 35,000, which drew fire from Staten Island and conservatives as "gutting" the police.<sup><a href="#s24">[24]</a></sup> Then he turned around and committed to a <em>smaller</em> increase of about 580 officers, which drew a rare public rebuke from NYC-DSA, the very group that elected him, for breaking his pledge to downsize.<sup><a href="#s25">[25]</a></sup> <strong>One police decision, attacked from the right for cutting and from his own left for adding.</strong> That is what §05's unresolved tension looks like in office: govern, and you disappoint the movement; appease the movement, and you can't govern.</p>

<blockquote>The scorecard at five months: early wins on what a mayor controls directly, the signature promises slowed or blocked by Albany and independent boards, and a base already learning that power means compromise.
  <span>a test still running, not yet a triumph or a failure</span></blockquote>

<p>This matters for the larger question. The DSA's wager is that democratic socialism can <em>deliver</em> through ordinary democratic institutions. Mamdani is the first high-profile test of it, and the early evidence cuts both ways: he can do the things mayors do, but his most transformative promises run into the structural limits (state government, independent boards, budget math) that constrain any mayor, socialist or not. Whether that is a hard ceiling or the ordinary slow grind of governing is what the next year will show.</p>

<h2><span>08</span>Coda: what to watch</h2>

<p>The DSA now has the thing it never had before: power to be judged by. Five tests will decide whether 2026 was a peak or a foothold.</p>

<ol>
  <li><div>Can Mamdani govern?</div><div>A socialist mayor of NYC is now a live experiment. Delivering on rent and transit makes the model exportable; visible failure hands every critic their proof. NYC-DSA has <em>already</em> rebuked him over the 580-officer NYPD increase, a sign that governing forces the kind of compromise the base resents.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s25">[25]</a></sup></div></li>
  <li><div>The 2026 midterms</div><div>~90 endorsees will test whether the Mamdani model travels beyond deep-blue cities into swing districts, or hits a ceiling there.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></div></li>
  <li><div>Reform or transcend?</div><div>The unresolved internal fight (§05). If the DSA functions as aggressive social democracy, it broadens; if the abolish-capitalism wing sets the tone, it narrows. Watch which faction wins the platform fights.<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></div></li>
  <li><div>Does the Democratic Party absorb or resist it?</div><div>The establishment can co-opt the affordability agenda or fight the brand. Which it chooses shapes whether the DSA stays insurgent or becomes a wing.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></div></li>
  <li><div>Word vs. program</div><div>The gap between liking "socialism" and wanting public ownership is the movement's ceiling. Whether the DSA can convert a popular word into votes for its actual platform is the open question under all the others.<sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></div></li>
</ol>

<p>The bottom line for someone trying to cut through the noise: the "communist" label tells you more about the people using it than about the DSA. The corrective is not "they're harmless." They are an <strong>openly anti-capitalist movement pursuing its aims through democratic elections</strong>, a combination American politics hasn't had at this scale before, and one that is neither the Soviet boogeyman nor the Scandinavian comfort blanket. Whether it is wise is an argument worth having on the actual terms rather than the smeared ones.</p>

<p>Method: claims were checked against DSA primary documents (its platform and "What is Democratic Socialism"), mainstream reporting (CNN, ABC, TIME, Washington Examiner), <em>and</em> the movement's critics (Heritage via Fox, City Journal, Just Facts) and its own internal Marxist caucuses (Marxist Unity Group), so neither the sympathetic nor the hostile framing sets the terms. The §05 "critics aren't wrong" section argues against the prompt's sympathetic lean on purpose; the verdict survives only as far as the evidence on both sides allows.</p>