Printed for the Publicfoundedandforward.comFor Teens & Adults of Every Background

Your Questions

Who Are the Democratic Socialists of America?

Published October 20, 2026 · Last checked October 20, 2026

The question, stated fairly

"Who are the Democratic Socialists of America, where did they come from, and what do they want?"

It's a fair question. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are in the news more often now. One of their members is mayor of the largest city in the country. Below, we explain who they are in their own words. Then we respectfully explain why we believe their goals conflict with America's founding principles. Read it, check the sources, and decide for yourself.

Where they came from

DSA was founded in 1982. It formed when two groups merged:

  • The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), founded in 1973 and led by writer Michael Harrington, author of The Other America (1962). It had ties to labor unions and the left wing of the Democratic Party.
  • The New American Movement (NAM), which grew out of the 1960s New Left and the feminist movement.

According to DSA's own history page, delegates from both groups met in Detroit in March 1982, and the new group had about 6,000 members at the start.

How it grew

For about 30 years, DSA stayed small. Then came Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign and the 2016 election.

  • Reuters reported in February 2017 that membership had "almost tripled" since November 2016, to about 17,000.
  • Politico Magazine reported in October 2017 that dues-paying membership, which "historically has hovered around 5,000," had grown to 29,000.
  • NYU's library archive of DSA records lists over 92,000 members as of 2022.
  • DSA's own website says it has "over 95,000 members" (checked October 20, 2026).

Who they are today

DSA says it is not a political party. It is a membership group with local chapters. Its members usually run for office as Democrats.

The best-known example is Zohran Mamdani, who was sworn in as mayor of New York City on January 1, 2026. NPR reported that he is a DSA member and calls the group his "political home."

DSA calls itself a "big tent." Its own bylaws say members and factions "may organize to change DSA's policies and program and may openly critique them." In other words, members don't all agree, and it isn't fair to assume any one member holds every position below.

It's also fair to say this plainly: many people join DSA for sincere reasons. They see rent eating their paychecks, medical bills that scare them, and a gap between the very rich and everyone else. Those worries are real. (See our articles Why Is Housing So Expensive? and Why Is Socialism Becoming Popular?)

What they want, in their own words

We think the fairest way to describe a group is to quote it directly. Here's what DSA has published.

Their constitution (as amended by the 2025 National Convention) says:

"We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit... We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution..."

Their website, on the page "What is Democratic Socialism?", says:

"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism..."

and

"We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation."

Their newest program, Workers Deserve More, was drafted April to June 2026 by a committee set up by the 2025 convention. It says DSA is fighting to

"draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic."

Among its specific demands:

"Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries..."

"Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations..."

"Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

"...implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate."

The program also calls for universal healthcare "at no cost to individuals," "universal rent control," publicly owned "social housing," free public college, canceling all student debt, and "fully abolishing the police and prison system."

Democratic process vs. democratic ends

Here's an important distinction. DSA mostly uses democratic methods: it runs candidates, wins votes, and organizes. That's legal, and it's part of American freedom. Nothing in this article questions anyone's right to do it.

But a fair process doesn't settle whether the goal is wise. The question is whether what DSA wants fits with the principles America was founded on. We believe in several important ways it does not.

Where their goals conflict with the founding

1. Rights come before government, not from it

The Declaration of Independence says people are

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

In plain English: Government's job is to protect rights people already have. A majority vote doesn't create those rights, and a majority vote can't rightly take them away.

2. Property is one of those rights

James Madison, the main architect of the Constitution, wrote an essay called "Property" in 1792:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

Madison meant property broadly, including your opinions, your conscience and your work, as well as your land and belongings. He wrote that a person "has a property in his rights."

The Fifth Amendment puts this into law. No person shall

"be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

DSA's constitution rejects "an economic order based on private profit," and its program calls for public ownership of "the largest corporations and essential industries." Those goals put the community's control of property ahead of the individual's right to it. The founders saw it the other way around.

3. Limited government, not planned economies

In The Federalist No. 45, Madison described the new national government this way:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined."

DSA's constitution calls for "economic planning." Running the largest industries from the government would require a national government with very large powers, the opposite of "few and defined."

4. Checks and balances on purpose

The founders split power because no group, even an elected majority, should hold all of it. Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

DSA's program would abolish the Senate and make the President and the Supreme Court "chosen by and subordinate to Congress." That would put the lawmaking, executive and judicial powers under a single body. In The Federalist No. 10, Madison worried that a passing majority might pursue "an equal division of property." He designed separate branches and a federal system partly to slow such passions down. (See our article Checks and Balances: Why Power Is Split Up.)

5. What the historical record shows

DSA says it wants to leave "authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history," and we take that seriously. Still, countries that moved toward state ownership of the economy have a hard record. The Maddison Project Database estimates GDP per person (adjusted for inflation and price differences):

Country 1990 2022
South Korea (market economy) $13,874 $41,321
North Korea (state-run economy) $2,456 $1,569
Poland (left central planning after 1989) $8,150 $32,468
Venezuela (expanded state control of the economy in the 2000s) $13,251 $5,267

Economists debate how much of each result comes from the economic system itself, versus war, sanctions, oil prices or repression. But the pattern is hard to ignore: economies with more freedom to own, build and trade have generally done better for ordinary people.

Where people disagree

Fair-minded people disagree on many of these issues. Some proposals, like ranked-choice voting, are used in some American cities and states today. Others, like a bigger safety net, are debated in both parties. You can support some of those ideas without wanting to abolish capitalism or rewrite the Constitution. The deepest disagreement is about DSA's central goal: replacing private ownership with "popular control of resources and production."

A hopeful word

DSA members and their critics often want the same things: an affordable home, good health care, a fair shot and a voice. The founders' answer was a free people with secure rights, limited government and power split up so no one can grab it all. We think that answer has done more to lift ordinary people than any other in history. It's also still the best framework for fixing what's broken.

Sources (all accessed Oct 20, 2026)

See something wrong? Suggest a correction.