Talk:National Political Committee

Minimum Programme on Carnation

I think Carnation's activities seem to be best aligned to minimum programme. It seems to be a bit of an edit war. Any tips on what may be the best way to describe them? MsChicanery (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

People have frequently removed that on account of the fact that "Minimum Programme" is not really an ideology. It's just a type of program that in theory any ideology could have a version of. KyaOnline (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Carnation also does not advocate for a classical minimum program (in fact the caucus who most notably does so is MUG), they advocate for a minimal program which is a quite difference. ~2026-42011-18 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Terms and Description + Relative Position

R&R is to the "right" of MUG if not also BnR at this point. Also, if democratic road is going to be applied to this version of BnR then it damn well better apply to GW and SMC instead of reformism. ~2026-39847-64 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A distinguishing feature of B&R is the democratic road / draper stuff. Is there not a meaningful difference between GW and SMC on this front? Some sort of reformism for them seems applicable compared to B&R ~2026-41487-26 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The "Groundwork Thought" library also includes two articles by Hal Draper in it, so I wouldn't call it strictly distinguishing though B&R might emphasize it more in public communications. ~2026-41531-83 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Calling R&R left of BnR is completely baseless. If you think alignments should change maybe try actually backing such claims. Agree on swapping MUG and R&R placements though HaHaNice101 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Bread and Roses ideology box should read "opportunism", "slopulism", and "centrism" ~2026-39847-64 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

A lot of nitpicking here but I do wonder if we should consider how and if to determine what we label the various caucuses. I don't think one Peter Sterne tweet (which places an SMC aligned independent as "left") should be used as the definitive tweet. Slumpsters (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Ideology in Groundwork's infobox: Eurocommunist vs Ecosocialist

Categorising Groundwork as Eurocommunist may seem like a good joke on twitter. But it does not align with their tradition, intended goals, nor how they articulate themselves. For example, they're much more in line with La France Insoumise on ecology than Parti communiste français (PCF, or the French Communist Party in English). Because of this, we should remove/avoid using the 'Eurocommunist' label in the infobox and instead revert back to the 'Ecosocialist' descriptor that was previously used for Groundwork on the Infobox. Parksind01 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: I see that another editor has already updated the main article with a citation right around the time that I posted this. I am leaving this note here to record my support for that edit and provide context for future reference. Parksind01 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed Eurocommunism from the list because it couldn't be shown definitively but in defense of the previous editor, they do imply an alignment with Eurocommunism in their Thought Library when they say "Marzia Maccaferri identifies the failures of the Eurocommunist tradition, a Marxist political movement in Western European countries that sought to align mainline communist parties with the democratic road to socialism by reinterpreting Gramsci through the lens of humanist Western Marxism (sound familiar?)." (the subtext is clearly that they overlap).

This isn't saying it should be restored nor that a comment like that is definitive. All I'm saying is that it's equally wrong to say they're not eurocommunists as saying they are eurocommunists. Bismarx (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean 'the failures of Eurocommunism' is positioning *against* Eurocommunism as an idea regardless of the subject that they overlap. In the DSA all caucuses overlap, these are socialist ideologies they'd overlap on wanting to achieve socialism. They wouldn't be in the DSA otherwise! Parksind01 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes but the point I am making is that "sound familiar?" line is (at least in my eyes) very clearly referencing their own views on the Democratic Road to Socialism. It's a position of self-critique. Bismarx (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Groundwork's Ideology: Reformist? Alternatively, Structural-Reformist.

I've noticed a lot of back and forth on including "Reformist" under Groundwork's ideology. Some have argued that sources describe Groundwork as "More Reformist" which does not necessarily mean they are Reformist. I think based on Groundwork's own website, as well as Podcast & News Interviews by the Groundwork-Affiliated NPC Co-Chair Ashik Siddique, That Groundwork follows a particular kind of Reformist Thought. In their Thought Library they reference a book called Marxism and Politics by Ralph Miliband. Firstly, they say "Marxism and Politics is a defining piece of Groundwork thought". Towards the end, they bold a statement in green saying, "This points towards his third and most significant intervention, a theory of social transformation in the global north based around a 'strong reformism' that welds together state, street, and strike power to effectuate a rapid and aggressive transformation towards Socialism once the popular masses have taken political power through the democratic road." This is clearly communicating a core alignment with this idea of "Strong Reformism".

Additionally, you can hear that Ashik Siddique use the phrase "Non-Reformist Reform" or other similar terms occasionally in Interviews like this one. Here he says "...you know like I was initially affected by the writer Andre Gore's who talks about non reformist reforms or like transformative reforms or structural reforms, revolutionary reforms, whatever. The point is that whatever you're making demands of in government it, it has to be about organizing working class people as agents of change and then creating more room for demanding more and more and building the power to wield it." Note that, in this same interview, Siddique says "...I think that our goal is not to reform our way to socialism or social democracy, but really to push for demands that mobilize and organize the working class and then when enacted like can open"

So, since "Reformist" isn't a very clear fit, a better alternative might be Non-reformist reform. The ideas described in this article bear resemblance to the "strong" approach to "reformism" described by Miliband in Marxism and Politics. Because "Non-Reformist Reformism" is clunky, we might use one of the other options like "Structural-Reformism" or "Revolutionary-Reformism", as the superficial face with the Non-Reformist Reform link behind it. (i.e. Structural-Reformism; Revolutionary-Reformism) KyaOnline (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is why I put Non-Reformism down before hand. I think it's better now to not use 'reformism' at all since it's basically recapitulated in the positionality. Bismarx (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I undid your edit because it needs a source that is not just in the talk page. Bismarx (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I currently have Structural-Reformism up under Groundwork's Ideologies. If you are going to contest this, please review the citation carefully. I've quoted a specific section that should clarify why the citation is valid. KyaOnline (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Structural-reformism is closer to correct but I would argue the positions of several other caucuses, most notably MUG, can and should also be described as structural reformism as demonstrated in their points of unity . Slumpsters (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I worry that this leads to a problem described in the Guidlines below of not being discriminating enough. Bismarx (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think as long as there are at least a couple Caucuses which are not Structural-Reformist, then it is fine. I think it is still an important dimension discriminating between clusters of Caucuses. Discrimination can still be met in terms of the full set of ideologies. e.g. ["Structural-reformist", "Ecosocialist"] is discriminable from ["Structural-reformist", "Popular-Frontism"].

I also wanna note that every time I see "Democratic Road to Socialism" I am going to advocate changing that to "Structural-Reformism" because they basically mean the same thing. Every caucus that uses "Democratic Road to Socialism" language, also uses Non-Reformist Reform language. And the substance described in definitions of them are the same. I prefer "Structural-Reformism" over "Democratic Road to Socialism" because the latter is not written like the name of an ideology, and it is very long and clunky. (and no, I don't think it makes sense to shorten to "Democratic Socialism"). KyaOnline (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I would argue for this usage as I believe one could describe Red Star and Libertarian Socialist Caucus as definitively not Structural Reformist while non-caucus formations like SOR do not have a clear position. Slumpsters (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Guidelines for Ideology Description

The caucus ideology descriptions are messy. They are not reader-friendly and have the potential for monstrous inflation due to the vast sea of infinitesimally distinct ideological labels. Our descriptions should seek to be:

• Discriminating: No two Caucuses should have an identical set of labels (unless absolutely unavoidable). If two Caucuses are very similar, find the dimensions they differ on most, and add labels for them.
• Non-Redundant: No Caucus should be fit with a label lacking marginal information. e.g. “Revolutionary Marxism” is already a necessary feature of “Trotskyism”. If the “Trotskyism” label applies, then “Revolutionary Marxism” adds no info-value
• Consistent: Caucuses should not use different labels for concepts that are the same, or very nearly the same. e.g. “Non-Reformist Reformism” and “Democratic Road to Socialism” are not substantively distinct.

Use your best judgement, while keeping these virtues in mind KyaOnline (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems good to me, there's also presently an issue of using poor citations and unreliable sources rather than articles or POU from the caucuses or caucus leaders themselves. Slumpsters (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There is clearly a lack of agreement here about what kinds of sources are preferred. Often without even altering claims, people will go back and forth switching from a primary source to a secondary source, or the other way around KyaOnline (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone obviously thinks its funny to use random peter sterne tweets as a source Slumpsters (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You removed the inclusion of B&R as democratic road to socialism; I don’t quite understand why. Non reformist reformism and DRS are not the same concept; DRS is a specific political ideology whereas non reformist reformism is a generic term. By this logic we might as well just write “socialism” under the ideology category for every caucus, since they're all so similar. I'm skeptical of the inclusion of "non-reformist reformism" to begin with, as it's sort of the default in DSA; instead I would suggest only explicitly stating when a caucus is impossibilist (or other ideology that believes non-reformist reformism isn't useful)

Also, B&R is explicitly cited in the DRS article as a notable example. ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Remove right-left positioning

Right-Left positioning box is not based on ideology or conventional understandings of the terms- it is based on the narcissistic conceptions of certain caucuses. Though in common use in DSA, these labels are highly partisan and not objective enough to be used for Wiki purposes. Moreover, several "left" caucuses such as SOR so not have leftist practices. This box is not useful for understanding the NPC, though understanding the blocs represented by these three groups is ~2026-39847-64 (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the right-left framing for positions is confusing for a conventional audience and risks playing into internal optics wars. Still, I do think that these positions tap into a real underlying differentiation within DSA that is useful for understanding why NPC votes go the way they go. I think maybe a good compromise could be to replace "Right-Left" with "Reformist-Revolutionary". As suggested in some sources, Although I also think those labels could also be misleading. Maybe something like "Electoral-Autonomist" or something like that. Idk. I'm not confident enough to unilaterally make edits around this. KyaOnline (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I lean towards removing all references to positions, or else replacing them with something more descriptive. A layperson reading this article would - reasonably, but incorrectly - infer that the "left vs right" refers to differences on policy (e.g. tax rates, zionism, rent control, public ownership, etc.) as opposed to tactics and strategy. ROADKILL (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd second this, it also elides similarities and differences between caucuses across and within the purported left-right divide. I don't think anyone who understands the politics at play would confuse Marxist Unity Group of being just as "far left" as Libertarian Socialist Caucus but these descriptors make it seem to be so to any layperson coming across the article. Slumpsters (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Right and left are commonly used to describe the caucuses. I think just adding a sentence or two explaining what they mean in the context of the DSA is enough. SelketCadmium (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fine but the issue is accurately describing what that divide practically means taking "both sides" at face value for what they say they believe. Slumpsters (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think considering how much conflict there has been over these labels and how much explanation "relative positions" required, there's no way to reconcile including the left/right dichotomy in this context.  Emery talk  09:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to include information on how factions view their own relative position within DSA (the article already does this), as long as they are presented as subjective rather than objective. Slumpsters (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m not sure why we’re including the “left” and “right” categorizations in the caucuses tab. The sources are mostly primary, and the topic is constantly shifting. For those reasons, I’m removing the descriptions Yaoidevil (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Since this has already been removed, the terms "dirty break," "party surrogate," and the unmentioned but still possibly relevant term "clean break" are no longer defined within the article; It may be helpful to readers if definitions are provided in this section (or perhaps another section meant to provide further understanding to the internal politics and divisions of the DSA.) ~2026-41513-58 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be best to remove those terms in that case Slumpsters (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This would remove information that provides important information regarding the ideology of the caucuses, in fact potentially one of the most major divisions between them. These terms refer to the caucus' position on the Democratic Party and the future of the DSA within the context of it. Previously you expressed a desire for a compromise that provided this context and removed the left-right distinction, which the inclusion of these terms instead allows for as a standard viewer would not know what these terms mean and thus consult the definitions with no preconceived notions, preventing the confusion that may arise from using a relative form of terms the reader is already familiar with. ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey can you PLEASE explain why you keep labeling Carnation as "MAGA Communism"??

Please? I'm not mad. I just wanna know. KyaOnline (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly vandalism. I would recommend submitting a block request. ROADKILL (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Carnation: Third-Worldism vs. Maoism-Third Worldism

I am going to label Carnation "Revolutionary Third-Wordism" with a Wikilink to Maoism–Third Worldism. Here is why:

Carnation has been labeled "Third-Worldist" with a wikilink to Third-worldism however I question the validity of this particular link. While Abdullah Farooq does clearly use the label "Third-Worldist", the view he describes has more in common with Maoism-Third Worldism than the traditional cold-war era ideology. It is not clear however whether Abdullah is a Maoist or not. I would still argue that the Maoism-Third Worldism wikipedia page gives the reader a more accurate sense of the relevant ideology (Of course, this is all assuming it is valid to infer that Carnation as a whole shares Farooq's ideology. And I do think it is a reasonable inference)

Traditional Third-worldism (TW) is:

• Focused on International Alliance/Unity (between Third-World Countries)
• A Position of "Non-Alignment" between the Capitalist West, and Communist East
• Not specifically tied to Marxism or any kind of Socialism
• Concerned primarily with the subjugation of the Third-World to the East and West, regardless of what they would do with liberation

Maoism–Third Worldism (MTW) is:

• Imbued with theory from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
• Concerned primarily with Third-World Liberation in virtue of the revolutionary potential of the Third-World
• Adherent to Anti-Imperialism as a Means for Communist Revolution
• Focused on Rural/Peasantry as the primary source of revolutionary potential

In the Carnation Blogpost by Farooq used as a source for the "Third-Worldist" label, Abdullah clearly espouses points 2, 3, and 4 from the MTW list. While it is not entirely clear that he is a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist", it is certain that he is a Socialist, and very likely that he is at least a Marxist. Additionally, his primary reference in the blogpost, while not a traditional piece of Maoist literature, does clearly support a core tenant of Maoism, where Rural communities are understood to be the source of Global Revolution.

Since it is not strictly clear that "Maoism" (or even Marxism) in its entirety characterizes Farooq's ideology, I will instead just use "Revolutionary Third-Worldism" with a link to Maoism-Third Worldism. If you think this label does not belong on grounds other than the validity of inference from Farooq -> Carnation, then please engage here with a counter argument. KyaOnline (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I don't necessarily oppose this descriptor I think it may lead to confusion or a false impression of what carnation seems to actively desire policy-wise. I think this is an issue because third worldism as a term has already become a bit of a boogeyman in some media and to state this as Farooq's ideology may lead some to incorrectly believe that Farooq seeks to actively begin a violent revolution in the US when Farooq instead states explicitly in the blog post that they believe the chances of such a thing being possible are extremely low. Farooq's actual stated policy on this matter is to pursue union organizing. See the following (abridged) quote.

"If revolution is not likely in America, then what is our task as socialists? (…) By applying many of the lessons learned from union organizing to political organizing, the campaign successfully organized in eighteen Congressional districts to win seats for House representatives who would vote against military aid to the Contras."

I would recommend just using "third-worldism" like was previously done (or maybe something like "socialist third-worldism", if you wanted to be specific, but I believe to anyone familiar with the term third worldism, maoist/socialist third worldism will come to mind before the much older political movement from the Cold War due to the socialist variety being far more common in modern politics.) ~2026-41513-58 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What if we said "Marxist Third-Worldism"? KyaOnline (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know if carnation itself is explicitly Marxist. I get the impression from their POU equivalent they're more generally "laborist" (in the context of being very pro-union) if that makes sense, so to describe them as Marxist may not be entirely accurate. ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If they have a statement where they describe themselves as explicitly Marxist (beyond just quoting Marx, ofc) it could probably work, I just didn't check too thoroughly (it's getting late for me!) ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think TW is the better article to link. It does not say it's explicitly opposed to socialism and from this description it seems like MTW is a subcategory of TWism. If we cannot establish that Carnation are Maoist this seems like a more neutral term, granted that it's paired alongside "revolutionary". Bismarx (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

SMC: Ideology accurately describable as "social democracy" or another similar term?

Placing this here because I don't know what others think but the current description of the ideology of the SMC is relatively unclear in what beliefs SMC actually holds relative to the other caucuses. Quite a few caucuses could be described as "popular front" and "mass politics" so the description doesn't distinguish it from them, and these terms are relatively generic and don't provide much information to the reader. I will provisionally add "social democracy" to the box with a citation needed marker and remove the other two terms, but if others have opinions on this matter I would like to hear them.

Edit: changed my mind on the popular front removal; instead moved it to the electoral strategy column. I think that one is probably an accurate descriptor if put in that column, after thinking about it a bit more. ~2026-41513-58 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use "Social Democracy" for any Caucus. All Caucuses are socialists, and this is already implied by their inclusion in DSA. If you specifically mean the traditional sense of "Social Democracy" as a kind of Evolutionary (Reformist) Socialism, then I still don't think that accurately describes SMC. I've campaigned for the use of Structural reform because it is very clear in SMC's media that they are not traditional reformists in the sense of viewing electoral reform as the primary creator of socialism. They use electoralism to 1.) win over the working class through popular reform, and 2.) shift power to non-electoral working-class organizing efforts. A dual power structure approach. I think they are probably only slightly to the right of a figure like Rosa Luxemburg.

If the goal of using the term "Social Democracy" is to show that they place a lot of emphasis on reform efforts, then I think Structural reform already does this, without obscuring the ultimate intentions behind their reform strategy KyaOnline (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You’re probably right, but as I mentioned in another discussion I think the use of structural reform in the other caucuses doesn’t really make sense (outside of this case) because that generally appears to be the default or most common position in DSA, and we should instead note when a caucus is specifically NOT ‘structural reformist’ (e.g. impossibilist) ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The Sterne article (which is probably one of the most credible sources used in this article) makes clear that a distinguishing ideology/orientation of Socialist Majority Caucus is "mass politics." ~2026-41513-58 wrote that many other caucuses of have mass politics as part of their ideology/orientation, but that is not a reason to exclude it. Rather, if there are credible sources showing that other caucuses have that as their ideology/orientation, then it should probably added to those caucuses too. (However, if, for example, it is a feature of all the caucuses, then we probably should not include it. For example, there's no benefit to put "socialism" under every single one of the caucuses.) Furthermore, given that ~2026-41513-58 makes the same claim about "Popular front," which is still listed under Socialist Majority Caucus, I further see no reason to exclude it.

Also, I think we've reached a consensus that social democracy is not an accurate term for Socialist Majority Caucus. (I agree with said consensus.) ROADKILL (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mass politics?" Basically any political movement could be described with that term, and I think by most definitions you could create the entirety of the DSA would fall under it ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What NPC History to Include and Where?

Currently three pieces of history on the NPC are included, previously in the main body of the article now under "History". History on the political shift of the NPC in 2023 is worthwhile and should be kept. It seems unclear why the amendment on the non-binding poll, to a resolution which to my knowledge has not even been passed yet, is included rather than other much more notable past votes of the NPC. The 2024 AOC issue raises the same question, while it is more notable (although the history as written isn't 100% accurate) it's just one vote of the body which in and of itself did not have a huge direct impact on the body itself or on DSA at large. IMO it seems like there are two possible approaches here 1. a list of all notable votes of the NPC 2. A more broad history of political dealings and shifts on the NPC and changes to the NPC's structure (such as 2025 NPC expansion) with maybe a few very significant votes included. I advocate for the second approach. Slumpsters (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Didn’t notice this earlier sorry for the edit. The non binding poll I agree is irrelevant but I think the AOC vote is notable enough for inclusion because of the discussion/controversy it caused. I do agree that it could probably be rewritten though. I also agree with the second approach you proposed. ~2026-41821-97 (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Needed: Carnation Logo

I believe the article originally included a logo for Carnation, but then the image was removed (from Wikimedia Commons, not merely from the article). If someone could provide Carnation's logo (in compliance with fair use rules), it would be greatly appreciated. ROADKILL (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately that image was the only extant logo for Carnation. It's not a well established caucus, it's essentially a program and blog written by 3 DSA members which was supported by B&R and Groundwork at the 2025 convention. Slumpsters (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why that lead to us not having an image file we can use for them (to find via a Google image search). We have them for every other caucus, which makes it likely that legally[a] we can simply upload their logo under fair use (or that all of the other caucus logos are not compliant with fair use rules).

[a] This is NOT formal legal advice. ROADKILL (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Is 1989 Really the Proper Date for the NPC's Formation

The source cited states

Domestic and international policy proved to be less controversial than the organizational issues, which consumed more than their fair share of convention time. In the end, however, several important organizational changes were approved, including replacing the positions of co-chair with six honorary chairs and renaming the National Executive Committee the National Political Committee. The delegates decided to leave unchanged the size of the NPC, the operation of the National Board, and the practice of signing ballots in national elections. There was significant consensus around the priorities that will guide the work of DSA for the next two years, which were adopted in the form of a political priorities resolution on Sunday.

If this was simply renaming an existing body, does it really count as the date of the body's establishment? ROADKILL (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)