Without a revolutionary program, there can be no revolutionary party. The program is the living document that directs all the activity of the party. It is the brain of the party, without which it would be nothing but an opportunistic clique. Our organization, DSA, has a program of sorts, though a deeply incomplete one: despite this, it should still serve as the metaphorical brain of our organization, guiding it in its action and policy.

The comparison of the program to a brain is all too appropriate; the organization of socialists, if it wishes to bear on its shoulders the weight of the political struggle, must act as an organic unity of parts centered around the program as its guiding center. The general membership democratically adopts the program and it elects the National Political Committee alongside this adoption of the program. The role of the NPC should be to direct the organization to carry out the program in real time. In this way, the NPC should not directly serve the general membership, but rather it should serve it indirectly by affirming by deeds what the program affirms in words.

It is thus a theoretical error to say that the highest authority of the organization should be the NPC and it is also theoretically incorrect to say that the highest authority of the organization should be its membership. The highest authority of the organization should be its program, which unites the membership of the organization under its banner; the NPC as an executive body should be bound to the program first, and it is through it that it should be bound to the membership.

For this reason, any talk of democracy that is mechanically separated from the program and its directives is nothing more than liberal jabbering. The assumption of democratic ideology is that an organization should be guided by the majority of its members or constituents, that the majority is always correct over the minority. True, the majority of an organization is often correct, but this is not always the case. What determines whether or not a position is correct is not the number of votes it receives, but rather, whether or not it is aligned with the program.

When we say centralism, this is what we mean. We mean that the party and its operations are centralized around the program, which is a pseudo-invariable doctrine of revolutionary political science.

Revolutionary political science is defined by two things; first, by its recognition of the class struggle as the fundamental law of class society, and second, by its commitment to fighting for the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie no matter the cost. The only science capable of carrying the working class to victory is the science of Marxism.

If the program does not center class struggle, it cannot be a Marxist (revolutionary) program. If the program is one of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie, then it is a fundamentally counter-revolutionary program. If the program is subject to change by the shifting attitudes of the masses in times of either retreat or advance, then the organization that was built upon it might as well be built on the sand.

The program, which concentrates the revolutionary tradition and science of Marxism into a single document that is swung like a sword at the decaying capitalist order, should not be changeable by a simple majority or two-thirds vote. After it has been adopted, the program is no longer subordinated to democracy; instead, democracy is subordinated to the program. In this way it is invariable.

Capitalism, despite the advances in technology and material conditions that have occurred since its birth, is fundamentally the same beast as it always was. Capitalism in 2025 is built on the same relations of production as capitalism in 1825. All the changes that have occurred over this period of time have been quantitative, not qualitative.

Because capitalism at its core cannot be qualitatively changed without capitalism itself being transcended, the program of the party which seeks to overthrow it must also be unchangeable, at least until it has seized power. This is because the program must be based on Marxism as a science, the principles of which cannot be abandoned lest we fall into error and misdirection.

When the party does seize power the situation becomes altered, the class relation has changed. Though the doctrine of Marxism remains the same, it must be restated to take into account the infant might of the working class. The proletariat would at that point be in power and the program would have to be altered to reflect that.

Outside of the situation in which the proletariat seizes power, one thing must still be accounted for; sometimes, due to developments in the immediate situation, the activity of the party must be temporarily shifted, and certain parts must be emphasized at the expense of others. Sometimes, in moments of crisis, that which was once secondary becomes primary, and that which was once primary becomes secondary. How is the party to adjust its activity to accord with these changes if it cannot modify its program?

If the program is to be invariable, the interpretation and the application of the program must not be invariable. Obviously there is no such thing as a document which does not require interpretation, but some require more interpretation than others. The program, if it is to be effective, must be strict and specific on many issues, for example the issue of organized labor and anti-imperialism. There will never be a situation in which a revolutionary party should oppose the cause of organized labor in general. There is never a situation in which a revolutionary party should support imperialism. These are questions of principle; that is, they are not a matter of debate.

However, there are some questions which are not questions of principle, but rather questions of tactics. Though it is true that you cannot separate political principles from organizational principles, it is not the case that the one always and clearly follows from the other. Take the example of electoral work. The party runs candidates in order to strengthen its position and spread its ideas to the largest possible audience, and with the possibility in mind that its candidates may win, and may be able to push for reforms which put the revolutionary class and its party in a more advantageous position.

This is something that the party must do to a certain extent, based on the resources that it has at its disposal and the nature of the political situation it finds itself in. But how much of the party’s time and effort should be dedicated to elections? This is a question of tactics, not a question of principle, and the answer will vary based on the situation the party finds itself in.

This question (and similar questions) cannot be answered by a programmatic ultimatum. The program can say that the party must carry out electoral work, but it cannot and should not specify how much electoral work is done, or the offices that it runs candidates for, or anything else regarding the specifics of such work, besides the usual (that candidates must uphold the program and abide by party discipline).

In such an instance, the program must be interpreted based on the conditions of the time. Not only must it be interpreted, but it must be interpreted formally in an acting document which directs the work of the party and which is based on the program itself. It is this document which shall be variable, while the program itself (the scientific base of the party) remains invariant.

It is here that we can make the distinction between the program as science and the program as action. The program as science is the distillation of the Marxist critique of capitalism and the social relations which it spawns, and in broad strokes it explains how society can be revolutionized and transformed along socialist lines. The program as action takes the scientific program and draws from it a series of concrete goals and action plans which shall outline how to best carry out the scientific program in the prevailing conditions.

In DSA, we have a program—Workers Deserve More—but it only functions as one half of this equation. It is purely an action program; it provides a series of demands that meet the current moment, but it is utterly devoid of any statements of political principle. It is certainly better than no program at all, but it is still deeply insufficient. Without a firm Marxist program to ground us, we will continue to drift aimlessly, and our victories will more often than not be blunted by defeats. A body without a brain cannot survive.

-Nikoli Weir