The situation in Iran poses a political challenge for anyone who cares about emancipation. Everyone knows that the single greatest threat to that goal on a global level is the United States and its imperial allies. And everyone also knows that there are some other states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) that happen to oppose US imperialism, but are themselves repressive, capitalist, patriarchal, and inegalitarian. 

In the last two months, we’ve seen massive demonstrations against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian government’s ferocious repression of those protests, a full-scale US-Israeli war on Iran, and the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

For those of us who live in North America and Europe, what is to be done?

1

This question has sparked sharp debate. Let us be charitable and say that every leftist involved in the dispute stands against both imperialism and repressive states. But one cannot do everything, and we are now in the midst of war, so what should be prioritized?

On the one side are the so-called “campists.” Arguing that political and social questions cannot be disentangled from the imperial question, they believe that the strategic priority should be to fight US imperialism. And because the left is so weak these days, this means supporting the IRI, since it has a far greater capacity to resist US imperialism. Most campists acknowledge that the Iranian state is repressive, and they know that offering critical support amounts to tolerating or even excusing a deeply inegalitarian state that has murdered tens of thousands dissidents. But they insist that fighting the overt domination of the US-led imperial alliance is the more important task.

On the other side are the so-called “anti-campists.” Arguing that the struggle for emancipation demands a commitment to combatting all repressive states, they believe that the strategic priority should be to support those who are resisting the Islamic Republic of Iran from within – even if many of these protesters are monarchists, and some may be armed by Mossad. Although they oppose the current war on Iran, most anti-campists acknowledge that seeking to overthrow this repressive regime effectively puts them on the same side as US imperialism – as well as its monarchist and Zionist allies. And if the regime does fall, it is certain that the United States and its imperial allies – like Israel – will try their hardest to impose a new pro-US client regime or partition the country altogether. But anti-campists insist that fighting the domination of the Iranian state is the more important task.

There are also those who try to gesture to some middle path by suggesting that we should “do both,” that is, support popular uprisings against the Iranian state while also remaining steadfastly anti-imperialist. It’s at this point that the “campists” and the “anti-campists” who are usually at each other’s throats unite in agreement: they argue that it is unclear what this imagined third option means in practice. There are of course groups, collectives, organizations, feminist networks, and unions within Iran doing important work in the face of severe obstacles unimaginable to most people in North America and Europe. But for a number of reasons – the most important of which is sustained repression – there is no mass, organized, anti-imperialist left there as yet, and only a very weak internationalist left abroad to help. The middle path does not really exist. 

2

As someone who has been sympathetic to imagining such an alternative, I will admit that the campist and anti-campist critics are right. But one could point out that the same criticism can be applied to their own positions. Whether you say that we should support internal attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran, offer critical support to the IRI’s resistance to US-Israeli imperialism, or hope for some third alternative – none of it concretely matters.

There are, of course, some leftists in North America and Europe – almost all of whom are Iranians born in Iran or have lived there – who do have meaningful connections with individuals, institutions, and organizations inside the country, and so can have some sort of a direct impact. Their experiences, knowledge, linguistic competency, and especially personal connections open up different avenues for international solidarity.

But the hard truth is that there is very little that the rest of us can do to materially influence the course of events within Iran. We do not belong to some vast revolutionary international with a section in Iran, we do not have deep political links with organized protesters inside the country, and we certainly do not have a direct line to the regime. We don’t have any real say in what happens there.

One can argue that what we do have is our words, and that words matter. Political statements have an impact on what happens. But this isn’t very convincing. Our words play no role in shaping the decisions that the IRI leadership takes. The people who run the country don’t know who you are, and they don’t care about your opinion. Nor do your words have much of an impact on the struggle on the ground.

The task, then, is to determine what those of us who live in the countries that make up the US-led imperial alliance – which is now openly at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran – can do right now. What can we control?

3

Arguably, the most important thing that people in North America and Europe can do is to pressure their respective states to lift the sanctions, scale back their ongoing efforts to sabotage Iran, restrain Israel’s incessant aggression, stop the current US-Israeli war, and prevent future imperialist interventions. Foreign policy is of course one of the least accountable dimensions of the state, but it is still subject to popular pressure. Massive popular opposition has worked before, and it might be even more effective today, given that most people who live in these countries have grown tired of failed US-led interventions.

Organizing to restrain imperial intervention is not only still feasible; it also has the potential benefit of satisfying all sides in the debate about Iran. For the campists, it’s a win. The United States now has to deal with domestic antiwar opposition, which makes it more difficult to execute the sustained operation needed to overthrow the IRI. More to the point, it does precisely what the campists insist is the priority: confronting US-led imperialism.

For the anti-campists, it’s also a win. As many scholars have pointed out, continued aggression against Iran in many ways closes down the space for meaningful change. Massive economic pressure has only enlarged the state apparatuses. Sanctions have shrunk the “middle classes” that historically took the lead in reform movements, and they have made many poorer Iranians even more dependent on state subsidies for survival, and so less likely to resist. Constant imperial subversion only legitimizes the IRI’s claims that it is defending the Iranian people from destruction, and sustains a level of domestic support for the state. And while it’s impossible to know what will happen in the next couple weeks, direct imperial assaults like the one we are seeing will not necessarily inspire the Iranians to rise up against their regime. Restraining US-led imperialism can therefore increase the chances of making real change in Iran.

As for those who hope for some third option, it’s also a win. The most serious flaw in the “do both” argument is that there does not exist a mass, organized, anti-imperialist force within Iran right now. The IRI’s brutal, decades-long repression of the left, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel’s constant efforts to hijack genuine popular discontent on the other closes down the space for such a force to emerge. It’s hard to speak of a “third way” when the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and Israel are all breathing down your neck. While there’s not much the left in North America and Europe can do about the IRI, putting a check on the US-led alliance might contribute to slightly cracking open that space. And there’s the off chance that diminished US intervention might prompt the IRI to slightly lighten up or even enact reforms that could create better conditions for a meaningful alternative to emerge. It is an admittedly unlikely outcome, but the question of probability has never held back the partisans of the “third way.” 

4

One might object that it’s not possible to meaningfully organize when there are so many unresolved disagreements on fundamental questions. But the recent internationalist mobilizations in support of Palestinian liberation seem to suggest otherwise. Let’s not forget that these solidarity movements have also been the site of sharp disagreements, some of which are not all that dissimilar from what is being said about Iran now.

The situation in Palestine, too, is by no means straightforward, and the complexities there could have sparked enervating internecine battles. While there is general agreement on the left about Israel, there is disagreement about what to make of the Palestinian side. After all, the forces leading the anti-colonial movement are capitalist, nationalist, Islamist, patriarchal, and socially conservative. They are not fighting for universal emancipation. What does this mean for internationalism?

Although this question prompted many debates, and triggered some sectarian divisions, they have not become paralyzing, nor have they replaced organizing in North America and Europe. Most people have remained focused on building a meaningful internationalist movement – marching, educating people, organizing campaigns, constructing organizations, creating alternative news sources, planning strikes, occupying campuses, pushing unions and professional associations to take a stand, challenging institutional ties with Israel, putting pressure on the state, and so forth. The inability to “resolve” these sometimes acrimonious debates has not prevented these collective efforts from advancing the overall internationalist infrastructure in this part of the world by leaps and bounds.

Of course, Palestine is not Iran. In Palestine, the US and its allies are supporting a European settler colonial project that is trying to eradicate a colonized population that has resisted for over a century. In Iran, the US and its allies are trying to overthrow a sovereign state that has managed to resist US imperial aggression for nearly half a century, but has also regularly crushed popular democratic movements for change from within. The differences between the two contexts is certainly one key reason why these debates have become so incapacitating in the Iranian case. 

But from the perspective of anti-imperialist organizing in North America and Europe, these differences should not be all that significant. And even if the situation were to radically change within Iran itself, it is not clear why this would change much for people on the left in North America and Europe. Wouldn’t they keep doing the same thing: organizing to block the US-led imperial alliance? If this alliance is in fact the greatest threat to emancipation everywhere, then wouldn’t challenging it from within be the single most effective thing that people in these countries can do?

The point is not that debates do not matter, but that they should be organized around meaningful goals, anchored to specific conjunctures, based in actual terrains of struggle, related to concrete organizing efforts on the ground, and oriented towards building power. The Palestine solidarity movement has shown that it is possible to have major internal disagreements while still prioritizing organizing, creating lasting networks that can be built on in the future, and launching durable campaigns that are relevant not just for solidarity work with Palestine but beyond. 

In fact, some of the work done for Palestine can be expanded for Iran. Doesn’t overturning Orientalist narratives about the Middle East help the cause of emancipation not just in Palestine, but also in Iran? Or deepening anti-imperialist sentiment? Or exposing the links between institutions at home and imperialism abroad? Or calling on European states to end arms sales to the Israeli state? Or restraining US imperialism? 

5

Focusing on organizing against imperialism from within the heartlands of the US-led imperial alliance addresses the problem at the heart of this recurring debate – the relative incapacity of the international left today. The key question is therefore: how to organize a coordinated internationalist left with the capacity to make a real difference? 

This may seem like a daunting task, and it cannot fall to a single author to propose an answer. This has to be a collective effort, and it must involve finding ways to strategically adapt shared goals to highly dissimilar contexts. But it’s worth remembering that leftists have done this before. 

During the Vietnam War, to take only one example, anti-imperialists did not just organize the spectacular mass marches that we remember in photographs. Many of them tried to orient these actions towards building a durable internationalist infrastructure – legal groups, GI coffeehouses, research collectives, student organizations, independent media, social centers, workplace organizing committees, antiwar religious associations, nationwide antiwar congresses, underground railroads for draft dodgers, and so on – that could sustain a protracted struggle.

What’s more, many activists in North America and Western Europe coordinated across borders to amplify their efforts. As I’ve shown elsewhere, they shared materials, attended each other’s meetings, harmonized their messaging, cooperated on shared campaigns, synchronized their actions, and pursued common goals – while tailoring their work to their specific national contexts. In West Germany, for instance, some activists tried to convince American GIs stationed there to desert; in Great Britain, they hoped to end their government’s support for Washington’s imperialist war; in the United States, they tried to undermine the US’s government’s capacity for war from within. 

Vietnamese revolutionaries encouraged this approach. The best way that anti-imperialists in the North Atlantic could help, they argued, was to open “new fronts” inside their own countries. Vietnamese revolutionaries knew that they could never defeat the US military in combat, so they aimed instead to create a situation in which the US government felt compelled to cut its losses. 

And anti-imperialist organizing within the North Atlantic could help increase the price of imperialism: activists convinced their neighbors to oppose the war, connected Vietnam to other issues, encouraged religious institutions to speak out, made the war into an unavoidable electoral topic, went on strike, boycotted companies, pushed institutions to divest, resisted the draft, shut down highways, made universities ungovernable, blocked troop trains, harried elected officials, obstructed military recruiters, leaked classified documents, disrupted everyday life for years, and catalyzed severe domestic crises. 

By the early 1970s, everything came to a head: international opinion turned against the war, the United States became deeply isolated, its closest allies broke ranks, and domestic pressure became overwhelming. The social, cultural, economic, military, political, and ideological costs of imperialism became too high, and the United States withdrew from Vietnam without realizing any of its major objectives. 

It’s also worth noting that leftists in North America and Europe contributed decisively to this outcome in spite of very sharp – and at times almost debilitating – political differences. Many leftists, for example, were quite critical of Vietnamese communism’s record of ferocious repression. The communists, after all, slaughtered their leftist rivals in their struggle for supremacy, murdered thousands of peasants in their botched land reform campaign, suppressed dissidents in their bid to consolidate power in the North, and killed civilians in their resistance to imperialism in the South.  

Of course, we live in a very different historical moment, and what worked before may not work again now. But the same political problem that leftists in the past faced remains with us today. And even if their solutions did not last, some of their tactical innovations may still be repurposed. At the very least, finding a new solution to the problem of anti-imperialist solidarity today can benefit from collectively taking stock of how leftists tried to solve that problem in the past – and determining what can be reused, what is no longer appropriate, and what must be invented from scratch to succeed where they came up short.

6

Working together to pressure the US-led imperial alliance to not make things worse admittedly may not seem like much. But it can build unity, expand the left’s capacity, continue the hard work of building the internationalist infrastructure in North America and Europe, and even have a major impact at this moment: the US-Israeli war on Iran is massively unpopular internationally, and even most Americans – liberal and conservative – do not want to get tied up in yet another protracted war. 

And it’s much better than wasting precious time dueling one another on Elon Musk’s website.

***

This article originally appeared on Verso Books Blog site on March 1, 2026. It is reprinted here with permission.

The post Organizing in the Heart of Empire: On the Left’s debate around Iran appeared first on Pine & Roses.

By: Frederick Reiber

BOSTON, MA – Dining hall workers at Emmanuel College voted to unionize with UNITE HERE Local 26 and signed their first collectively-bargained contract in November 2025, joining a union rapidly organizing small shops and similar ones.

The workers, employed by the food service contract Bon Appétit Management Company, had originally begun organizing four or five years ago. That original push fizzled out. However, as one of the employees, Cesar Salazar, highlighted – workers had really begun to notice the union difference. They lacked union insurance and a pension plan, and held significant grievances around handling worker seniority. 

At the center of the campaign was what organizers describe as a worker-driven approach to building power inside the workplace. Rather than relying on outside messaging alone, workers focused on identifying trusted colleagues and strengthening relationships across shifts and roles.

Cesar Salazar, a 14-year employee involved in the effort, highlighted how the campaign drew on the Organizing for Power playbook — a method centered on mapping workplace relationships and working through respected leaders. Workers met to identify who others turned to for advice, who influenced conversations in the kitchen or serving lines, and how support could spread person to person. That process meant thinking carefully about who to approach and when. It required workers to assess not just formal job titles, but informal networks of trust.

The work was intensive. Salazar described “meeting after meeting” as employees gathered before shifts, after work and on days off to build majority support. At the same time, they had to remain discreet, keeping organizing conversations away from management while building confidence among co-workers.

The University as a Multi-Employer Arena

Organizing inside a university setting brought both challenges and advantages. The dining workers are employed by Bon Appétit Management Company, a national food service contractor. However, many aspects of their daily working conditions are shaped by the standards and expectations of Emmanuel College itself.

In some workplaces, that kind of “fissured” employment structure — where a contractor technically employs workers while another institution sets conditions — can complicate organizing drives. The same case applies in many workplaces, such as in the structure of Fenway Park, which impacted the 2025 strike of concessions workers. In the case of Emmanuel College, workers indicated that fissuring was not a significant barrier. They moved forward with a clear understanding of how the workplace functioned and focused on building unity among themselves, internally.

One of the campaign’s strengths, organizers said, was the presence of an already established worker community on campus. Workers across Emmanuel College showed support during the drive. The support from other unionized workers helped normalize the effort and underscored what organizers described as “the union difference.”

First Contract Negotiations

After winning union recognition, workers entered negotiations for a first contract and won in November 2025.

The contract includes significant economic gains. Workers secured a total wage increase of over $9 per hour, a substantial boost that addressed long-standing concerns about pay. The agreement also provides increased vacation time and new parental protections, expanding benefits beyond wages alone. In addition to these financial and leave-related improvements, workers won changes to the scheduling system and formal recognition of employees’ commitment to their jobs. As workers explained, their employer had often failed to acknowledge seniority or properly compensate long-time staff for their service. The new agreement helps to rectify this by providing four weeks of vacation for senior members and a fair scheduling system based on seniority.

The scheduling victory is especially meaningful because it shows that union campaigns can secure more than traditional “bread and butter” issues like pay and benefits. By reshaping how schedules are structured and communicated, the contract reaches into the everyday rhythms of work life, giving workers greater predictability, stability, and respect on the job.

For these workers, the first contract is not just a list of new benefits—it is a framework for a more secure, dignified workplace, and a signal that organizing can deliver tangible changes that are felt long after the picket signs come down.

Frederick Reiber is a contributing writer to Working Mass.

The post Emmanuel College Dining Hall Workers Win First Contract with UNITE HERE Local 26 appeared first on Working Mass.

By: Shane Levett & Stefan Neumayer

This article was originally published by Cosmonaut Magazine in January 2026. These positions are the authors’ own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.

Central Mass & Worcester DSA recently considered and ratified two documents, a resolution on “Principles for Socialist Electoral Work” and a chapter bylaws amendment establishing an Electoral Policy. Together these will govern the chapter’s engagement with electoral work, both campaigning and parliamentary practice.

Our DSA chapter covers Central Massachusetts and is centered on the city of Worcester. The chapter is bordered to the east by Boston DSA, to the west by River Valley, to the south by Connecticut and Rhode Island, and to the north by Southern New Hampshire DSA. We organize in a particularly proletarian part of New England with a history of a vibrant and varied industry built around manufacturing, in particular the metal trades in Worcester, paper in Fitchburg, furniture in Gardner, plastics in Leominster, and optics in Southbridge. Economic restructuring and the decline in industrial production in the Northeast has made education, healthcare, and local government the largest employers in Worcester County in recent years, followed by finance, biotechnology, and transportation and logistics. The eastern part of our chapter, centered around Marlborough, is part of the MetroWest area’s economy and focused on technology. While Worcester was historically a hostile environment for unions, the union density is currently above the national average, at around 12.6%. Politically, the state and region are dominated by the Democratic Party, which, while at times paying lip service to demands for progressive reforms, serves only the capitalist class. Of the seventeen state house districts entirely within our chapter’s area, eleven are held by Democrats and six by Republicans, who are sidelined and irrelevant in state politics.

Our chapter has a long-standing commitment to labor work, in particular salting and strike support. Over the last year, we took initial steps into tenant organizing by focusing on a large local building complex, where we are organizing tenants to struggle against the landlord with the goal of forming a tenants union. Our political education work has also deepened, in particular with a six-part Foundational Marxist Curriculum that was very well attended by our chapter members.

The chapter emphasizes collective decision-making by the entire membership, combining active deliberative democracy with a centralized approach that favors steering committee-led committees over autonomous working groups. While very few of our chapter’s members are caucused, most of the active membership and chapter leadership consider themselves revolutionary Marxists of various stripes. Many are members of Red Line, a broad left-wing coalition that includes caucused and uncaucused members across several DSA chapters in New England. Red Line’s points of unity are principled electoral work, socialist organizing in the labor movement, and a strong commitment to member democracy in a multi-tendency DSA. After increasing our membership roughly 20% in the six months prior to election day in 2024 and by another roughly 80% in the year since, we have begun to transition out of being a small chapter. Now, while not neglecting other organizing, we are preparing to enter into electoral work and hope our perspective may be of interest to other chapters developing their own approach to this work.

Our Proposal

The Principles orient our electoral work, by developing a vision and a common understanding of the entire chapter. They describe in brief our understanding of the nature and limits of democracy under capitalism, the specific purpose of socialist electoral work, and the opportunity it presents. They lay out our intent to run agitational campaigns for seats in legislative bodies at the state and municipal levels. Our candidates—nominated to run, not endorsed after the fact—will stand for election on socialist platforms that build on the chapter’s political program and that are developed and democratically approved by our membership.

Where the Principles provide the guiding philosophy, the Electoral Policy provides the minutiae of the necessary processes. It lays out how we will put our Principles into practice, combining our general understanding of socialist electoral work with strategic and tactical conclusions derived for the specifics of our chapter. It codifies:

• criteria for district and target research, such as class composition and other demographic information and opportunities to run a slate of candidates together;
• a process for member ratification of our nominated candidates and drafting socialist platforms for each body we contest that build on the chapter’s political program;
• considerations for suitable potential candidates, that they be active and experienced members, politically educated, in agreement with our theory of change, and committed to building and promoting DSA as their political home, and will not unilaterally make endorsements of other candidates or receive contributions to a candidate’s committee;
• expectations of elected officials, including not keeping more than a median workers’ income, not caucusing with non-socialists, and not taking a “position or vote for funding of or support for US militarism or imperialism, the Zionist apartheid regime, policing or the US criminal-legal system generally, any associated lobbying or interest groups, or rollback of the rights of oppressed peoples and workers, including any restriction of workers’ self-organization, strikes, boycotts, or other workers’ collective action”; and
• a process for independently organizing around ballot questions, provided it is with a socialist message that advances our political work, program, and organization;
• structures to implement the above, including a Program Committee that houses platform committees for each body on which we have elected officials and that coordinates with them, as well as a firewalled Electoral Committee that houses a related independent expenditure political action committee (IE PAC) that will raise funds, hire staff, order print literature, and run all canvasses and other campaign activities in support of the election of our nominated candidates, while avoiding when reasonably possible the use of services, including VoteBuilder and ActBlue, effectively controlled by another political party or whose use benefits another party, in favor of alternatives.

We did not develop a general position on ballot lines and contented ourselves to clarify what they mean for the electoral work, municipal and state legislative, that is possible exclusively within the geographic jurisdiction of our chapter. Debate, however, showed that most of us reject an overly narrow approach. Having their own ballot line did not insulate the Socialist Party of America (SPA) from the pressures of opportunism, and use of another party’s ballot line does not take all agency from candidates and doom them to opportunism and instant failure. But nor is running in another party’s primary a victimless crime—it hinders our ability to build an independent profile and present ourselves as the alternative to the capitalist two-party system. It might also foster misunderstandings or illusions outside our organization—or even within it—namely that our political project is to remake one of the capitalist parties into a socialist party by and for the working class.

Ultimately, with nonpartisan municipal elections in our state, we see no reason to run municipal candidates registered with another party. Likewise, state legislative primaries here offer nothing comparable to the widely broadcast debates or other early media coverage of primaries for higher offices. Thus, we see no great benefit to limiting the reach of our state legislative campaigns to those workers who turn out for (or who we can motivate to turn out for) another party’s primaries.

We see our stance on ballot lines as being distinct from that adopted by much of the rest of DSA. Resolution 7, which passed with roughly 54% support at 2025 DSA National Convention, says that formally “DSA’s approach is the party surrogate, acting as a party but without a dedicated ballot line.” Reflecting the popular fixation, since Seth Ackerman’s 2016 article, on legal obstacles to a party of our own with its own ballot line, R7 dedicates two of its five whereas clauses and three of its ten namesake “Principles for Party-Building” to justifying this claimed agnostic stance on ballot lines. For many years now, of course, DSA chapters engaged in electoral work have actually dedicated themselves in their practical activity almost exclusively to supporting candidates who have decided to run in Democratic Party primaries or registered Democrats running their campaigns with Democratic Party tech tools in nonpartisan races. We break from this “dirty stay” approach of “using existing [Democratic Party] apparatus without necessarily seeking to transform [realign] the Democratic Party… [and simultaneously] avoiding or at least not taking necessary steps to build a new socialist party.” Instead we put forward a different electoral approach set by our members that focuses on an electoral strategy and organization defined by the chapter itself rather than by candidates and their campaigns. It is therefore our intention to run our municipal and state legislative candidates in general elections as independents (or what is called “unenrolled” in Massachusetts).

Our Strategy

There are four main ways in which we believe our approach is unique within DSA:

(1) We focus our campaigns on promoting socialism, DSA, and our chapter, rather than on winning seats

Tactics must be subservient to guiding principles and not the other way around. We stress that electoral work is a tool for political aims: our primary goal is not to win offices but to spread socialism and further the political independence of the working class. DSA should not be listed as one of many endorsements or buried in the small print of a “Paid for by” line; our candidates must run as proud socialists and DSA members first, nominated by our chapter, running under a common brand, focused on organizing the working class, and distinct from left liberals who campaign only on reforms.

We aim to use agitation and political indictments not only to stir indignation but to promote a socialist understanding by connecting capitalism to the concrete, everyday abuses, outrages, and concerns of workers; exposing misdirection and deception by bourgeois parties and the ways legislation and the state serve particular economic interests; and highlighting and broadening local conflicts, struggles, strikes, and protests. We aim not only to draw attention to these issues or provide theoretical insights but to earn workers’ support by providing the most energetic and effective political leadership as the most determined fighters for the class.

(2) We choose candidates as representatives of the program we put forward as a chapter, rather than endorsing candidates who have already decided to run

Starting from the idea that Worcester DSA should recruit candidates rather than candidates recruiting Worcester DSA, we dispense with questionnaires on candidates’ individual views and the whole customary chapter endorsement process. This process often not only tails candidates who have already made up their minds on running and fosters an individualistic philosophy of elections but leads to a consecutive lowering of standards, toward embracing those who are more or less radical liberals as somehow “better” than (i.e., not yet so corrupted as) the establishment Democratic Party candidates, which may initially be true to an extent but is not sufficient for socialist electoral work.

Instead of attempting to patch over this problem through the common formulation of “running more cadre candidates” (in fact, changing essentially nothing other than endorsed candidates’ level of involvement in DSA), we democratically develop a socialist platform for each elected body we intend to contest and then democratically select experienced members of our chapter to stand as representatives of that platform. Collective decision-making on collective action is a core part of our project as organized socialists in DSA. We make clear that to decide to run for public elected office without the nomination of the chapter is a rejection of what makes us a socialist organization instead of a federation of well-meaning individual activists.

(3) We run our own campaigns under the effective control of the chapter, rather than acting as a volunteer pool or donor list for candidates

We overcome some constraints of state laws that frustrate the efforts of organized groups to hold politicians accountable through a related IE PAC, which will almost entirely take the place of the fundraising and spending that candidates themselves would normally control. By establishing an IE PAC under a chapter Electoral Committee that is firewalled from the rest of the chapter, especially the Program Committee that actually interacts with candidates and electeds, we aim to keep campaign funds and decisions under chapter, not candidate, control—during and after campaigns and even if a politician breaks from us or our members decide to break from them.

(4) We develop our priorities and plans as part of the chapter, rather than commending or denouncing candidates’ votes after the fact

We understand that for our democratic decision-making to mean something, to have real stakes, all members must make a good-faith effort to carry out collective decisions on collective action, and we expect an even higher standard of our candidates and elected officials. To that end, we established a Program Committee, which implements the chapter political program and the platform on which candidates run. Under the Program Committee, we also created a framework for platform committees for each body we contest that will include our elected officials. Working bodies in the spirit of the Paris Commune, these committees will be accountable to the membership and will perform delegated daily work in relation to legislation and other political activities.

Theoretical and Historical Investigation

When considering our electoral work, we did not immediately jump to seeking candidates to endorse but started with a discussion of our goals and how best to achieve them. In the plainest terms, our goals are socialism and building a socialist movement capable of contesting for working-class power. Our approach is driven by these overarching goals, and we see participation in electoral work as providing valuable opportunities that must not be surrendered. Electoral strategies are not ends in themselves or tools for temporary electoral or policy gains. They are subordinate to higher, political aims. For this reason, we intend to run working class representatives from and of DSA to:

• reach large numbers of working class people with our socialist message;
• combat ruling class narratives and make the case against capitalism and for socialism;
• advance and lead struggles to raise class consciousness and challenge the existing system;
• recruit to our organization, grow our capacity, and develop cadre; and
• organize a mass base in the working class for socialism, as well as a mass party that fights for it.

We studied past writings and classic works on the foundations of the bourgeois state, politics, and socialist engagement with elections, relying on texts such as:

• Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “Address of the Central Authority to the League, March 1850.” In Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 10, 277-287. Lawrence & Wishart, 1978.
• Varlin, Eugène, et al. “Appel du comité central de la garde nationale le 25 mars 1871” [Appeal of the Central Committee of the National Guard of March 25, 1871]. Gallica. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112793c/f109.item. Facsimile of the appeal as published in Élections Des 26 Mars Et 16 Avril 1871: Affiches, Professions De Foi, Documents Officiels, Clubs Et Comités Pendant La Commune, 107-108 (1871).
• Engels, Friedrich. “Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850 (1895).” In Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 27, 506-524. Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.
• Luxemburg, Rosa. “Reform or Revolution.” In The Essential Rosa Luxemburg, pp. 41-104. Haymarket Books, 2008.
• Lenin, V.I. “Preface to the Russian Translation of W. Liebknecht’s Pamphlet: No Compromises, No Electoral Agreements.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 11, 401-407. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1962.
• Debs, Eugene V. “Danger Ahead.” In Writings and Speeches of Eugene V. Debs, pp. 333-336. Hermitage Press, 1948. Transcription of the article as originally published in International Socialist Review (1911).
• Lenin, V.I. “The Election Campaign and the Election Platform.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 17, pp. 278-286. Progress Publishers, 1968.
• Lippmann, Walter. “On Municipal Socialism, 1913: An Analysis of Problems and Strategies.” In Socialism and the Cities, edited by Bruce Stave, 184-96. Kennikat Press, 1975.
• Lenin, V.I. “The State and Revolution.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 25, 381-492. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.
• Lenin, V.I. “Several Conclusions” in “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 31, 90-104. Progress Publishers, 1966.
• Badayev, A. The Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma. Martin Lawrence, 1929.

We believe it is important too to review the history of past socialist electoral work, including, in this country, the swift rise and fall of the Social Democratic Party in Haverhill in our own state, the presidential runs of Eugene Debs, the nearly 40 years of Socialist Party mayors in Milwaukee, and the pressures to liquidate politically into a left wing of the campaigns of William Jennings Bryan, Robert M. La Follette, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What is the scoreboard here for socialism? With hindsight and thought toward our own future efforts, we arrive at a sober assessment of the inherent limits of elections as a means to transform society in general and of certain electoral tactics in particular. We believe socialists are at their best when they connect electoral campaigns and legislative activity to organizing and mobilization outside the halls of government. Socialists should engage in struggles for reforms to build toward a socialist party and workers’ movement that can seize political power for the working class and carry out the democratic socialization of ownership of the means of production.

Unfortunately, however, tactics have often seemingly been driven by a singular focus on seeking reforms within capitalism as an end in itself, often under the influence of middle-class professionals or in systematic class collaboration with petty bourgeois elements. This vulgar electoralism that sees seats as synonymous with political power, reforms as the purpose of it, and electoral maneuvering as the key to achieving both is rooted in the failure to accept that reforms are a product of class forces and class struggle. Historically, instances of this seem to have eventually led non-socialist reform-minded voters, and then socialists themselves, away from an earlier, admittedly quite narrow, interest in socialists winning elections and toward merely working to support and sway capitalist politicians and parties. After enough electoral victories subsequently give way to the absorption of popular reform planks into capitalist reform politics, this is a path that can only culminate in the disintegration of the organized socialist movement into reform-minded pressure groups.

We drew historical information of value on these challenges and on the electoral project of the Socialist Party and early Communist Party from books such as:

• Bedford, Henry F. Socialism and the Workers in Massachusetts, 1886-1912. The University of Massachusetts Press, 1966.
• Kipnis, Ira. American Socialist Movement, 1897-1912. Haymarket Books, (1952) 2005.
• Zumoff, Jacob A. The Communist International and US Communism, 1919-1929. Haymarket Books, (2014) 2015.
• Stave, Bruce M. Socialism and the Cities. Kennikat Press, 1975.

To engage the chapter’s members in the process of deciding our electoral strategy and to provide them with a broad theoretical and historical understanding of this topic, our Political Education Committee in turn ran:

• a five-part reading group in advance of 2025 DSA National Convention that extensively covered electoral debates leading up to and during the first decade of the SPA;
• a 30-minute political education session at our chapter’s September General Meeting on the early U.S. socialist movement and debates over the value of political action;
• a 90-minute stand-alone presentation and discussion in November on the Marxist theory of the state, focused on the modern state as a product of capitalism and its role as an instrument of the bourgeoisie and making central the point that the bourgeois state apparatus cannot just be captured by the working class but has to be smashed; and
• another 90-minute stand-alone presentation and discussion in early December on political struggle and party-building, focused especially on understanding the phrase from the Communist Manifesto that “every class struggle is a political struggle.”

These political education events were each attended by roughly 10-15% of our membership.

Practical investigation

We also investigated and evaluated the electoral work of other DSA chapters, not only through theoretical engagement but actual participation. Besides North Jersey DSA, who we joined remotely for some virtual phone banks in Jersey City, NJ, we appreciate members from the following chapters who hosted or met with us when we sent out travel contingents to join canvasses, mostly for candidates but also a ballot-question campaign endorsed by other chapters in the Northeast:

• Boston DSA in Somerville, MA
• Connecticut DSA in Hamden, CT
• Maine DSA in Portland, ME
• NYC-DSA in New York, NY
• Rhode Island DSA in Providence, RI
• River Valley DSA in Agawam and Amherst, MA

Making an effort to seriously reflect and have our takeaways inform our approach, these electoral treks were followed by extensive debriefs, reports, and further discussion at meetings of our chapter’s Political Committee, an already existing committee which was charged with organizing members for general political action outside of tenant and labor work. We focused on how chapters were interacting with candidates’ campaigns and how the campaign literature presented candidates, as well as DSA and socialism (if at all). We asked what purpose DSA members saw in their chapters’ electoral work and in their engagement with each particular campaign, where we were being sent to knock doors in, and which voter strata were reached or (if shared with us) targeted. We learned where volunteers came from, their background, and what volunteers were told before launching each canvass. In short, while the treks offered a chance to train more of our members and expose them to the logistics of campaign operations, we took greatest interest in the political character of the technical aspects of each campaign and the decisions made by candidates and chapters about how to run them. Nearly 10% of our membership signed up for an electoral trek in the course of our investigation.

We also benefited from and are grateful to Austin, Cleveland, Green Mountain, New Orleans, River Valley, Tacoma, Twin Cities, and many other DSA chapters, from which either current or past candidates or chapter leaders dedicated significant time talking with members of our chapter about their electoral work or who hosted observers from our chapter at electoral or general meetings that considered endorsements or report backs on electoral work. We especially appreciated opportunities to learn about Boston DSA’s endorsement process and socialists in office committees, Buffalo DSA’s difficulties after India Walton’s defeat, Chicago DSA’s Socialists in Office Committee, Bob Murrell’s independent campaign for New Orleans City Council, NYC-DSA’s endorsement process and electoral working group structure, Pittsburgh DSA’s political action committee and challenges to their ballot question work, Seattle DSA’s ballot question work and electoral strategy reading group, and Zev Cook’s campaign for Tacoma City Council.

Drafting, Ratification, and Beyond

Based on our investigation and starting from broad agreement on purpose but with real deliberation about the best ways to achieve it, a mix of both new and long-standing members spent a total of nearly twenty hours in regular meetings over the past several months debating and drafting our “Principles for Socialist Electoral Work” and Electoral Policy. Our members ratified the Principles overwhelmingly—50 to 2—in a live vote at our October General Meeting, and the Electoral Policy was ratified unanimously at our October and November General Meetings. Both General Meetings had the participation of nearly 20% of our chapter membership.

More than simply offering critiques of the work of others, our goal has been to integrate lessons from elsewhere and the past to actively contribute our own efforts toward building an alternative model of socialist electoral work here and in the present. We believe this Worcester model—principled, programmatic, and partyist—builds on classical approaches to electoral work and meaningfully breaks from the current orthodoxy in DSA.

Starting from our Principles and Electoral Policy, the same members who drafted these proposals compiled a wide selection of other socialist party programs, past and present, as well as relevant information and statistics on all districts our chapter touches. The information gathered includes the poverty rate, median household income, owner-occupancy rate, educational attainment, age and racial demographics, population density, and the DSA member density of each legislative district and each municipality with representative forms of elected local government.

We then prepared an initial draft of an electoral work plan and a program, collaboratively editing and developing them through line-by-line review and discussions across five meetings in the span of an intensive period of two and a half weeks. Our minutes show that these meetings totaled just over ten hours. Both drafts were finalized in time for the submission deadline for our Local Convention in December, with the draft program submitted through a standalone resolution and the draft electoral work plan incorporated by our chapter’s Steering Committee into their consensus draft of the proposed Tasks for 2026. The Tasks are part of the Reflections, Analysis, and Tasks (RAT) document, which is the result of an existing annual process by which our membership collectively debates and decides on chapter work for the year ahead. This was followed by two weeks of member review and amendment drafting, during which time one amendment to the draft electoral work plan and three amendments to the draft program’s demands were submitted, as well as further amendments to these amendments. At the Convention itself, we debated and unanimously approved our chapter’s first plans for electoral work and our first chapter political program as amended.

There was some debate over whether we should seek to run candidates in 2026, but we decided to ease into this by first further developing our members’ campaign skills and our own apparatus for electoral campaign work. Our plans for 2026 are therefore to critically support an expected statewide ballot question that would cap, with quite generous exceptions, rent increases at the inflation rate. We will complement this with our own public policy question, put forward in a handful of targeted working-class state house districts in which we hope to grow our membership and organization. The language, as amended at our local convention, would instruct state representatives to support a universal right to publicly-owned housing, to be met by new construction and renovations funded by taxes on vacant properties, short-term rentals, mansions, and wealth and inheritances exceeding $5 million. Though legally non-binding, we believe simultaneously offering our question will better allow us to put forward our own alternative, socialist vision for housing and polarize on class lines.

We, of course, have no expectation of easy victories in any of our electoral endeavors and are cognizant that our work is very much in its beginnings. Our approach is slow and deliberate, and we know it will take years until the actual implementation will show its practical strengths and weaknesses. On the basis of what is set out in our Principles and Electoral Policy, we hope our work will eventually be able to stand on its own feet and speak for itself. But in the spirit of comradely discussion and as part of a culture of healthy strategic debate in the country’s largest socialist organization, we share now this perspective and invite feedback.

Shane Levett previously managed a nationally endorsed campaign and served on Boston’s EWG OC and four terms on Worcester’s Steering Committee. He also previously served on the board of Working Mass.

Stefan Neumayer is a member of Worcester DSA. Before moving to the US, he was active in socialist organizations in Austria and Germany.

The post Principled, Programmatic, and Partyist: Introducing Worcester DSA’s Approach to Electoral Work appeared first on Working Mass.

By: Jane Slaughter

I spent time in Chile in January, where a right-wing admirer of former dictator Augusto Pinochet, José Antonio Kast, was elected president by 58% in a December run-off, extending the wave of right-wingers elected in our hemisphere.

Kast, whose father was a Nazi in Germany, ousts the leftish government of Gabriel Boric, a leader of student protests in 2011–13 and a beneficiary of the militant estallido uprising of 2019–2020. Boric was elected in 2021 with high hopes for a new constitution — which was then rejected by the populace by 62% in 2022. (A new right-wing constitution was also rejected, by 56% in 2023.)

I chose Chile in part because of its historic attempt, 50 years ago, at an electoral road to socialism. I wanted to see what lessons could be learned. Socialist Party member Salvador Allende was elected president in 1970 with 36% of the vote (you could win with a plurality at that time), with the expressed goal of moving Chile to socialism.

I studied up, and particularly recommend “The Coup in Chile,” by Ralph Miliband, and the movies Machuca and Chile 1976. To go deeper, watch the three-part The Battle of Chile. I got contacts in the country through Labor Notes and through a DSA comrade with a Chileno background. I met with an American who had been a translator for Allende and had to flee the country when the military made its coup on September 11, 1973.

IMMIGRATION AND CRIME

Immigration and crime were big issues in this fall’s campaign. Right-wingers blame Venezuelan immigrants for everything. I asked a few comrades why the voters chose Kast over Boric’s coalition. Obvious factors are right-wing control of the media and the fact that voting is now mandatory, bringing in many low-information voters. Comrades were also critical of Boric for immediately modifying his goals and for not having a long-term plan that his supporters could explain to the people. It appears that government representatives did the usual politician thing of trying to make themselves look good rather than telling the truth.

For example, the new government wanted a pension reform that would do away with the privatization of the system that was initiated under Pinochet. It’s as if Social Security were turned over to private investors, with each individual having their own account. Instead, they got an increase in public pensions for the very poorest people but cemented in place private control of the pension investments — “for 30 years,” according to one comrade. Boric’s supporters tried to spin this as a victory.

Seeing insufficient results on this or on other concrete gains from the government, voters turned to the opposition, just as they turned away from Kamala Harris to Trump. My hope is that if Zohran Mamdani fails to win a piece of his agenda, he’ll say so and say why, calling out the villains that blocked it. People can tell when you’re putting a happy face on a defeat or a compromise.

STARBUCKS UNION

I saw one small bright spot: Chile’s Starbucks union, the first in the world and the only one to have a union contract.

Chilean Starbucks workers formed their union in 2009 and finally won a real contract in 2022. (In the U.S., workers at 550 stores finally brought Starbucks to the bargaining table in 2024 and in November last year they began a boycott and strike, in which more than 50 stores are now holding out, and some are walking out in short strikes, like seven stores that struck in Minneapolis for the ICE Out day January 23. Now 666 U.S. stores are unionized, but they still don’t have a contract.)

Asked the secret of his union’s unique success, past president Andres Giordano said, “This is not something that could be done in one or two years.” They did it through many ups and downs and without any full-time paid leaders.

Giordano started working at Starbucks while a student activist, in 2007, knowing nothing of unions. In 2009 he and others began the process to form a union, with only 16 of 2,500 workers officially on board. They recruited quickly, and Starbucks was obliged by Chilean law to negotiate — but “I imagine they imported their manual from the U.S.,” Giordano said, and management refused to bargain in any way. Between 2009 and 2012 Starbucks broke every single labor law, spelling out its illegal policies in internal documents. It is the most fined company in Chile, Giordano said.

MOTIVES FOR UNIONIZING

Meanwhile, workers were hurt by the 2009 financial crisis, with some stores closed down and heavy layoffs. Remaining workers were expected to work harder. Starbucks refused to give the usual annual cost-of-living raise that unionized workers expected. And in Giordano’s store in Santiago, rats were a big motivator. “We were required to clean up dead rats,” he said.

In 2011 a minority of workers struck, for 30 days. Union leaders held a noisy hunger strike for 12 days in front of Starbucks headquarters, twice putting padlocks on the doors (until the police showed up). They eventually had to call off the strike with no progress made. They got some help from government labor agencies. “They weren’t proactive but they didn’t like to see a multinational violating Chile’s laws,” Giordano said. “If it had been a mine, it might have been a different story.” (Copper is Chile’s number one export, and it is a big producer of lithium.)

But being right on the law went only so far. “We won our suits but not a contract,” Giordano said. Starbucks preferred to pay the fines.

At one point, Starbucks enlisted the help of a pro-employer union in Mexico, which sent a spy to learn the Chilean union’s strategy and report back to management.

In 2015 the union finally won a “contratito” — a little contract without a lot of content. Another change came when a Mexican holding company, ALSEA, took over management of Starbucks stores in much of Latin America. In 2021 Argentinian ALSEA managers — more used to dealing with unions — took over. In February 2022 the union signed a contract that extended the benefits of union membership, including raises, to new hires, a right that had not existed before.

CONTRACT GAINS

Twenty-six-year-old Romanett Belmar, a Starbucks veteran of nine years, is now the union’s president. I talked with her in a Santiago Starbucks that looked familiar. Signs said, “Pistachio returns” and “Reuse your cup and get 15% off.”

Belmar says that Starbucks in Chile now has 176 stores with usually ten workers per store. Of the 1800 workers nationally, two-thirds are in the union, and they make 40,000 pesos per month more than nonunion workers (about $44).

The contract clause she’s proudest of is the ability for customers to give tips electronically — credit cards are universal in Chile. Tips, she says, increased from 3,000 pesos a month to 30,000 a week ($3.30 to $33, and the store pays them in cash). The contract’s weakest point is that it allows Starbucks to hire all workers part-time.

Both Giordano and Belmar pointed out how Chilean labor law was somewhat helpful in their struggle and in securing workers’ rights — when the union enforced them. The opposite of the U.S., employers in Chile are literally not allowed to run an anti-union campaign against workers who are organizing. And tired baristas appreciate la ley de la silla (“the law of the chair”): every two hours, workers are entitled to a ten-minute break, sitting down. In Belmar’s eight-hour shift, she’s entitled to 50 minutes of break, including lunch.

But it was organizing that made the difference. Last year, they struck again, for 25 days.

In the end, Giordano says, it was patience and persistence that paid off. “I worked at Starbucks 15 years,” he said. “Antonio [the next president] worked there 18 years.”

[A version of the Starbucks portion of this article appears in Labor Notes.]

The Country Where Starbucks Workers Have a National Contract was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Events & Actions

Tuesday, March 3 (5:30 PM – 7:00 PM): Social Housing Meeting  (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday, March 3 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM):  Public Transit Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Thursday, March 5 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM):  Social Committee (zoom)

Thursday, March 5 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM): Public Bank Project Meeting (zoom)

Thursday, March 5 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM): Immigrant Justice regular meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Friday, March 6 (9:30 AM – 10:30 AM):  District 1 Coffee with Comrades (Breck’s, 2 Clement St)

Saturday, March 7 (10:00 AM – 2:00 PM):  No Appetite for Apartheid Training and Outreach (in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Saturday, March 7 (11:30 AM – 2:00 PM):  Organizing Mindset Training (1916 McAllister St)

Sunday, March 8 (10:00 AM – 11:00 AM):  D9 Coffee with Comrades (Temos Coffee, 3000 24th St)

Sunday, March 8 (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM):  Physical Education + Self Defense Training (Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Sunday, March 8 (5:00 PM – 6:00 PM):  Tenderloin Healing Circle Working Group (zoom)

Monday, March 9 (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM):  Tenderloin Healing Circle (Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Monday, March 9 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM):  DSA Run Club (McClaren Lodge, eastern end of JFK Drive)

Monday, March 9 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM): Labor Board – New Union Organizing (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday, March 10 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM): Ecosocialist Bi-Weekly Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Wednesday, March 11 (6:45 PM – 9:00 PM):  DSA SF General Meeting

(zoom and in person at Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Thursday, March 12 (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM):  New Member Happy Hour

(Standard Deviant Brewing, 280 14th St)

Thursday, March 12 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM):  Education Board Open Meeting 

(zoom)

Friday, March 13 (9:30 AM – 10:30 AM):  District 1 Coffee with Comrades (Breck’s, 2 Clement St)

Saturday, March 14 (1:00 PM – 3:00 PM):  Immigrant Justice KYR Canvassing (Buena Vista Ave W & Haight St)

Sunday, March 15 (3:30 PM – 5:00 PM): Haiti and Neocolonialism (1916 McAllister St)

Monday, March 16 (6:30 PM – 8:00 PM): Homelessness Working Group Regular Meeting

(zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Monday, March 16 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM):  DSA Run Club (McClaren Lodge, eastern end of JFK Drive)

Monday, March 16 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM): Labor Board – Existing Union Support (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

No Appetite for Apartheid: Outreach Training & Canvassing

No Appetite for Apartheid is a campaign aimed at reducing economic support for Israeli apartheid by canvassing local businesses to boycott Israeli goods. Come and canvass local businesses with the Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group!

Our next canvass will be on March 7 from 10am to 2pm. We will be meeting at 1916 McAllister St to get trained on how to talk to stores in your neighborhood, then going out and talking with stores together!

RSVP here

Organizing Mindset Training

Organizing is at the core of what we do as socialists — and it’s a skill that can be developed and practiced. Come join fellow comrades as we learn and discuss how we can incorporate organizing fundamentals into our day-to-day actions so that we can build stronger, more cohesive, and more active communities that can rally together against the unjust capitalist systems we are fighting against. Whether it’s our neighbors, coworkers, friend groups, fellow transit-riders, or any other communities we interact with daily, we will always be stronger when we are organized, aligned on the most critical issues we are facing, and ready to act in unison and put our collective people power behind our demands. This March event is the first iteration in what we hope will become a recurring, multi-part Organizing Mindset training.

All are invited and encouraged to attend, whether you are a new DSA member/organizer or a more seasoned organizer! This first session in particular is a great one to attend if you are interested in helping shape future iterations of this training.

RSVP here

Saturday, March 7 11:30 AM – 2:00 PM at 1916 McAllister St

Haiti and Neocolonialism

Come join DSA SF and the Haiti Action Committee to learn more about Haiti’s history, the role of the United States and France in it’s exploitation, and what is happening in Haiti today. After winning independence from their former enslavers in 1804, Haitians found themselves ensnared in a new form of colonialism and economic exploitation which extracted billions of dollars of wealth, unleashed generations of violence, and violated their national sovereignty. This exploitation continues to this day.

French and US finance capital developed new methods of forcing economic dependency which was used as a model 100 years later throughout the post-colonial era of the 20th century. We will learn about the Haiti’s specific history as well as explore the broader dynamics of neocolonialism in an interactive, discussion-based event at the DSA SF office at 1916 McAllister St on Sunday March 15th from 3:30-5pm.

Write to City Hall: NO on Lurie’s tax cuts for the rich!

Billionaire Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood announced legislation that would slash real estate transfer taxes on the wealthiest corporate landlords. This directly undermines 2020’s Prop I, which has generated more than $500 million in revenue for housing that working San Franciscans can actually afford.

Send a letter to City Hall demanding that they reject this blatant attempt to cut taxes on the richest corporate real estate owners at the expense of working San Franciscans: dsasf.org/protectpropi

Reportback from the first PSAI Working Group x Maker Friday

Friday (2/27) was the first PSAI working group x Maker Friday! A group of us sketched design ideas for our working group’s logo as well as with making new ones for the Divestment priority targeted at companies like Caterpillar, which profit from Israeli apartheid and genocide. Others helped with zine folding and used the space as a working zone for their activist projects, but overall PSAI appreciates all those that came out to share in this creative space!

Read more at Memphis-Midsouth

The ultimate goal is to obtain a union contract or collective bargaining agreement that mandates and protects the workplace improvements you’ve won.

The post What happens after you win the union? appeared first on EWOC.

February Chapter and Verse: Where DSA is growing, new organizing committees, and more chapter news.

The post Chapters Prepare for a Busy Election Season in 2026 appeared first on Democratic Left.

By Dylan

The fundamental case for corporate accountability rests on the principle that significant power—whether political or economic—must be subject to ethical scrutiny. In a globalized economy, the actions of large-scale enterprises have profound consequences for the communities and environments in which they operate. Consider the devastating impact that corporations like Union Carbide, Nestlé, Monsanto, and Halliburton have had on the environment and human lives.¹ When a corporation’s pursuit of profit intersects with regions marked by conflict, repressive governance, economic injustice, or social inequality, the company ceases to be a neutral bystander and instead becomes an active participant in the local landscape. If an organization benefits from or reinforces systems that result in human suffering or environmental harm, it incurs a moral responsibility that transcends simple legal compliance. Therefore, corporate accountability is not merely a regulatory preference but a necessary safeguard to ensure that private interests do not supersede human rights and dignity. In the absence of a unified global authority to govern these interactions, public awareness and ethical pressure serve as essential tools for aligning corporate behavior with the broader interests of humanity.

One of the most troubling, contemporary, examples of a lack of corporate accountability involves the Chevron Corporation. While its economic power and technological capacity are often framed as engines of development, Chevron’s operations in Israel and Venezuela reveal a more troubling dimension of corporate involvement in human rights abuses. In both cases, Chevron’s activities raise serious concerns regarding complicity, accountability, and the exploitation of people in politically volatile environments by non-state actors.

In Israel, Chevron’s involvement in the Tamar and Leviathan offshore natural gas fields has positioned the company as a critical contributor to the country’s energy infrastructure.² These gas fields supply a substantial portion of Israel’s electricity, thereby reinforcing the operational capacity of the Israeli state. While energy development is frequently presented as politically neutral, such claims become untenable when corporate profits are closely intertwined with prolonged military occupation and structural inequality. Revenues generated from Chevron-operated gas fields flow directly into the Israeli economy and, by extension, support state institutions that administer and enforce policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Chevron’s presence cannot be separated from the broader political context in which systematic restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic activity, and self-determination persist.

Furthermore, Chevron’s stake in regional energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines operating in the eastern Mediterranean, intersects with security policies that have restricted Gazan’s maritime access. According to Investor Advocates for Social Justice:

• “The Company holds a partial stake in the East Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which transports gas from Israel to Egypt along the coast of the Gaza Strip. Under international law, including the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, economic activity in occupied territory without the agreement of the affected population is considered unlawful and may constitute “pillage,” a war crime. The pipeline is also closely linked to Israel’s longstanding naval blockade of Gaza, which restricts Palestinian maritime access and has had a devastating impact on the region’s economy since 2009.”³

Although Chevron does not directly administer these policies, its operations benefit from and reinforce a system sustained through coercive state power. In this respect, Chevron exemplifies how corporations become embedded within structures of control and repression while maintaining formal distance from their consequences.

Chevron’s role in Venezuela also raises concerns about corporate ethics and humanitarian responsibility. The oil giant continues to operate in Venezuela even as the United States government has sanctioned the Caribbean nation’s economy. According to a report last year by EuroNews,

• “Chevron’s operations are structured so that cash flows and profits do not directly benefit PDVSA (Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company) or the Venezuelan state under current sanctions licences….The Venezuelan government does not receive fresh revenue from these operations — no dividends, no budget income, no direct cash transfers….US officials argue that Chevron’s continued presence actually strengthens sanctions enforcement rather than undermining it.”⁴

Basically, Chevron functions as the sanctions arm of the US government by not having to pay taxes or royalties to the Venezuelan government. Add in that Venezuela must sell its oil abroad for debt relief and it becomes clear that the country and its people are being exploited by state and non-state actors.⁵

This means that Chevron’s ongoing oil production in Venezuela has not translated into meaningful improvements in living conditions for Venezuelans experiencing shortages of food, medicine, and basic services due to U.S. sanctions. As two economists at the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted:

• “It is important to emphasize that nearly all of the foreign exchange that is needed to import medicine, food, medical equipment, spare parts and equipment needed for electricity generation, water systems, or transportation, is received by the Venezuelan economy through the government’s revenue from the export of oil. Thus, any sanctions that reduce export earnings, and therefore government revenue, thereby reduce the imports of these essential and, in many cases, life-saving goods.”⁶

Chevron has also faced numerous allegations of failing to comply with mandated cleanups, leading everyday, working-class people to bear the social and economic costs.⁷ Their privileged status highlights a recurring pattern in global energy politics: corporations maintain access to strategic resources while civilian populations suffer.

With the Trump administration’s recent coup against Venezuela’s government, Chevron stands first in line to profit from Trump’s oil grab as the only U.S. company currently operating in Venezuela.⁸ This has ramifications for Americans as well. If Venezuelan oil production is increased, it is likely that more Venezuelan heavy crude oil would be imported by U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, largely located where Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income communities are already exposed to fossil fuel pollution.^9,10

Boycotting Chevron should therefore be understood not as an isolated consumer choice, but as part of a broader effort to impose ethical constraints on corporate behavior within the international system. Historically, boycotts have functioned as tools to expose moral contradictions, mobilize public awareness, and pressure powerful institutions resistant to reform. Consider the progressive, humanitarian, impacts of the Montgomery bus boycott or international divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime.¹¹ In the absence of effective international regulation of corporations, public accountability becomes one of the few remaining mechanisms for challenging corporate complicity in systemic injustice.

Ultimately, Chevron’s involvement in Israel and Venezuela illustrates a wider failure to reconcile profit-driven enterprise with ethical responsibility. A boycott, while limited in scope, signals a refusal to normalize corporate practices that benefit from occupation, repression, inequality, and human suffering. In doing so, it affirms the principle that economic—like political—power, must be subject to moral scrutiny.

Footnotes:

1. CorpWatch: The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers

2. AFSC: Chevron Fuels Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes Additionally

3. Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Proposed Human Rights Policy Implementation

4. EuroNews: Why Chevron still operates in Venezuela despite US sanctions

5. Venezuelanalysis: Chevron Back in Venezuela, A Tale of US Imperialist Arrogance

6. CEPR: Economics Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela

7. AmazonWatch: Chevron’s Global Record of Denial and Destruction

8. USPCR: From Palestine to Venezuela, Chevron Profits From U.S. Imperialism

9. S&P Global: US Gulf Coast refiners seen benefiting from increased use of heavy Venezuelan crude

10. PBS/NPR: Oil refineries release lots of water pollution near communities of color, data show

11. Ethical Consumer: History of Successful Boycotts