The Executive Committee (EC) of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (CDSA) is a 23-person body. However, under the current bylaws, it will increase to 30 members over the next two years as our membership continues to grow (Article VI, Section 1, CDSA bylaws). This growing body is already larger than that of  any other DSA chapter in the country. For example, our comrades in New York City DSA, whose chapter is roughly four times the size of our own, has the largest executive body of any other DSA chapter (Article VI, NYC-DSA bylaws). Meanwhile, other chapters have substantially smaller bodies despite several having similar or larger membership than our own. Metro DC and Boston have 11 members, Portland has 14, and Los Angeles has only 9.

A proposal coming before the General Chapter Meeting (GCM) this March (see Figure 1) would take effect in June 2026, at the end of the current leadership’s term. It would limit the body to 11 members, a number much more in line with similarly situated chapters. The proposal achieves this reduction by removing most officer positions from the EC except the Treasurer, Secretary, Membership Engagement Coordinator, and the Co-Chairs. The proposal also removes branch representatives (currently numbering 15 but growing to a cap of 22) and adds 5 at-large members elected by the whole chapter and a representative from YDSA.

Why EC reform?

The EC is tasked with carrying out the will of the chapter, as expressed by our quarterly GCMs. However, in the months-long gaps between these meetings, the EC must lead the chapter both politically and administratively. Under these circumstances, it is crucial that our executive body is as representative and efficient as possible to meet the needs of its task of political leadership.

Efficiency

If CDSA seeks to realize the vision of maintaining an efficient executive body, the sheer size of the EC stands as an obstacle standing between us and that goal. Smaller bodies make decisions faster; it takes less time to debate and vote on proposals when there are fewer people in the room. Current EC members are aware of this; this is why CDSA has established and maintained a chapter Steering Committee (SC) as a subset of the EC to address less controversial proposals in a timely manner. If the SC did not exist, the EC would fail to fulfill its responsibilities within its current structure. As the EC is currently constructed, it is not uncommon for votes to pile up, resulting in days or even a week to clear a single proposal. This delay occurs, in large part, due to the logistics of coordinating 23 people with multiple roles in the chapter to debate and vote in a timely manner. In contrast, a smaller body whose members have only one major role could debate and vote on urgent votes much faster without the need for a chapter SC.

Consultation

A smaller body is easier to consult. If a resolution is proposed to the EC, members are highly encouraged to share the document with at least a few others on the EC to see if there is buy-in and find points of compromise to avoid debating a half dozen amendments. In a body of 23 to 30 members, this consultation process can be lengthy, and theoretically requires individual conversations with up to 11 other members to ensure the resolution is passable. Practically, this number can be even higher, since those who would oppose the resolution will often wish to be consulted ahead of time as a show of good faith. Shrinking the body from 23 to 30 members to 11 will encourage all members of the EC to consult on proposals as broadly as possible by making it feasible to speak to the whole body in a reasonable amount of time.

The Multi-Officer Problem

Currently, the EC is composed of a wide range of chapter officers, members of the geographic branch steering committees, and a representative from the Labor Branch and YDSA. As a result, every person on the EC is serving in at least one other crucial role in the chapter.

Officers 

Elected officers assume a substantial burden in managing their committees. If a member of CDSA has the expertise, time, and energy to invest in leading one of these offices, they may be deterred from doing so because it entails taking on the responsibilities of the office plus two monthly meetings for the EC and SC. By removing these officers from the EC, they are provided the necessary time and energy to focus on the work they were elected to do.

Branch Leaders

Branch leadership faces a similar problem. If a member is interested in helping organize agitprop or socials in their branch, they may consider running for their branch SC. However, as currently constructed, winning a seat on their branch SC means they are also seated on the EC. This paradigm erases opportunities for fledgling leaders to develop at their own pace by forcing them to take responsibility for the leadership of the entire chapter. Separating these offices introduces an important opportunity to develop a more robust middle layer of leadership in the form of branch leaders and officers providing the chapter with an incubator for future leadership.

Political Representation and Democracy

CDSA meets as a general body less frequently than other similarly-sized chapters. Other DSA chapters commonly have general meetings monthly or bimonthly, whereas CDSA only meets every three months. As a result, the EC often makes decisions about priorities, events, and projects between these meetings. The EC’s decisions are subject to reconsideration, but in practice the body makes many important political decisions for the chapter. Under these conditions it is especially important that the EC represents the political tendencies of the chapter.

Heightening Chapter Democracy 

A strong democratic culture requires structures which lead to votes with meaningful outcomes. The current EC structure is likely to lead to a continuation of CDSA’s history of non-competitive elections. Last June, only two of eight officer positions faced competitive elections (Secretary and Communications Coordinator). The West Cook branch did not have a competitive election for its EC representative; the South Side and North Side Red Line (NSRL) branches each had only one more candidate than seats, and the North Side Blue Line (NSBL) branch had two more candidates than seats.  In 2024, there were almost no competitive elections at all in the chapter (NSBL only filled one of eight steering committee seats and NSRL four of seven).

With the 2025 surge of leadership candidates and the Zohran membership bump, it is essential to encourage competitive elections going forward. Allowing the branch SCs to continue growing to maintain proportional representation on the EC would be a mistake. An 8-person NSBL steering committee is unlikely to produce a competitive election even as the branch surpasses 1,000 members. To avoid this problem without creating an EC which seats 30 members is to separate the branch steering committees from EC representation and fix the branch SCs at sizes that fit the needs, size, and activity of the branch in question. 

Additionally, lifting the burden of EC and SC duties from many of our chapter officers will reduce the workload expected of members elected to those offices. It follows that offices thus unburdened are more likely to attract candidates and help develop the chapter toward more competitive officer elections.

Political Representation Over Special Skills: The Problems of an Officer-Heavy EC

Talented organizers and competent administrators are ideal to sit on the EC; however, an officer-heavy EC often forces voters to choose between a skilled candidate who would make an excellent officer and a less-skilled candidate who will vote how a political faction would like on political decisions.

It is worth pointing out, again, that of the eight chapter officers currently sitting on the EC, only one of them was elected in a contested election. Under the current structure, the requirement of special skills or the manifold responsibilities of a chapter officer likely deters a broader field of candidates. What is certain is that these positions are not currently the product of internal political debate or representative of the chapter’s political tendencies. Seats are simply filled by anyone willing to take the job, regardless of their political opinions or priorities.

To further encourage accurate political representation in the EC, we decided to exclude branch representation from the base proposal. This decision springs from the same line of reasoning which inspired an earlier article on the role of branches in CDSA. The article argued that branches exist as infrastructure units of CDSA, not as political ones. The internal political interests of a CDSA member does not typically hinge on whether they live in Garfield Park, Rogers Park, Hyde Park, or Oak Park.

The resolution also proposes implementing the single transferable voting (STV) method to address the problem of political representation. By maximizing the number of at-large members elected by STV, the various interest groups that do exist in CDSA, such as caucuses, labor organizers, electoral organizers, or identity-based groups, will be able to internally organize around candidates that represent their interests and have an opportunity to win a spot at the table. In addition, this proposal would allow our members to freely vote for candidates that more closely fit their political orientation and support a system which encourages proportional representation.

Conclusion

According to DSA’s National Political Committee (NPC), CDSA had 2,621 members in January, an increase of over 100 from December, putting the chapter on track to reach its goal of 3,000 members before June (GDC Member Data Report). If we meet that goal and no change to the EC is made, we will begin elections for an approximately 30-member Executive Committee ahead of the June membership convention, including North Side Branch SCs of seven or eight members. We and our comrades across the chapter are bringing this proposal to the spring GCM because we believe that EC reform is sorely needed to ensure CDSA’s leadership body is representative of the internal political tendencies of the chapter without consuming 30 cadre organizers. We want a body that can operate decisively in a rapidly evolving external political situation. The chapter needs to reign in the size of this body now to ensure competitive elections, effective branches, and a functional EC in the coming term.

The post The Case for Reforming the Executive Committee appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

By Elizabeth Henderson

At Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) summer conferences, we held a fair which culminated in a horseback riding demonstration.  Dale Perkins rode bareback with his feet first on one, then two, finally bridging 3 horses as they leapt through a flaming hoop.

This is a stirring metaphor for what we need to do!

Horse #1 – Fighting back, reacting to the endless flood of negativities.

We must:

• protest against the many toxic, endocrine-disrupting inputs that trap farms in the corporate-dominated system,

• expose misleading food labels like bioengineered for GMOs,

• resist the gaggle of cynical, greedy billionaires who conspire to gut social services and protections for the environment and widen income inequality even further putting democracy at risk. 

I include here protecting and making incremental improvements in the programs our sustainable agriculture movement has already achieved to increase conservation payments to our farms, research in organic agriculture, keep the cost share for organic certification fees, and maintain the integrity of the organic label.

Horse #2 – Building our farms, gardens, coops and local food networks, the alternative solidarity economy, our liberated territory where we practice food sovereignty.

For 50-plus years, through organizations like NOFA and MOFGA, we have made tremendous progress in learning how to produce food without damaging the planet and how to nurture community around food.  We helped create the organic label, the gold standard eco-label that has helped build a market that supports our farms.

I have spent most of my life and energies helping build this alternative through organic farming and CSA.  The Principle of Fairness from IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) has been a guiding star.

The Principle of Fairness is comprehensive:

“Organic agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities.

Fairness is characterized by equity, respect, justice, and stewardship of the shared world, both among people and in their relations to other living beings.”

The National Organic Program (NOP) never encompassed the full values of organic agriculture and Fairness in particular. So alongside the Farmworker Support Committee (CATA), Rural Advancement Foundation International and Florida Organic Growers, I represented NOFA in creating the Agricultural Justice Project (AJP), with Food Justice Certified as an add-on to the organic label.  

Farmers function on two levels – as suppliers and employers. AJP addresses both. As suppliers, farmers need the guaranteed right to freely associate without fear of retaliation. Especially in the current context when buyers are rapidly consolidating, farms as small and very small businesses must have protection against predatory, unfair contracts, whether verbal or written, so that buyers can’t break them without just cause. AJP standards for labor apply to farmers as employers and other food businesses as well.  For farmworkers, freedom of association recognizes their right to approach the employer about working conditions, wages, hours, safety, without fear of retaliation and to resolve disputes fairly. 

AJP has worked for dramatic, long-term transformation in our food system through a cultural shift away from power consolidation and towards empowerment, transparency, justice, and fairness for all who work together to bring food to our tables. Please check out the AJP website – the tool-kit contains many resources to help farms strengthen both pricing and labor policies.

With the mainstreaming of organic has come increasing pressure on NOP to make allowances for corporate approaches to organic production.  NOP auditors have failed to censure the certifiers that allow mega-dairies to skimp on pasture or certify hydroponic operations as organic. Organic farmers are resisting with new add-ons – the Real Organic Project (grown in soil, no CAFOs) and Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) (all that plus humane and fair).

In making choices for our farms, ancestral peasant wisdom counsels us to depend on our own resources and those of our closest cooperators and supporters so that we can enlarge our autonomy from the concentrated wealth and power of agribusiness. The sustainable agriculture/local foods movements have slowed the downward trend in farm numbers, but losses continue. Most farm products move through brokers, distributors, processors, and retailers, predominantly entrepreneurial entities that are dedicated to profiting from the value that others produce. This sobering reality brings us to

Horse # three – shaping our vision.

To bring to life our vision of a just, agroecological farming system that is worth sustaining, we need comprehensive domestic fair trade that balances the interests of farmers, farmworkers, and the land, while constantly expanding access to local high-quality organic foods for people of all income levels. 

Our movement for Agrarian Justice is one of the most critical social movements of our day. Turning sunlight into food – we may hold the key to transforming the whole system.

Draft program for system transformation:

• Replace subsidies that prop up constantly falling farm prices, in effect subsidizing big processors and import-exporters, with a system of parity price supports with supply management tagged to inflation. Parity pricing functions like a minimum wage for farms. Farmers should learn the history of its origins in the Great Depression.

Twenty-first century parity should provide price supports and supply management for the basic commodities (grains, beans) and reestablish farmer-held reserves for grains as buffer stocks in case of poor harvests or climate disasters that also protect farmers against price volatility.

Since fruit and vegetables are perishable, farmer, community, or worker-owned co-ops can invest in value-added enterprises. If seasonal excess supply threatens to lower prices, fruit and vegetables will be frozen, canned, dried, or made into products for use year-round.  A parity system will return livestock onto family farms by making diverse crop rotations economically viable.

Paying farmers a fair price might result in a small increase in food prices (3 – 5%), but if we raise wages for food chain workers (17% of all workers), they will be able to afford it.  It is crucial that farmworkers be included in the higher wages.  Fair prices mean prices that cover fair wages! These two issues must be in lock step.

• We need the government to enforce the antitrust laws already on the books.

• We need contract reform.  Farmers who sell to bigger entities need legislation that supports them in getting fair contracts, including the protected right to freedom of association without threat of retaliation, so they can form hubs or cooperatives to strengthen their bargaining position. A limit must be set on the middlemen’s share of the final shopper dollar.

• We must eliminate the structural racism that underpins injustice and inequity in food and farming characterized by lack of access to land, training, resources, discrimination in government programs and lending institutions, lack of access to healthy, culturally appropriate food, hierarchy in food institutions and employment that place people of color and women in the lowest ranks of authority and pay scale.

• We must tax the billionaires, and reallocate the billions that go into commodity payments and subsidizing crop insurance for the biggest farms to increase funding for SNAP and nutrition programs so that low-income people can afford the high-quality food we produce. 

• We must transform farm work into a respected, fairly remunerated profession. Farmworkers deserve the same rights as other sectors to bargain collectively, receive time-and-a-half for overtime, unemployment insurance, workers’ comp, and paid sick leave. There must be immigration reform based on human rights, including a path to legal residency and citizenship without punitive measures, high fees, prohibition from participating in means-based social programs, and lengthy rigmarole.

• To increase community-based, family-scale organic farms, we must invest in farmer training, including enabling farmworkers to become farmers with access to resources and land.

Once we stand up for the changes that low-income food workers need, we will find ourselves in effective alliance with the most energized social movements of our time and the most radical participants in the labor movement.

Without farmworkers and all the food chain workers as allies, farmers will never have the power to make the changes we need to make our farms the radiant centers of well-being that we dream of. We have to figure out a way forward together and bring the entire food movement with us.

The increasing violence of the climate emergency heightens the urgency of this moment. Our agrarian movement is bursting at the seams with great ideas and years of solid practices. We have been learning how critical it is to have good process – that not just what we do, but also how we do it – is essential to our success.  To achieve agrarian justice, we must have a stakeholder-driven process that is respectful of differences, diverse, and honors our ancestors and the indigenous roots of our practices while making space for feisty young innovators and voices from the margins.  Together we can build the giant coalition based on the intersectionality of soil health and social justice so that we can bring to life a food system grounded in agroecology, health, justice, and equity!

The post Riding Three Horses to Agrarian Justice first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By: Jack W.

Early in February I worked with some friends in Minnesota who are active in the Twin Cities DSA chapter to get their takes on the massive ICE deployment in their area. Specifically, I wanted to ask questions that can help guide our decision making in MDDSA.

To start off, can you introduce yourself? How long have you lived in the Twin Cities? What history do you have with DSA and activism?

Rachel H: I was born and raised in a suburb outside Minneapolis. I currently live in Saint Paul. I joined the DSA a bit before Trump was elected the second time. I became active with DSA when Operation Metro Surge happened and I couldn’t sit back and do nothing.

Dylan H: I’ve lived in the Twin Cities since 2010. I had volunteered with Fairvote Minnesota before, an organization trying to bring ranked choice voting to the state. After ICE killed Good I felt I needed to get more involved in direct action and mutual aid.

What was the general mood in the Twin Cities towards issues like Trump, immigration and ICE? Outside of DSA circles, was ICE enforcement or immigration a common topic of conversation?

Rachel H: The Twin Cities are blue, so support for Trump and ICE is pretty low. Before last year, ICE had never been a topic of conversation. People that talk about immigration tend to be conservative. Most people around here recognize and celebrate that we are cities made up of immigrants . We have so many different food options!

Dylan H: Prior to Trump most conversations I participated in regarding ICE were about how Obama was deporter-in-chief.

The Trump admin kicked off this operation pointing to recent investigation into childcare fraud, specifically creating propaganda blaming immigrants. Can you talk about if there appears to be any consistent narrative/strategy to why this is happening besides terrorizing a region that has not voted for Trump?

Rachel H: I really haven’t seen a consistent narrative besides absolute lies and degradation of our Somali population. There are so many other cities with a higher percentage of immigrants. So why pick Minneapolis and Saint Paul? The Trump admin is not hiding its intentions and purpose. They said they’d withdraw the ICE incursion if Governor Walz hands over voter information. Trump wants to punish not only Walz, but any voter that did not vote for Trump.

Dylan H: In keeping with Republican tradition, Trump is just using the Somali population here as a scapegoat to sell cruelty to his supporters. He needed to create a “them” that’s separate from “us” so it’s okay if you feel hate towards them and it’s okay if you dehumanize them. But it’s not about the fraud. I think it’s mostly because Walz called him weird when he was running for VP with Kamala, and Trump’s narcissism just can’t abide that.

What are some lessons you can share with other chapters on how your chapter prepared and reacted to the ICE deployment as their activity first ramped up?

Rachel H: Our chapter had an emergency action plan devised last year before the ICE deployment. It was essentially a plan to stop current DSA initiatives (with a few exceptions) and divert all energy towards anti-ICE activity. There was a lot of back and forth on when was the appropriate time to enact the plan. Some believed that once we did pass it, it would be easy for people to burn out too quickly. There were also concerns it wasn’t a proper action guide that would funnel members to anti-ICE work.

We did eventually pass it, but personally, I think we could have done it earlier. I’ll note it is easy for me to say that, in hindsight. We didn’t know how bad and swift this Metro Surge would hit our communities. So I guess my advice would be to have a concrete plan in place and pass it sooner rather than later. Better to have people tired than disorganized and late.

As events unfolded (like the ICE murders) how has your organizing evolved?

Rachel H: Since we enacted the plan, TCDSA sends out a daily ICE bulletin with ways to get involved, events like protests and vigils, as well as upcoming trainings for legal observers, street medics, marshalling, and others.

This is a great concise way to get the most pertinent information to as wide a range of people as possible. Outside of DSA, people have formed tons of hyperlocal neighborhood groups for rapid response and mutual aid. I think a huge and important network is our public schools. They have come together and organized to protect students.

What has been your chapter’s experience working with other organizations? Do you feel like your chapter has taken the lead on organizing an in-house operation to combat ICE, or have you been organizing with other anti-ICE orgs?

Rachel H: I feel like the DSA has worked in tandem with many other groups. I wouldn’t say there’s really a lead in organizing. We have an incredible network of mutual aid groups, unions, and progressive orgs that have really stepped up. Many small businesses have started their own donation funds, food pantries, or donation drop-offs for clothes and household items.

Has your chapter had success moving elected offices to be more aggressive against ICE?

Rachel H: We do the usual: calls and emails demanding action. It’s also been helpful to show up at council meetings and voice complaints directly to our local leaders. Honestly, I can’t say how effective we’ve been in getting elected officials to be more aggressive. Frey (Mayor of Minneapolis) will say “Get the fuck out of Minnesota” or whatever but it’s just words. He hasn’t done shit. I’m also extremely disappointed in Walz who has shown he does not have the backs of his constituents. He declared February small business month which is great but like, how about “Arrest ICE”? That would make a difference to small businesses.

Dylan H: Honestly I’ve been really disappointed in Klobuchar for going along with Schumer’s weak negotiating position. “Oh, use body cameras” and “Take those masks off,” like he’s scolding children. It’s too late for those measures and regular PD’s have shown that those measures do basically nothing when there’s no one willing to actually hold Law Enforcement accountable. It’s too late for these compromises. Nothing but the abolishment of ICE will do at this point. These are not children, they’re fascists. Personally I am going to try to get as far as I can as an uncommitted caucus delegate so that I’ll have the opportunity to talk to Klobuchar and tell her just that. She wants to be governor. What has she done to earn the honor?

On the labor side, what has been your chapter’s experience working with unions or otherwise organizing workplaces to protect your community from ICE?

Rachel H: DSA has been doing rapid response and observer trainings alongside unions and other orgs. I went to a training that was in tandem with the Saint Paul schools union.

Is there solidarity work you’d like to see other chapters prioritize?

Rachel H: I think it’s really easy to feel like we’re fighting alone. Seeing the protests happen in other cities across the country and even the world has been a great way to see solidarity. I think the number one need right now is rent money for people sheltering in place. So perhaps it’d be helpful to have chapters have a linktree for ways to send funds.

Dylan H: The best way to directly help people on the ground here is to organize a fund raising drive to donate to standwithminnesota.com.

Do you have any other messages for DSA members about this moment?

Rachel H: We might have the biggest surge of ICE, but they are in every city. Talk to your neighbors, get organized, and get involved. Remember that we are stronger together and only WE protect us.

Dylan H: Have an action plan in place. Learn as much as you can from as many organizers here as you can. When they leave here, they will be coming to your city too. Fascists don’t stop until they are stopped.

In other conversations I had with the pair in the wake of the news that the Trump admin is declaring a draw down, they made clear that little has changed on the ground. “They have not let down on abductions and surveillance. I hear planes, helicopters, and/or drones every day. No one is relaxing their guard,” said Rachel. “It’s a false concession they spent as a bargaining chip to try to get DHS funded. Literally nothing has changed,” added Dylan.

---

On the Ground in a Terrorized City: An interview with Twin City DSA members was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

At the March 2026 General Meeting, RVDSA adopted the electoral strategy below, along with amendments to our endorsement process. Introduction The purpose of our electoral work is to build the confidence and organization for the working class to seize political power, radically democratizing our society and transitioning toward social control of the economy. When working […]

Under the Trump regime, the mask of empire has slipped off. The ruling class is barely trying to manufacture consent for its wars, relying instead on a show of overwhelming force. There is no ideological project, no “promotion of democracy.” The latest attacks on Venezuela and Iran are merely the naked assertion of power and maintenance of US hegemony.

Imperialism describes the expansion of capitalistic competition across the globe in pursuit of profit. Though already in control of much of the world’s resources, the US imperial core exerts militaristic and economic violence to dominate countries on its periphery. Meanwhile, inter-imperial rivalries among capitalist powers contending for global hegemony risk the outbreak of broader conflict and destruction.

These forces perpetuate the suffering of the international working class. Money that could be used to fund schools and healthcare is instead invested in bombs and bullets. Young people, asked to fight and die, become instruments of death. Those living in countries targeted by the US are crushed in the rubble and economic exploitation. 

Imperialist war makes us less safe. Blowback describes the unintended consequences of foreign military action. The CIA’s backing of the Afghan mujahideen led directly to the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The 1979 Iranian Revolution was largely a reaction to the Western-backed coup of 25 years earlier. Inevitably, civilians are caught in the explosive reaction to US imperial violence.

The exertion of force overseas also has a boomerang effect at home. Technologies of war, refined abroad, are increasingly used to exert control on domestic soil. Increased government surveillance and militarized police forces are the outputs of this inward hardening. An overhyped fear of foreign enemies promotes fascistic attacks against immigrants and minorities, while militarism reinforces patriarchy and glorifies hypermasculinity.

The Global War on Terror was a factor in popular support for Donald Trump. His wars abroad, fought with no consideration for preventing war crimes, respond to complaints that Bush and Obama were too restrained. Trump promises to use these weapons of war against America’s domestic enemies who supposedly weaken our composition and resolve. Embittered military veterans were overrepresented among those who attempted insurrection on January 6.

The working class has no desire for these conflicts. ROC DSA is organizing opposition into a force capable of seizing the gears of war. Capitalists rely on our labor to manufacture their bombs and to fight their wars. We refuse to be complicit in their violence. 

The post End Imperialism first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By Hannah W.

In the past few months, the US government has increased state-sanctioned violence with ICE as its executioners. Neighbors are snatched off the street without due process. People are murdered for being bystanders. While violence by the US government isn’t anything new, we must stop the cycle and put an end to the rise of fascism.

ICE targets the marginalized because they expect less mass outcry. ICE thinks they can justify their cruelty, so they can make their violence “acceptable”. But we stand with the most vulnerable. Do not let the US government’s propaganda fool you. People ARE angry. People ARE protesting. The actions of everyday people from all over the country have shown that we the people are NOT okay with ICE. We will not be complacent or complicit. If one of us isn’t safe, none of us are safe.

Not all of our neighbors are able to protect themselves from the ICE onslaught. Our unhoused neighbors don’t have a door they can hide behind when ICE shows up at their homes. Their homes are under threat constantly, not only from the federal government, but also here locally from Mayor Malik Evans sweeping encampments. We must stand with them, too.

Taking action is important, as is the work beyond protesting. Now more than ever, we need to build bridges and stand in solidarity with each other. We need to build community and invest in mutual aid. This can be as simple as checking in on your neighbors, or buying groceries for them. We are stronger together than we are apart.

Many people ask themselves, “What would I do in Nazi Germany?” There is no need to ask. Ask yourself what you’re doing RIGHT NOW. Fascism is here, and the time to act is NOW.

Get involved with ROC DSA or one of the many organizations here. The work continues beyond these streets, and it’s on us, the working class, to make sure our neighbors are protected. Together we hold the power to create the change in the world we want. That starts by taking action now.

The post Organize Beyond Protests first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

High Peaks DSA voices our complete opposition to the United States and Israel’s February 28 decision to initiate an illegal war against Iran, a sovereign nation. We emphasize that this war is both catastrophic and unjustified. We stand unequivocally with the Iranian people in their fight for freedom and self-determination.   

Iran posed no imminent threat and was in the midst of negotiations when the United States abandoned any attempt at a peaceful resolution to join Israel in a war of choice. This war has only begun because of the arrogance of the Israeli government, the ignorance of the American government, and the complete collapse of the international rules-based order. 

The early attacks on Iran in the first few days of this war have already killed at least 1,800 civilians, including a horrific strike on a girls’ school that killed 168, most of them children between the ages of 7 and 12. Much of the Iranian leadership has been assassinated or incapacitated, most notably the assassination of the supreme leader,  Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. The assassination of a head of state is a dangerous precedent and a brazen violation of international law. 

A rapidly expanding war has since grown throughout Southwest Asia, as Iran is responding with an onslaught of missiles that are seriously testing the Israeli defense systems in Israel proper, along with strikes on nine other countries in the region. Iran has already attacked energy infrastructure and is greatly impacting maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor that accounts for a quarter of the world’s oil trade. Iran has also retaliated by striking several U.S. military bases in the region, resulting in seven soldiers killed at this point and many more wounded. Israel has further escalated its targets with additional attacks in Syria and Lebanon, where hundreds have been killed, and a mass displacement crisis has unfolded. Israel has also closed off humanitarian aid, again, to Gaza. 

Israel and the United States have further escalated their onslaught on the Iranian capital of Tehran, a city of more than 10 million, with additional strikes that have hit residential targets and social infrastructure, including hospitals and schools. The bombings of oil sites near or in Tehran’s city limits have covered the city in a black sky, an ecological disaster that will have alarming health ramifications for the population long after this war is over. A reminder that war itself and the United States military are one of the single greatest contributors to the worsening of the climate crisis.

Trump may have felt that Iran would be like Venezuela, a short bombing campaign, kidnap the President, and work out a deal with the Vice President to take the oil. This short-term success itself is unlikely to hold up in the long run. Iran is a vast mountainous country with a large and diverse population, and it has a substantial military that has been preparing for a war with the West for 40 years. The leadership structure is greater than one individual, and a new Ayatollah, the son of the old Ayatollah, has been selected. He is considered a hardliner and has strong ties to the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard, the state’s military body. 

Iran is not Iraq or Libya either. In each of these prior wars, efforts were made by the Obama and Bush administrations, on false pretenses in Iraq, on false promises in Libya, to sell these wars and garner coalition support from European allies. Following the approval of Congress with votes in favor from 3 of the next 4 Democratic nominees, Bush and Blair launched their illegal invasion of Iraq. The war killed at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and became an unmitigated disaster for the reputation of the United States. 

Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi ruled their countries with less public support than the Iranian Regime, and while their governments fell quickly, each war turned into a years-long quagmire. The Iranian government will be harder to topple, and the country much harder to stabilize. If regime change is successful, an outcome worse than Afghanistan is most likely, given that Iran has similar mountainous terrain and is a more important geopolitical state. 

Donald Trump, who, in part, won the 2016 Republican nomination by being seen as an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, was then able to successfully position himself on a platform of no new wars as the peace candidate when contrasted with Hillary Clinton in the general election. 

In practice, much of this perception was always false. The budgetary priorities of campaigning for massive tax cuts and large increases in defense spending inevitably would lead to direct actions taken by the Trump administration in its first term that were never going to be peaceful. The implementation of these policies contributed to the events of October 7, the ratcheting up of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank, and more than two years of genocide in Gaza that followed, and laid the groundwork for the War with Iran. 

Trump unilaterally pulled the United States out of a six-nation nuclear agreement with the Iranian government that was working to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program. Toward the end of his first term, he recklessly assassinated a top Iranian general, and we only avoided war because of Iran’s restraint with a narrow and orchestrated response. 

The annexation of the Golan Heights, the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, the implicit support through inaction on the further expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the pursuit of the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and the countries of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and later Morocco and Sudan all were major factors in the continued isolation of the Palestinians and contributed to the rationale behind the October 7 attacks by Hamas. 

A brief discussion of the historical context in which the current war arose is helpful. In 1953, the United States and the United Kingdom initiated a successful coup to oust the democratically elected government in Iran by strengthening the powers of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to stop the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. The monarchy ruled with an iron fist and an indifference to the suffering of the Iranian people. Decades of political instability in the country ensued, culminating in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The monarchy was abolished, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed, initially with popular support following an anti-imperialist revolution. 

For the last 47 years, Israel and the United States have been deliberate in their efforts to shift the Arab states from a position of adversarial opposition to the brutality of the Zionist apartheid state to client states that now consistently work for the interests of the Western powers while having to appease the sympathies of their populations, who remain with the Palestinian cause. Like the Shah’s rule in Iran, Israel has calculated that they benefit from having an Islamist opposition in Hamas, and has done everything in their power to weaken all secular Palestinian alternatives. 

Iran is viewed by Israel as one of the last remaining states in the region that is providing real economic assistance and military support to the Palestinians through Hamas. Much of this is overstated, as the Iranian regime is primarily invested in remaining in power, and like the other autocratic regimes that dominate the region, has little interest in liberation that could threaten their legitimacy if a viable democratic state were to be formed in Palestine.

The continuation of the Trump polices under the Biden administration, about Israel and its ongoing support as Israel conducted its systematic genocide in Gaza, along with its failures to adopt a more humane approach to immigration, depressed the Democratic party’s voting base and helped Trump win the 2024 election. Once again, Trump presented himself as the peaceful anti-war candidate, in contrast to Kamala Harris, who refused to distance herself from Biden on these issues. The dye had been cast, and this time, Trump retook the presidency, now having complete control of the Republican party, and surrounding himself with a cabinet of sycophants willing to go along with his worst impulses.

On immigration, he has been more draconian in the targeting of all immigrants regardless of their status, detaining many who were engaging in the legal process by revoking previous legal protections like temporary protection status, deferred action for childhood arrivals, student visas, and ignoring the international right to seek asylum. The overwhelming majority of immigrants who have been detained have no violent criminal record and are being held indefinitely amidst squalid conditions in concentration camps, awaiting deportation or court proceedings. He has used the violent arm of the state to occupy major U.S. cities, violate people’s rights to lawful protests with mass arrests on dubious charges that are almost always later dropped, and has killed protestors. 

Trump has brought the same cruelty and disregard for the rule of law he exercises domestically to the international stage, murdering Venezuelans in fishing boats without evidence to support his accusation of drug trafficking, kidnapping the Venezuelan president and his wife, and starving the people of Cuba through an oil blockade. He has also threatened to annex Greenland and Canada.

The failures of the political opposition in the United States and Israel, the absence of accountability from both the domestic and international institutions for the unlawful actions, have neutered our ability to confront the aggression and illegality of Putin‘s invasion of Ukraine, or the violent suppression of protests in countries like Iran, where a theocratic regime has been able to escape from under the boot of U.S. imperialism, only to stifle the aspirations of its own people.

For Iranians, whose liberation is long overdue after decades of oppression from both ends of the imperialist boomerang, history has shown us that no foreign military force can ever lead a people to freedom. This war is only being fought to serve the interests of capital and the imperial powers. Wars are often promoted and fought under the guise of liberation for the marginalized, but in reality, they suppress all ability to achieve social progress. For the bravery of the dissidents in Iran who have never stopped fighting for their rights over the years, only to be killed and imprisoned, this war will only make their struggle harder and the collective suffering greater. 

The oil barons of yesteryear stand in the way of a sustainable clean energy future. The tech oligarchs of today use algorithms and surveillance tools to censor our dissent and determine our fate with targeted strikes, like the one on the girls’ school in Tehran that further separate us from our humanity. These masters of war, the old and the new forces of capital, can only be defeated when the working classes, the oppressed in all corners of this world, can recognize our shared morality and begin to organize ourselves to build a better world, one without artificial hierarchies and violently enforced borders.

The post High Peaks DSA Statement on Iran appeared first on High Peaks DSA.

Several months into the second year of his second term, Trump’s might-makes-right strategy, at home and abroad, has spurred more mass disgust among his opponents and even among a few previous supporters. But does that mean Trumpism is in decline? As we confront the need to build an anti-war movement, resist ICE repression, and defend civil liberties and voting rights, it’s useful to think through our political opponents’ strengths and weaknesses. In a previous article, I suggested three scenarios that might play out in the next few years. This piece looks at the strengths and weaknesses of two of them: Clintonism 3.0 and Trumpism 3.0. (The third, AOCism 1.0, will be the focus of the next piece!)

Old wine, old bottles

Clintonism is the rule of centrist politicians who believe in neoliberal, international free trade, a moderately funded welfare state, the rule of law within the framework of mass incarceration, and market mechanisms to mitigate climate change. They tolerate unions and nonprofits, but believe that anyone to their left is “unelectable.” They yearn for a return to bipartisan normalcy where elite “adults” run the government and dominate the global economy through “multilateral” (i.e., Western) banking relationships and military might. Although it’s hard to remember now, the Republican Party used to sing a version of the same song.

The most important factor in the power of Clintonism is the lack of an organized, working-class political alternative. Social movements and unions — and working people in general — have suffered forty years of bipartisan neoliberalism. The percentage of workers who have a union and who are confident enough to strike — the most basic measure of working-class clout — both remain near historic lows. In 1970, unions represented nearly 30% of workers. Today that number has slipped to 10%. 

That 7 million people attended No Kings rallies in October indicates widespread rejection of Trump among an important segment of the population, but that power remains only potential. For instance, while communities in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Maine have stood up to ICE and slowed down their operations — no doubt saving many families from detention — the body snatchers continue to operate with impunity. Democratic leaders in Congress like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries want ICE agents to attend a few sensitivity seminars in exchange for re-upping their funding. Clintonism 3.0 hopes to displace just enough Republicans to win a majority in Congress and begin negotiating with Trump. 

This makes Clintonists a weak force against Trumpism; however, they have huge reserves of power and money and just might pull it off. Critically, despite their own low polling numbers, establishment Democrats’ political theory — namely, that capitalism is just fine, it simply needs to be modified to reduce the worst outrages — is widely held among large parts of the electorate. A centrist return to power will be felt as a huge relief for many. But that would hardly end the crisis. A Democratic majority in one or both houses of Congress will only raise the stakes for MAGA while doing little or nothing to improve the lives of the vast majority of working-class families. Trump is not afraid of Clintonism. He proved that by defeating Biden/Harris/Walz handily in 2024.

What is MAGA?

Trumpism represents a new political phenomena: namely, a specific version of American fascism. Stefanie Prezioso warns us that knee-jerk analogies between the contemporary far right and earlier fascist movements “may risk anchoring us too firmly in interpretations of the past, hindering a rigorous analysis of today’s realities and the development of effective responses.” We should listen to her. At the same time, the human brain has used analogy to good effect over the years: If that animal is a different color but almost as big as a bear, if it doesn’t growl but it does howl, if it’s hunting in a pack instead of on its own… I should probably get out of here! This kind of thinking can be life-saving. 

If Hitler and Mussolini represented fascism coming “from below” (through a mass fascist movement) and Chile’s Pinochet and Spain’s Franco represented fascism coming “from above” (through military coups), all four constructed similar regimes once in power. But the specific character and ferocity of these fascist states was shaped by their social bases and the particular political crisis that brought them to power. 

There are obvious parallels between earlier fascist movements and regimes on the one hand and MAGAism and the Trump administration on the other. Fascists — and this distinguishes them from ordinary conservatives — insist they are fighting for “the little guy” and often powerfully criticize aspects of capitalism because they want to build a cross-class, mass movement. 

But fascists are not consistent anticapitalists. Their goal is not to build an international movement of working-class people against global capital. Rather, they seek to build an alliance between “good” nationalist capitalists and “productive” people (workers, small businessmen, professionals, etc.) from the dominant racial or religious groups who share their supremacist ideology. To do so, they must find scapegoats. Capitalists per se are not the enemy, only “disloyal” capitalists are. Hitler blamed German capitalism’s real crisis on imaginary culprits: Jewish capitalists (and Jews in general) and the Versailles Treaty. Trump blames American capitalism’s real crisis on his own imaginary culprits: immigrants, the Paris climate accords, etc. 

The fascist story can provide a powerful explanation for millions of people who want something different for themselves and their children. As Leon Trotsky put it when describing growing support for Hitler, “Despair has raised them to their feet and fascism has given them a banner.” This is what gives Trump his power, and until that story can be replaced by a more compelling explanation from the left based on strong unions, multiracial solidarity, and material reforms that change workers’ lives for the better, MAGAism will remain a strong force in American politics.

Despite his sagging poll numbers, Trump’s power is not limited by normal electoral mechanisms. The results of elections — real or imagined — still matter a great deal to MAGA, because Trump cannot yet dispense with the formal levers of state. That’s why the administration is putting so much effort into gerrymandering. But Trumpism is more than a right-wing electoral machine; it’s an inchoate fascist movement attempting to turn the state into a fascist instrument for repression. 

If previous fascist movements in Italy and Germany first had to build an armed, mass movement powerful enough to destroy their enemies (unions, left-wing political parties, etc.) in order to then take over the state and wield its power, Trump has turned the map upside down. He has built a certain kind of movement, but his real political genius (stable or otherwise) is based on two realizations. 

First, Trump understands that the institutionalized democracy represented by the American federal state was so corroded by Clintonism that he could simply bully it aside. In this, he learned from India’s Modi, and he is teaching France’s Le Pen. As Ugo Palheta notes, “In France, the civil liberties and social rights won by the working class and its organizations over the last two centuries have been worn down by a series of governments. The traditional mechanisms of parliamentary democracy are systematically undermined, marginalized, or hollowed out by the ruling class itself, in favor of unelected bodies or procedures to circumvent its processes.” 

Second, Trump won over the billionaire class. Three generations of oligarchs grew up and prospered under Clintonism — even as they dismantled the New Deal and the Great Society — and they could not understand why anything should change. As Hillary Clinton famously insisted, America was already great for them, why rock the boat?

Fast forward to 2026: They now realize they were suckers to let any crumbs (progressive taxation, regulations, global trade rules, etc.) fall from their tables. Trump kicked open the door to unfettered AI development, military spending, a drill-baby-drill fossil fuel revival, and stunning tax cuts, paid for by robbing Medicaid. So far, Trump hasn’t needed a well-disciplined, volunteer fascist army or a military coup to wield state power. 

With the state and billionaires in his pocket, Trump has transferred hundreds of billions from the working class to the ruling class through tax cuts, turned up the thermostat for global warming, and launched a new round of military misadventures. Trump’s rage against Chief Justice Robert’s decision to strike down part of his tariff policy shows that he intends to bend any remaining institutional barriers to his will. To do so, he will need a weapon his fascist forefathers wielded — that is, an extralegal military force to break through the limits of legality to authoritarian lawlessness and brute force. 

The old Confederacy needed the KKK to smash the post–Civil War Reconstruction era and impose Jim Crow. Hitler needed 3 million members of the SA and SS to destroy the unions. Franco needed his bando franquista to destroy the Spanish Republic. Where is the Trump-Bannon-Miller MAGA militia? 

The Proud Boys and the tangled mess of squabbling wannabes must be a disappointment. Trump pardoned them all for January 6, and they still failed to make anything of themselves… yet. And herein lies Trump’s key weakness: his base remains essentially passive. Trump’s MAGA crowds want America to be great again, but they do not want to have to make it great themselves. They want it done for them. To revise Trotsky’s comment about fascism in Germany, “despair has raised them to their keyboards, and Trump has sold them a brand.” The core MAGA belief is “don’t tell me what to do.” 

Steve Bannon wants a white Christian nationalist volunteer army of a million willing to fight for the fatherland. What he has at this moment is a band of hostile snake oil salesmen. Their voices are amplified by right-wing media funded by billionaire ideologues, but they remain (so far) unable to march. 

So if Trump does not yet have the extralegal ground troops to force through his extralegal desires, how can he remedy this shortcoming? Three letters: I.C.E.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE hired 12,000 new agents in just four months in 2025, bringing its total force to 22,000. Although that force remains small as a percentage of the total 750,000 armed law enforcement personnel in the U.S., the Big Beautiful Bill allocated ICE an additional $75 billion to spend in the next four years. To get a sense of its room for growth, if each new ICE agent costs taxpayers approximately $100,000, that means 10,000 new agents costs $1 billion. In other words, there is plenty of money in their piggybank to hire masses of agents. And there can be no doubt that they will be recruited from the far right.

What will Trump do with such a force? Clearly he will intensify his war against immigrants and civil liberties. He aims to normalize ICE invading cities and towns, rampaging for weeks or months, and then withdrawing. All the while, ICE will dole out favors and funding to local and state police who learn to play the new game. Indeed, this process is well underway in many of the deepest red states. 

But it seems foolish to assume that Trump will stop at street terror. He still needs the formal levers of state power to stay the course. He may chafe at the Supreme Court and internal squabbles in the GOP, but he is not yet strong enough to rule without Congress, and as his prospects dim for winning a fair and free election come November, ICE looms large. Trump has already announced he wants “federal” control in 15 major Democratic cities. If he unleashes ICE in October and November to create havoc, he can claim fraud, throw contested election results to friendly state legislatures, and then fight out a Constitutional crisis. This is a playing field on which he has demonstrated he can defeat the Clintonians time and again. After Venezuela, after Iran, we must take this gambit seriously.

So how do we get out of this mess? Having assessed Trump’s strengths and weaknesses, in my next article, I’ll examine the prospects for AOCism 1.0 — leftwing electoral growth and the rise of fighting social and union movements — and review some lessons from three words that start with the letter M: Minneapolis, Maine, and Mamdandi.

***

This piece also appears in The Call, a publication by Bread & Roses, a caucus within the Democratic Socialists of America

The post Aiming for Trump’s Achilles’ Heel: MAGA Before the Elections, Part II appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Previous entries — Part One, Introduction; Part Two, Electoral Politics; Part Three, Labor; Part Four, Diversity in the SPA

The 1910s were a period of opportunity for socialist organizing across the world, and represented the peak of mass membership in socialist organizations in the United States. The country’s economic inequality was becoming more salient, with the First World War exacerbating these dynamics as working people were being sent to their death for the profit of the wealthy. The SPA was able to take advantage of these conditions to build a mass socialist organization which this country has not seen before or since, but it ultimately failed in its mission to transform society. The causes of the party’s collapse are multifaceted, including its aforementioned failure to embrace the multiracial, multigendered working class, as well as state repression and heightened internal party conflict.

As the 1910s went on, the left wing of the SPA consolidated, with Ruthenberg as an important leader of the faction that would be increasingly in tension with the party’s incumbent leadership. Many left-wing leaders, such as legendary IWW organizer Bill Haywood, would be accused by fellow members of supporting violence and sabotage, implicating them in legal proceedings and removing them from party office. Despite Ruthenberg’s rejection of these tactics, he was similarly removed from state party leadership in 1912.  In Ohio, Ruthenberg and his allies still had strong support, and may have been able to defeat this motion were it not for his ongoing gubernatorial campaign. Elsewhere, however, the right wing of the party was more solidly in control. In many locals, these attacks, often on left-wing labor organizers connected to the IWW, led to a significant exodus from the party throughout the 1910s. 

However, things were different in Cleveland. From 1912 to 1919, as national membership declined or stagnated, Cleveland’s local would see immense growth. With more than 3,000 of the Ohio SPA’s 8,000+ members in 1919, they would present a major success story for the party’s left wing. The local’s internal structures were a crucial part of building this connection to the masses. They emphasized political education, particularly on Marxist theory. This ranged from establishing a Socialist Sunday School for children to speeches from figures such as Karl Liebknecht and Bill Haywood. The party also held cultural events and fundraisers for adults, while developing a Young People’s Socialist League which included bowling matches, dances and baseball games. These opportunities allowed party members to not only organize politically, but develop socialist culture and community with their comrades.

In 1917, the US formally entered World War One, despite President Wilson’s campaign promise to maintain peace. In reaction, the SPA held an emergency convention in St. Louis, where leaders across the organization, including Ruthenberg, drafted an anti-war resolution. Many workers, who did not want to be sent overseas and fight in a brutal war, were increasingly drawn to socialist politics. Cleveland’s well-organized local, with a clear left wing politics that consistently stood against imperialis, was well positioned to take advantage of this. In 1917, the Cleveland Local saw its best ever electoral results, with SPA candidates J.G. Willert and Noah Mandelkorn elected to Cleveland City Council and A.L. Hitchcock elected to the school board. Additionally, Ruthenberg’s Mayoral campaign, calling for “socialism, peace and democracy” would win close to 30% of the vote. While socialists were not in the majority, they were gaining in popularity among workers, and the ruling class was starting to notice.

Soon,  the harassment, censorship, imprisonment and deportation of socialists and the broader anti-war movement would escalate. In 1918, Cleveland’s two socialist city councilors and school board member would be removed from their positions for opposing the war. Ruthenberg was fired from his job and repeatedly arrested for anti-war speech along with many of his comrades. This culminated in the previously mentioned anti-worker judge David Westenhaver sentencing Ruthenberg to a year in the Canton work camp.

During his time in Canton, Ruthenberg was informed of the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The Cleveland local had held a 2,500 person celebration that February of the Tsar’s overthrow, and the enthusiasm continued to grow as they heard of this news. Ruthenberg himself found a lot of inspiration from the Bolsheviks and the writings of Lenin, which were at that point not very commonly read among the socialists in the US. Under his leadership, the Cleveland local would lead the SPA in becoming an outspoken proponent of solidarity with the Russian revolution, and opposition to US military intervention on behalf of the White Army.

For the next couple of years, Ruthenberg and Eugene Debs would be repeatedly imprisoned, often directly calling for the other’s release.  At the 1918 Ohio Socialist Party convention, held within view from Ruthenberg’s prison cell, Eugene Debs would give his famous Canton Speech, calling for Ruthenberg’s freedom and an end to the US involvement in the war. Debs would subsequently be arrested for this speech, and sentenced to ten years in prison by, once again, Judge David Westenhaver. Once Ruthenberg was released from detention,he would help organize multiple rallies calling for Debs’ freedom, culminating in the 1919 May Day demonstration, which would once again land him in jail.

The events of May 1st, 1919 represent the peak of mass socialist presence in Cleveland, with 30,000 workers, led by the Socialist Party and including many IWW and AFL members, marching through the streets. The demonstration called for the economic demands of work for the unemployed and an increased minimum wage alongside calls for international solidarity and opposition to war.  The workers held Red Flags and American Flags as they marched towards Public Square. This display was considered offensive by one businessman, who drew a revolver on a socialist WW1 veteran holding a red flag. Soon thereafter, the police, who had until that point been oddly absent, would descend on the demonstration, and along with other right wing members of the public, beat and arrest over 150 workers. Two workers would be killed by the police that day, and the socialist party headquarters would be ransacked.  In the next day’s issue, The Plain Dealer would describe the violence as followed:

“Mounted police at the gallop wielding truncheons on the heads of Bolsheviki, citizens and soldiers tearing red flags and trampling them in the mud, [and] tanks from the western battle front charging crowds in the front of the statue of Tom Johnson”

Today, this event is commonly known as the May Day Riot. One could embrace that term, in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous proclamation that “a riot is the language of the unheard.” Alternatively, you could describe what happened as a peaceful demonstration and a subsequent massacre. The violence was provoked by the reactionaries, and actions taken by socialists were largely in self-defense. Ultimately, while the May Day demonstration led to another round of arrests and imprisonments for socialist leaders like Ruthenberg, it also coincided with the continued growth of Cleveland local, with hundreds more joining that month.

From this point onward, the repression of socialist and anti-war organizers would continue to escalate, while the Socialist Party was facing extreme internal turmoil. Ruthenberg and others on the left wing of the party would formalize their internal faction, and win 12 of the 15 National Executive Committee seats. However, the incumbent SPA leadership refused to recognize these results, eventually leading to a mass exodus of party members, either through expulsion or resignation. What followed was a messy process which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), led by General Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg. 

This split, alongside  the continued repression of the movement, was the final nail in the coffin. The SPA would continue to operate, but no longer holding its same mass reach, with the party falling to 10,000 members by 1923. Socialist organizing would continue elsewhere, of course, including in Ruthenberg’s CPUSA. However, no US organization has since reached the peaks of the SPA’s 113,000 members in a country of less than 100 million. Learning from this period, we cannot understand the organizing of the past solely through modern lenses. The historical development of capitalism and the US political system placed 1910s SPA organizers in very different positions than DSA members in 2026. However, there are still some conclusions we can draw from the electoral and labor organizing of the party, as well as its demographic makeup and internal structures.

For both electoral and labor organizing, the conditions of the 1910s were dramatically different, but ultimately the SPA’s success showed the importance of the slow and steady work of constructing a socialist organization. Engaging the masses with a socialist vision requires a commitment to improving their lives in the short term, while maintaining our principled vision for a socialist future. This can come through electoral campaigns, and through solidarity with the workers fighting for better conditions at work. 

On the other hand, the SPA’s failures demonstrate the need for constructing a culture within our organization which is welcoming, stands clearly against bigotry, and accepts political conflict while striving for unity in action. No resolution or policy alone can make our organization more diverse, but a welcoming attitude and constant, proactive thinking within each part of our organizing work can help. Similarly, no moderation or grievance policy alone can prevent the worst forms of interpersonal conflict or political repression. These policies are the first step, which must be accompanied by conducting ourselves in a comradely way for the next thousand steps. 

Of course, there are things we cannot control – like the actions of our enemies. We do not know how or when the socialist movement will face additional state repression. But one lesson of the SPA, and any other successful socialist movement, is that our opposition will not sit idly by while we work to build ourselves up. With that in mind,  I will end with the last words of C.E. Ruthenberg, reported after his death in 1927:

“Tell the comrades to close their ranks, to build the party. The American working class, under the leadership of our party and the Comintern, will win. Let’s fight on!”

The post History of Cleveland SPA, Part Five: Conclusion: The SPA’s Rise and Fall appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Your own city’s history could have radical moments that are overlooked in favor of nationally known incidents and figures — as I learned while researching the 1912-13 Little Falls textile strike.

The post Socialists Can Learn from Radical Local History appeared first on Democratic Left.