by Justin W.

What does it mean to win? Why do you want to win? What are you willing to do to answer those two questions? For years, the Democratic Party has taken the position that “winning” is all that matters. As a Marxist, I argue that the reason Democrats run for office is to get into office; no more, no less. Power for the sake of power. At times we will see some platitudes, some rhetoric about making the world better, but we rarely see any movement on issues or legislation that will materially affect our lives. Nothing can be done because Democrats need to win the next election and can’t alienate anyone; but also no one else can take power to do anything because they won’t “win.” Since 2016 the Democratic Party has been the party of “No Trump” and, while trying to be a bulwark against the excessive cruelties of the Republican Party is nice, there is no goal beyond that. We know this because, when pressed on why we should vote for their candidates, the response is “do you want the Republicans to win?” There is always something better on the horizon and we must vote now to secure the chance for that future alternative. What is that alternative, you might ask? Who knows. Whatever you want it to be. So long as it’s not “unreasonable.” 

There is a hollowness at the heart of liberalism in America. In 1992 Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man. In it, he claimed that we had reached “the end of history”, that liberalism had won out and there was no political change necessary beyond some tweaks to current policy. What we see from the Democratic Party is the end result of that belief. There is no future, only a (supposed) bulwark against those who want to drag us back to the past. A (supposed) protection from fascism. 

Amy Acton is the Democratic nominee running in Ohio’s gubernatorial election. She recently said, “I do not support boys playing in girls sports” amidst a wave of anti trans attacks made by the Trump administration alongside capitulation from organizations like the Cleveland Clinic that have trans people losing access to the healthcare they need. She, as the representative for the Democratic Party of Ohio, has made it clear to trans people that they are not worth protecting. This is considered a strategic move on her part by not just the Democratic Party, but by pundits and consultants as well. It is considered by many a “necessary” move to win the seat. That view, the one peddled by consultants and think tanks, is how we need to view not just Amy Acton’s actions, but those of the Democratic Party she is part of, especially given that the Democratic Party as an organization has funded anti-trans ads. 

The liberal view of power is one marked by distrust in individuals, not systems. “Power corrupts” is a classic example of the liberal view of positions of power doing the corruption, not the system rewarding the corruption. To a liberal mindset, corruption is an aberration, not an end result. It should be noted this is true for all liberal worldviews, neo-liberalism and progressive liberalism just the same. It is a view that nurtures the mentality that simply voting someone out of a seat will solve all the problems of the world with no other work needed. It then follows that winning elected office must always be the goal of every organization, every campaign, and every protest. Ultimately, the end goal is to vote in the correct person, and they will solve all the problems of the world for you. This has two effects. The first is that it allows a person to view only the outward symptoms of the problem. There need not be systemic analysis or deeper understanding of fixing problems if all that is needed to save the world is to switch out leadership. This allows for a very limited understanding of the world, mirroring the anti-intellectualism of American culture. Second, it means that once that person is in power you can “go back to brunch.” Given the lack of systemic analysis and the belief in the “Great Man” theory of change, voting in the correct person means that anyone holding this worldview needs to develop neither militancy or discipline. There doesn’t need to be a sacrifice of anyone’s time (other than voting) nor a dedication to learning (other than who to vote for) to weigh a person down. As said before, you can go back to brunch, and that is more appealing than many would like to admit. This stunted and naive view of power, because it is easier to grasp, is held by most in America, especially consultants. Elections must be won, there are no other alternatives to power. This view must be understood before we ask why Amy Acton decided to throw trans people to the proverbial curb. 

Given that elections are the only (to liberals) battleground for power, we must ask what is required to win. What you must be willing to do to be the bulwark against the horror of the other side winning. One might assume that certain principles can’t be sacrificed and some lines must be left uncrossed, but that isn’t true. How many lines we should be willing to cross is directly proportional to how “evil” the opposition is perceived to be. Previous, low stakes elections may have simple decorum tossed aside. Other elections might have some people taking money from unsavory corporations who aren’t on the “right side”. However, with the slide towards fascism and economic ruin constantly on the horizon, the stakes are high, and anyone and anything can be tossed aside for “the greater good”. Every argument of “well they have to say that to win elections” or “that’s what it takes to win an election” are built from the belief that you must win at all costs. Nothing can be left on the table. With a Marxist, systemic view of power in mind we rightly see this as the system rewarding corrupt behavior and politics that care for no one. Given the incentive structure, anyone with a systemic view of power can see that the person with the most “flexible” ethics will win more often. This is not the case for a liberal worldview. A liberal worldview does not view systems as evil nor rewarding to corruption. It does not view the sacrifices of principles, politics, nor posture as inhibiting or even untrustworthy. Merely functional. This is also why politicians receive such uncritical views of their politics, despite all evidence to the contrary. This is best seen in Donald Trump where some of his followers believe he will clear out “The Deep State” despite him clearly being in the Epstein files. Not to leave out the progressives, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is believed to be against Israel and capitalism despite the funding she has given to the iron dome and staunch defense of “free markets.” I have even heard some people say Nancy Pelosi is for universal healthcare despite repeated declarations of opposition spanning more than the last decade. These cults of personality exist because any position taken on any subject can be seen as “campaign promises” or “necessary positioning” and not a reflection of true belief. This unscrupulous behavior works because everyone else is doing it. This is why those deemed to speak their “true beliefs” are admired so much, because it is a reprieve from the “business as usual” politicians, even when some of those people are obvious liars, like Donald Trump. 

We can ask ourselves if “Winning” works, but I do not believe that to be the correct question. The cracks have been forming for some time now and the fact that the Democratic Party lost to Donald Trump, one of the most hated politicians in US history, should make it clear that “Winning” is something that cannot happen forever. The DSA has received the influx we currently see because of the hatred generated by the callous incompetence of the Democratic Party. Instead we should ask why would someone choose to “Win” instead of doing good. Why getting into office must be the ONLY goal. Why Democrats always seek power for the sake of having power. 

Power corrupts, and therefore cannot be used. However, power must be held lest it fall into the hands of the unworthy. This contradiction explains both the reason Democrats will not act with the power they have but also why they must do whatever it takes to win. For Republicans, this flips to those deemed worthy shall use the power of office. It also explains why some politicians have the cults of personality they do. Both views are built from the same premise: whomever is “worthy” should wield that power as they see fit. How do we know who is “worthy”? By “Winning”, of course! 

Returning to Amy Acton and her throwing trans people to the proverbial curb, we now see more clearly why she is willing to sacrifice a certain subset of the population to “save” the rest. While Amy might not make it worse for trans people, she will also not help them. Power corrupts, after all. This makes her victory hollow. When we know there is nothing that will be done, what celebration can there be? It is merely a delay to the horrors the Republican Party might bring forth in the next election. The worst part is that we all know and accept that. We know there will only be a continuation of the demonization of trans and queer people, with the Democrats doing nothing. Democrats continue to make the decision to abandon parts of their base for the goal of keeping power out of unworthy hands, while saving no one with the power they obtain. I frequently wonder how aware the Democrats are of this. 

Through this, “Winning” becomes the only goal. “Winning” is the only position one can have. “Winning” is the only strategy, the only thing that matters. From all this we see a “Politics of Winning.” If you are to criticize Amy Acton, ask her not to throw trans people under the bus, you are giving up the race. If you ask Kamala not to bomb Palestine, you are hurting our chances to win. If you criticize any Democrat, in any way at all, you are criticizing victory itself. What will they do with elected office? Doesn’t matter. They’ve proven themselves worthy of power, therefore nothing they do can be wrong. 

As socialists, we should all reject the belief of corrupting power, but we also need to reject the “Politics of Winning” as well. We reject the idea that power corrupts, because we know that systems incentivize certain actions and behavior. Through a materialist lens we understand why certain behaviors are selected for and elevated over others. We understand that it is easier and simpler to be unprincipled in a system that rewards shortcuts and lies. Unscrupulous decisions, “campaign promises”, and strategic jettisoning of certain members of the population are rewarded, not punished under the current system. We can know and understand that this is a problem, but that does not make us immune to the trap of that mentality. We must hold our principles of democracy and accountability even closer, because we understand how easy it is to give in. We must act in good faith because we know how much bad faith is rewarded. We must build structures of organizing that do not replicate what has come before because we know what it incentivizes. We must believe in our fellow workers, our comrades, and in the future we can build together. There can be no shortcuts for us to take in building this new world. We must be more willing to lose with our principles than to win with our compromises. Say no to hollow victories, and the politics of winning.

The post The Politics of Winning appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

[[{“value”:”

By: Travis Wayne, Fiona P

CAMBRIDGE – Grad workers unionized with MIT-GSU (UE 256) rallied with custodial staff of 32BJ SEIU this week to warn the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that the university faces its last chance to avert a strike wave. The struggle has now openly unified two sections of the workforce, both blue-collar and academic, into conscious alliance against their shared employer.

Recognizing its academic excellence once again, U.S. News named MIT the top university in the United States in September 2026. Apparently, their rubric for institutions does not include treatment of the staff that run the university, since two different unions are fighting for a living wage and a fair contract stonewalled by MIT.

MIT holds a $29.2 billion endowment.

MIT Backtracking at the Bargaining Table

“The General Counsel and University President got double digit raises, while for us, they want to give us raises below inflation,” one fourth-year grad worker reported to Working Mass.

As with all “raises” below inflation, such offers are de facto pay cuts.

The university has also attempted to claw back gains already won band enshrined in MIT-GSU’s contract won in 2023, like healthcare packages: “the most essential things to even function as a community and a union,” in the words of one bargaining committee member. While workers previously had no comprehensive healthcare to speak for, MIT-GSU won healthcare protections when they won their contract in 2023. Since returning to the bargaining table, MIT backtracked — attempting to cut healthcare entirely.

MIT-GSU has made some advances in bargaining. For example, MIT has since agreed to maintain healthcare. But some progress is still far too little. Even though the university may finally not be fighting their workers on the question of whether they deserve healthcare at all, the institution is still arguing for steep premium hikes on insurance plans.

Workers are also fighting for non-citizen protections.

ICE off campus is one cardinal demand for a ban on federal forces invading the campus itself, as well as an international fund to fund necessary expenses faced by non-citizen workers. This fight echoes the same themes in higher ed workplaces exposed to federal intervention across Boston, from Boston University and their students’ crusade for a sanctuary campus to Harvard Graduate Students’ Union (HGSU) fight in Old Cambridge for the same demand as their union siblings in East Cambridge.

About 40% of MIT grad worker ranks are international.

The Open Shop in a Union State

Massachusetts may be one of the only states with a positive unionization growth rate, but that has not stopped it from harboring anti-labor employers: Starbucks, MGB, even MIT. In an interview with Working Mass, one bargaining committee member stressed:

They still have this ridiculous open shop proposal on the table, which is nothing but a disguised attack to gut our union and kill us… it makes sure the union can focus on what matters to our members, to focus on improving this campus, not on signing people up…. we know the history of these laws. They were made to segregate white and Black workers.

MIT has resorted to utilizing a strategy common to right-to-work states: the so-called “open-shop.” A system heavily benefiting the employer and legal since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, the “open shop” is a workplace design where workers can opt-in instead of opt-out of union dues. That cuts off unions’ access to their own workforces’ sustained funds in ways that can severely hamper unions’ financial capacity while leaving the bosses’ entirely unaffected. Meawhile, bosses can persuade individual rank-and-file workers under this arrangement to not join the union with far more ease. The open shop means “workers reap the rewards of union contracts without paying any of the cost of their upkeep,” aiming to starve the union till it becomes irrelevant to workers as a machine intent on signing workers up just so they pay dues just so the union can continue to exist.

As another rank-and-file worker underscored to Working Mass:

If we don’t get our union shop, then every win we get at the bargaining table is kind of meaningless because we can’t enforce our contract across grad workers.

It’s the sweeping nature of the “open shop” on workers’ lives that make MIT bosses’ demand for it so chilling.

Parallel Struggles and Strategies

“At MIT, an alliance between property service workers and graduate students shows the power of wall-to-wall organizing for living wages and workers’ rights against a shared, well-resourced management,” proclaimed Higher Ed Labor United as the simultaneous strike began to loom. 32BJ SEIU began to organize alongside MIT-GSU in late 2025, when both unions discovered their contracts, while not perfectly aligned, were separated by one month: strike shooting distance.

Custodial staff, which includes electricians and groundskeepers as well as other essential workers, have faced deep thinning of the ranks. Wages are stagnant even as every single department has faced varying levels of dramatic workload increases exacerbated by MIT not filling any new positions. 20 positions are vacant in Custodial Services and 16 unhired in HVAC.

Each unfilled position, each worker missing, means just that much more work for the remaining workers making stagnant wages forcing them to second or third jobs. The deal dealt to custodial staff ends up similar to that dealt to grad workers, one where time with people you love is routinely robbed by an institution who does not believe your dignity is worth a living wage.

The simultaneous strike is the same strategy employed now by the labor movement at Harvard now, as HGSU and HAW and UNITE HERE Local 26 all form one contract-aligned strike force. If unions take strike action when their contracts expire, aligning those actions together, can unions in the United States mimic or surpass the power generated by the sympathy strike — illegal in the United States since Taft-Hartley, the same law that legalized the “open shop” for the employers?

In the words of one fourth-year grad worker:

By dividing us as a workforce, by dividing us as a community, it’s easier to control us.

According to him, 700 undergraduates signed a pledge to student strike (stop attending classes) if either 32BJ SEIU or MIT-GSU strike, even as other unions in the wider movement off-campus have been galvanized to support the alliance of the two unions. Tufts workers and Harvard workers have joined MIT-GSU and 32BJ SEIU on the picket line; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 25 has also indicated their intent to honor any strike, if the university refuses to reach an agreement that honors their workers’ needs. The union organized across logistics of the supply chain intends to stop all deliveries to campus.

Who will emerge most transformed — MIT, or its workers?

Travis Wayne is the managing editor of Working Mass.

The post Grad Workers Rally With Custodial Staff to Warn MIT Time’s Up: “We Are Prepared to Strike” appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

The following op-ed was written in response to an op-ed published by the San Francisco Chronicle on 10/5/2026, “Endorsement: Prop I is a cocktail of poison pills masquerading as a housing fix.” written by The Chronicle Editorial Board. The Chronicle Editorial Board refused to publish this rebuttal.

Last month, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced a $23 million commitment from his Office of Housing and Community Development for the rehabilitation of Freedom West, a storied housing cooperative in San Francisco’s Western Addition. 

Freedom West is exactly the type of housing that Proposition I is designed to create, scaled up to begin to lower San Francisco rents. Strangely, the Mayor has come out strongly against the measure. Similarly, Michael Moritz (presently bankrolling many of the mayor’s other measures), large property developers, and the firefighters union sent out mailers proclaiming that “communes don’t work”, dismissing the promise of social and cooperative housing with a baseless smear. 

Massive spending by these groups makes Prop I the most hotly contested measure on the San Francisco ballot this year. Prop I aligns with the Mayor’s commitment to resolve what he recently declared our city’s “rent emergency”, so why all this controversy?

It can’t be because the measure is a novel or untested experiment, as opponents claim. There is nothing experimental about housing cooperatives, which already exist in SF, throughout the rest of the country, and around the world. 

Cooperatives are one form of social housing – a model providing permanent affordability and a share in ownership for residents who can’t afford multimillion-dollar market-rate properties. This is the model employed at Freedom West, which Mayor Lurie celebrated even while his allies lambasted the model as unworkable and unserious.

Social housing is clearly defined in the city code. Prop I adds one stipulation to this: “Residents shall have the right to participate directly and meaningfully in decision-making concerning the operation and management of the project.” This should be uncontroversial. This sort of tenant participation is proven to lead to better outcomes, such as greater housing stability and improved mental health for residents.

Studies have shown that having a robust public development pipeline can significantly bring down private rents as well. In Vienna 60% of all rental stock is decommodified social housing, and residents face the lowest rent burden in the EU. The city of Paris has set a goal to bring 40% of all housing stock under public control by 2035, with the intention of protecting Parisians from “real estate speculation” and being priced out. New York City has a long tradition of limited-equity cooperatives that its mayor, Zorhan Mamdan, is seeking to expand upon. Around the world, expensive cities are turning to social housing to address a cost of living crisis. It’s high time that San Francisco – the least affordable housing market among major US cities – did the same.

What do Prop I’s opponents see as the correct use for the substantial amount of money brought in by the transfer tax voters passed in 2020? To believe the inescapable ads featuring city firefighters and union tradespeople, the roughly $120 million a year should be used to fund things unrelated to housing, including record amounts of police overtime. 

At the same time, developers say this tax should be cut entirely and returned to private landholders to encourage further development. The Mayor and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood proposed such a cut just months ago, but were stymied by political headwinds. Supervisor Mahmood has expressed an interest in bringing the tax cut back, and the Mayor hasn’t said whether he still supports it. Prop I would make it nearly impossible to deliver this tax break to corporate landlords and commercial developers. Indeed, many of the opposition’s largest donors are the very commercial property owners fighting transfer taxes all over California.  Obviously, we can’t cut the tax and spend it too.  

Transfer taxes have become a boogeyman preventing real estate development. Much of this argument relies on a RAND Corp study of Los Angeles’s Measure ULA, but researchers at Occidental College found that this study is rife with methodological errors undermining its conclusions. A measure like Prop I, which exempts new multifamily development from the transfer tax, would disincentivize gut-and-flip transactions while promoting new construction. Though opponents claim the 5 year exemption is not long enough, it follows the model proposed by UCLA researchers and implemented by Culver City. Developers often sell a building after it is fully leased, which usually takes much less than 5 years. 

We, the proponents of Prop I, have brought this measure to voters because City Hall has refused to spend the tax on luxury real estate transactions the way voters intended. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors can and should be using these revenues to build and protect affordable housing for all San Franciscans. Our measure would force their hand. Housing and homelessness are the issues San Francisco voters say matter most. The City’s investments should reflect that priority. 

This money was used well during the first two years after the tax was raised, and can go even further towards addressing our current “rent emergency” when combined with other sources of money, like the Housing Trust Fund, which would be increased by the passage of Proposition C.

Prop I revenues can also provide debt service for standard financing options. Community Land Trusts and other forms of social housing regularly receive loans from traditional financial institutions. San Francisco can use revenue bonds, certificates of participation, or the public bank proposed by Prop B to multiply Prop I money and greatly expand the amount of affordable housing we produce. We have fallen gravely behind our affordable housing goals and the results are readily apparent.

Opponents’ claims about Prop I are contradictory, inaccurate, and misleading. And they are everywhere, thanks to a $2.6 million opposition campaign. Nuanced conversations about tax policy and affordable housing are crucial, but so too are solutions to the housing crisis that continues to diminish San Franciscans quality of life. The Mayor has declared an emergency but stopped short of offering any solutions that could realistically bring housing within reach for San Francisco’s working class. Proposition I does just that, no matter how much money is spent to convince you otherwise. 

Aditya Bhumbla and Matthew Pancia are organizers with the San Francisco Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America.

San Francisco DSA-endorsed campaigns could establish a public bank, fund affordable housing; Southern Idaho is fighting for reproductive rights.

The post Election Live Blog: DSA Chapters Weigh in on Their Campaigns appeared first on Democratic Left.

No Queens “Cop City,” fighting Amazon’s sub-contracting scam, Atlanta City Council votes to boycott Starbucks, and more in this edition of “Chapter and Verse,” Democratic Left’s round-up of chapter news.

The post As Elections Loom, DSA Chapters Push on Campaigns On and Off the Ballot appeared first on Democratic Left.

DSA is on the rise, Trump’s polls are sinking fast, voters brace for Election Day, and more in this edition of “Red All Over,” Democratic Left’s occasional news roundup.

The post Trump Polls Tank, DC’s DSA Mayor, Voters’ Scary Halloween appeared first on Democratic Left.

This speech was delivered by Jenny HB on October 3rd at CDSA’s Field Day event. The text has been edited for clarity.

Comrades, we stand today in a moment unlike anything our movement has seen. Capitalism has developed itself into such a state of chronic dysfunction that even those most deeply committed to the status quo find themselves completely unable to articulate a path forward.

As the political mainstream continues to lose the consent of the people, our party grows stronger with each passing day and with the deepening crises we face.

We are able to offer a credible alternative to the status quo because, unlike the unprincipled liberal and reformist progressives, we have the ability to understand and engage with the world through a Marxist framework. This gives us not just moral clarity but a coherent structural critique.

We are able to identify the exploitation that capitalism inherently creates via the theft of the value created by our labor. We are able to identify the instability created by capitalism’s concentration of power in a tiny fraction of the population, and we see how this concentration leads to wars of imperialism as this class of oligarchs searches for excess profits and new markets.

While liberals have been blindsided by the rise of American techno-fascism and its atrocities at home and abroad, we know that this is the inevitable result of our economic system. As collapse approaches, our model of the world holds strong as liberalism falls to pieces.

DSA has found unprecedented success by addressing these realities head-on, and our growth is cause for celebration. But it isn’t simply because of our worldview and structural critiques. Change and success come from understanding the material circumstances in which we organize, recognizing our strengths and advantages, and planning a strategy accordingly. By acting in the interests of the whole of the working class, we create the potential for a coalition that encompasses the vast majority of people. That scale and broad appeal is our key structural advantage. Our task is to realize this potential and plan how to harness it to fundamentally change the systems that govern us.

Our political system is unequivocally a tool of class oppression, yet it is also terrain on which we can struggle. It can be a tool to harness our mass politics toward building working-class power and a working-class party. The power we gain through political struggle, through electoral victories, is more than just a trophy or a show of strength. It is real, material power. It allows us to change the rules and make the terrain more advantageous for our organizing.

We know that elections alone cannot win socialism. We do not and should not limit ourselves to electoral work. Instead, we use political power to strengthen our other efforts. We use it to support, expand, and radicalize labor unions. We use it to organize tenants. We use it to bring our message to the public and raise awareness among the working class of their natural antagonism towards the owning class and inherent solidarity with each other. We use it to make our political system more democratic and more representative.

Above all, we use it to build a working-class party that can be an agent for revolutionary change. Make no mistake, though we seek to build power for our party, we stand in service to the working class. That means we also have the responsibility to use the power we gain to visibly and materially improve the lives of the working class. The public has spent decades watching idealistic progressives who promise change and largely fail to deliver. We build and legitimize our party when we harness power for the public good.

When socialists make the buses run faster, or hold landlords to account, or freeze the rents, we achieve more than just clout — we earn the chance to change minds and raise class consciousness. When government delivers, people listen.

From every position we find ourselves in on the path to liberation, we must take stock of all the avenues of struggle available to us, use the power we have gained along the way to advantage our party in those struggles, and redouble our efforts.

Along the way we must also solidify what we have built, building durable institutions that can outlive any individuals. Just as capital creates a self-reproducing superstructure, we must build organizations as clearly defined structures of relations, not ad-hoc efforts of overburdened organizers.

Our party is strong precisely because of its potential to sustain and grow itself outside of cults of personality and rigid dogmas. We instead place our faith in the only force that merits it: in the radical participatory democracy of the working class.

It is of paramount importance that we guard and protect our internal democracy and culture of openness.

Radical democracy also means hearing the voices of those most disadvantaged under capitalism, centering them and their struggles. There is no socialism without Black liberation and an end to racism in every form, and there can be no mass politics without a truly multiracial party.

Comrades, we have our work cut out for us. I cannot promise socialism in our lifetimes or that we will win. But I truly believe if real change comes, it will be led by DSA. Being a part of this organization is the honor of a lifetime.

Thank you. Solidarity forever!

The post One Step, Then Another appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Hundreds of races with DSA endorsees are on the ballot Nov. 3. Here are some Democratic Left will be following on election night.

The post DSA Races to Watch on Election Night appeared first on Democratic Left.

GRDSA has published a Voter Guide to reference for 2026! Check it out below to see our recommendations for contested races. You can find your polling locations and times at mi.gov/vote

2026 GRDSA Voter Guide

The post 2026 GRDSA Voter Guide appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

In a state legislative race in Rhode Island, the two candidates will be the Democratic nominee and a DSA-backed independent. A leader in Rhode Island DSA explains why they’re skipping the Democratic ballot line.

The post Socialism Is on the Ballot in Rhode Island appeared first on Democratic Left.