Author: Mack B.

Hey all! Verso is having an end of the year sale – if you buy five books they are all 50% off. They have a lot of great reads so I wanted to recommend five for those who are interested in the discount.

• 20% off when you buy two books
• 30% off when you buy three books
• 40% off when you buy four books
• 50% off when you buy five books

The Beast: Riding the Rails and Dodging Narcos on the Migrant Trail by Óscar Martínez is a great place to start for those who want to know more about people migrating from Central America to the US. The author follows the stories of real people making the journey to the United States and through their stories he answers common questions such as “why are people coming here?” and “why don’t they just come legally?” This is my go-to gift for the non-leftists in my life, it’s an enjoyable read that has an easy to understand message and doesn’t require slogging through boring facts and history like a typical leftist book.

Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappé would be my recommendation for those looking to start reading more about Israel/Palestine. Pappé is an anti-Zionist Jewish Israeli known as one of the “New Historians” of Israel (meaning that, starting in the 80s, he wrote history that countered the standard narrative given by Israel, such as occupying an empty land, Palestinian voluntary migration, etc). In this work he goes over common myths about Israel and debunks them. These include commonly discussed topics such as the conflation of Zionism and Judaism and Zionism’s colonial history. This is a short easy read for those who want to build up a solid foundation of knowledge on Israel/Palestine.

The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale discusses what police actually stand for (a catch-all solution to deal with the fallout of austerity politics) and how we can make real changes to better serve the community. When it comes to police reform, people I’ve talked to struggle to identify the fundamental issues with policing and, when confronted, often lob liberal reforms that don’t fix the problem. This book discusses and breaks down these issues, critiques accepted reforms and gives better solutions based on studies and practices that other counties and communities have had success with.

All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It by Daniel Denvir is unfortunately more relevant than ever. This work discusses nativism on both sides of the aisle and shows that Donald Trump’s nativism is not an aberration, it is in America’s DNA. Denvir discusses the history of our immigration policies and the justifications used to deny people their right to a better life. The liberal side of the aisle has never been much better than the right on this issue and it’s important to understand that this is still happening today and a new narrative needs to be written by people on the left that sees the humanity and needs of immigrants.

Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell): My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement by Jane McAlevey is a narrative of the author’s decade devoted to organizing a union in a hospital in the right-to-work state of Nevada. McAlevey is a must read for those interested in organizing and this book is a good place to begin. You’ll see struggles and strategies around organizing told in a narrative that is entertaining and easy to digest. The book makes you feel good and helps you understand how powerful a well organized union/organization can be.

The post Verso End of Year Sale – Book Recs! appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Walter J. Nicholls is Professor of Planning and Public Policy at UC Irvine and the Faculty Director of the UC Irvine Labor Center.

“But since my aim was to write something useful for anyone interested … it would be appropriate to go to the real truth of the matter, not to repeat other people’s fantasies. Many writers have dreamed up republics and kingdoms that bear no resemblance to experience and never existed in reality;  anyone who declines to behave as people do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe…” Nicos Machiavelli, The Prince

Zohran Mamdani’s victory disrupted politics as they were and inaugurated a new moment for what politics can and should be. It was also “proof of concept” of what socialist strategy might achieve and forced the question: could Mamdani’s strategy be replicated elsewhere? Does NYC provide a roadmap to advance the socialist project nationwide?

This article reviews strategic visions that differ not in ultimate goals but in paths and timing. On one side of the spectrum are those who suggest that conditions favor replicability and a national push now in time for 2028. On the other side, there are those, like me, who suggest that NYC’s campaign is more unique than presumed. Under these circumstances, a national strategy should prioritize expanding power in the most favorable urban areas, consolidating those strongholds, and using them as platforms for expansion when conditions and opportunities allow. 

Replicating the Mamdani strategy where conditions are absent will lead to large expenditures of resources that will likely bear little to no fruit. Yet, consolidation does not mean socialism in one city. DSA can prioritize deepening its influence where: 1) favorable demographic conditions exist, 2) organizational infrastructure is established, and 3) middle-class fracturing creates openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating NYC while expanding in LA or Chicago rather than less viable localities. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic, organizational, and political strategy and readiness.

The question confronting the Left now is which strategy best fits social and political conditions as they actually exist, not as we wish them to be. The Left is particularly susceptible to this error. As partisans, our identities are animated by an optimism that human emancipation remains a material possibility. Nevertheless, the value of our prognoses depend on diagnosing social and political conditions as realistically as we can and moving ahead on such terms.

In search of national replication

 “I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent. —Antonio Gramsci

Many on the left asserted that Mamdani’s candidate profile, message, coalition, and eventual win made clear that the time had come to take the fight for socialism to the national level. At the 2025 August Convention in Chicago, DSA activists enthused about the Mamdani surge precisely because it justified the “universal appeal” of their own foundational principles and norms. One DSA member asserted, “Campaigns like Zohran Mamdani… show that Palestine is a winning issue. That socialism is a winning issue…We can win the Democratic primary in 2028.” At the convention comrades buzzed with ideas about how to “Mamdani” their own locale. Daniel Goulden, an NYC DSA organizer, claimed “I think that the model that we used in New York is 100% replicable.” This sort of bold thinking has an important place in socialist strategy making. At the same time, precision matters.

Antonio Gramsci famously argued, “My own state of mind synthesizes these two feelings and transcends them: my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic.” The challenge consists in recognizing the need to bolster the will of the optimist through statements of faith and solidarity without undercutting the realism needed to exercise the analytical realism of the pessimist’s mind. Confusing desires for what ought to be with real analysis for what is remains a major intellectual pitfall facing all socialist partisans then and now, leading to mistakes that can cost the movement resources, time, lives, and freedom.

The Mamdani Coalition

In a November 2025 Jacobin article, sociologist Vivek Chibber offers a sober assessment of barriers to building a universalizing socialist movement. He explains that neoliberalism is undergoing a profound crisis rooted in both ideological exhaustion and political decomposition. The Left’s ideological evolution magnifies this weakness. Over the last period, much of the Left has shifted toward cultural and identity-centered frameworks detached from material conditions. For Chibber, “real politics…is based on materialism, not on a vibe, not on values.” The Left must therefore reassert economic issues and universal programs rather than relying on moral language or value appeals to drive mass alignment.

Electoral victories only have value if they are a means to building the institutional and intellectual infrastructure needed to sustain the working class as a political force. Mamdani’s win represents an opening to rebuild working-class power, not a shortcut to socialist advance at the national level. A viable socialist strategy must reunite ideology with material interests, rebuild working-class institutions from the ground up, and treat electoral wins as foundations for long-term hegemonic construction. Mamdani’s win proves Chibber’s claims half right. The campaign demonstrated the potency of a campaign focused on material questions. Mamdani won by anchoring his message in tenant protections, redistribution, and public investment.

However, what made victory possible in NYC was not overwhelming support of working-class voters for Mamdani. In fact, he did not win a majority of the poorest workers, nor of homeowners. The decisive class force was in fact made up of those Chibber largely dismisses: overwhelming young renters largely attracted to his messaging on housing, intersectional multiculturalism, and the “values… and vibe” he exuded. This layer of young renters often sees itself as a mutually recognizable, coherent social unit; in fact, it contains white collar workers (teachers, nurses, proletarianized graphic designers, artists, and musicians, etc.), a much smaller layer of few blue collar workers (especially those concentrated in city unions), gig workers, independent contractors, tech professionals, entrepreneurs, low level managers, upper-middle-class urbanists, and even a few aspiring capitalists.

Paths for going national

We can all agree that electability does not require sacrificing socialist principles, as Mamdani showed in practice. However, there are different ways for understanding the when and how socialism improves or undercuts electability across different terrains. Mamdani’s victory generated a surge of momentum that many comrades interpreted as proof of a broader political opening, transforming excitement into a shared belief that the socialist moment had finally arrived. His charisma amplified this feeling: activists saw in him a leader capable of embodying a universal message and carrying it far beyond the city. 

Chibber contends that neoliberalism’s legitimacy crisis has created a rare opening across the entire political landscape, weakening ruling-class ideology and exposing deep unmet material needs. In this context, a leader who articulates clear, class-centered demands can give national shape to working-class discontent. Yet Chibber insists that socialism cannot bypass the long march through organization. National advance requires rebuilding unions, party structures, and working-class institutions capable of sustaining the fight. So what can we take away from Mamdani’s campaign?

A Gramscian case for going national begins not with momentum or charismatic leadership but with the structural demands of the regionally specific “war of position.” [Subsequent Gramsci quotes from The Modern Prince] Because the modern state is fortified through countless institutions (schools, media, courts, bureaucracies, civic networks), any local breakthrough remains precarious unless extended across wider terrains. Gramsci argues that socialism must build national reach precisely because hegemony requires transforming “common sense” at scale, forging a worldview that resonates across regions, classes, and cultural groups. National expansion is not optional escalation but strategic necessity. Yet Gramsci warns that national advance must be grounded in patient construction of a “permanently organized and long-prepared force” capable of sustaining conflict in every trench of the integral state.

Maneuver is an “expansionary” battle within the larger war of position, and any successful maneuver must be followed by consolidation. Mamdani’s campaign represents one such battle: winning the Mayor’s Office captures a single fortification within a vast state lattice of institutions, norms, and counter-powers. Bureaucracies, police, legislatures, courts, and civic infrastructures can all move to neutralize or delegitimize a socialist breakthrough, reminding us that electoral gains do not equal hegemony.

The maneuver phase unfolds through several contingent moments. First, crises inside divided elites create openings when they cannot decide whether coercion or consent will worsen their legitimacy problems. Second, insurgents can generate a surge by communicating effectively, unifying disparate groups, and expanding networks through collective effervescence. Third, the intensity of such a surge can overwhelm poorly prepared adversaries, draining their resources and legitimacy. Fourth comes the actual capture of a government institution, an achievement that remains precarious without deeper foundations.

For Gramsci, hegemonic power means that the dominant norms and values of socialism would legitimize whoever governs, just as New Deal ideology constrained Eisenhower and neoliberalism structured Clinton and Obama. After fifty years of neoliberal dominance, simply winning the White House or a city hall grants position without the legitimacy needed for durable rule. The working class and the socialist movement have clearly not accomplished this at the present time.

Consolidation is therefore critical. In Gramsci’s terms, the “integral state” contains many entrenched sites from which old forces can launch counteroffensives. Electoral victory changes one node of power while leaving most legitimating structures intact. Gramsci warned that old forces concede only to “gain time and prepare a counter-offensive.” Post-victory periods must therefore be devoted to weakening adversaries, securing hesitant allies, and binding an inter-class coalition under a working-class hegemonic vision.

Once consolidated, preparation for the next expansion must begin immediately. Socialism cannot survive in a single city because hostile forces can regroup at higher or lower scales: federal, state, or regional. Class struggle is inherently expansive; withdrawing labor or territory from capital’s circuits creates threats that provoke counter-mobilization. Believing that consolidation alone is enough risks isolation and defeat. For Gramsci, the war of position continues until one side is definitively neutralized or overthrown; there is no stable equilibrium short of that outcome.

 Local versus general political conditions

Using Gramsci’s theory of socialist strategy, Mamdani’s campaign is framed as a “war of maneuver” phase within the broader “war of position.” This analysis traces the phases of breaching state power’s outer fortifications, diminished capabilities of repair and closure, and the conditions enabling the campaign’s expansionary surge.

1.     Political Crisis Breaches Fortification: Elite Fragmentation Blocks Fast Repair Without Closure

Mamdani’s socialism, steadfast criticism of Israel, and US policy toward Palestine precipitated opposition from key elites within the Democratic Party but not all. The political crisis of the Adams administration and its ties to the Trump administration had already fractured the fortifying power of party elites. The surging popularity of the Mamdani campaign diminished the capabilities of oppositional elites to close ranks in party networks. The result was elite fragmentation and not elite closure. Support from elites came at the cost of some compromises to DSA principles. Mamdani did not disprove the “socialist principles versus electability” dilemma. Rather, contextual factors diminished the capabilities of party elites to “close ranks or tank the game.”

2.     Advantages and Disadvantages of Elite Fragmentation

Elite fragmentation weakened the capabilities of the Democratic Party to fulfill their fortifying functions but did not deactivate it. Oppositional elites had sufficient power to prolong the campaign, but not enough to close ranks and deny Mamdani support in the general election. Fragmentation proved advantageous: it enhanced insurgent legitimacy at stages of plummeting incumbent legitimacy without costing access to all resources elite gatekeepers control. Mamdani secured approximately 85 elected official endorsements, 12 labor union endorsements, and 15 organizational endorsements, while Cuomo received 7 elected officials, 6 labor unions, and 3 organizational endorsements.

3.     Preparatory Conditions: Past Consolidation Sets Stage for Surging Expansion

Past gains through maneuver had been consolidated and used as a platform to prepare and run for the next big expansion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 congressional primary victory mobilized hundreds of volunteers and knocked on enough doors to turn out approximately 25,000 voters in a race where far fewer voters were expected. AOC’s campaign demonstrated DSA’s viability in NYC electoral politics, provided an early proof of concept for the field organizing model, and helped normalize democratic socialism as a legitimate political ideology rather than a fringe position. That win, combined with Bernie Sanders’s two presidential campaigns, catalyzed national and regional debates about socialism, which helped foster recruitment into DSA chapters across the country and region. And NYC DSA’s many years of subsequent work developed strongholds across the city. Consolidation from earlier battles elevated preparation for the next big campaign.

4.     Exceptional Expansion: Concentrated Networks as Fuel for Wildfire

Mamdani’s surge remains exceptional. Beginning at 1% in February 2025 Emerson polling when Cuomo dominated at 33%, Mamdani climbed methodically: 16% in April, 22-23% by late May, winning 56.4% to Cuomo’s 43.6% in the final ranked choice count—a 55-point swing in four months. He mobilized 26,000-30,000 volunteers during the primary who knocked on over 644,000 doors, expanding to 76,000 volunteers by the general election with over 500,000 doors knocked and 1 million phone calls. Networks attracted greater resources, labor, monetary contributions, and in-kind support for increasingly sophisticated citywide infrastructure.

5.     Messaging: Centering Economic Issues, Sticking Close to Socialist Values

Mamdani’s disciplined messaging on material affordability (rent freezes, free buses, universal childcare) combined with progressive differentiator issues (Gaza, LGBTQ+ protections) helped broaden resonance while solidifying the loyalty of his core base. The message was also refined through constant testing of various iterations in base building politics, deftly exploiting Cuomo’s vulnerabilities from sexual harassment and nursing home scandals to position himself as the honest alternative against a discredited past.

Yet, even accounting for all this, Mamdani secured a thin majority (50.4%), approximately 17 percentage points less than Kamala Harris’s NYC performance in the 2024 presidential election (67.70%). He did not win a majority of votes in Queens, despite large investments of time spent canvassing and money spent on advertising. Mamdani won a plurality in the borough and does not appear to have converted many Trump voters. This was not a blowout or an overwhelming mandate.

Politically, Mamdani’s victory emerged from an exceptional convergence: fractured Democratic Party elites, a delegitimized incumbent administration, and activist networks capable of exploiting the breach. These conditions sharply reduced the Democratic party’s ability to coordinate a unified counteroffensive. Yet such fragmentation is far from national. In most states, party machines remain cohesive, institutional fortifications stronger, and local elites more capable of closing ranks. Without comparable organizational density elsewhere, a national offensive would confront far more fortified political terrain.

Breaking down Mamdani’s votes

Mamdani’s winning coalition reflects trends powering other DSA candidates into city council seats across the country, even if he is the first DSA member to win a mayoral race in a major city. The electoral coalition consisted of:

1.     The Youth Vote: Powerful but Not Dominant

Approximately 75-78% of voters aged 18-29 supported Mamdani, compared to 19% for Cuomo and 5% for Sliwa. Young women aged 18-29 were more unified at 84%, while young men gave 68% support—a 42-point margin over Cuomo among young men who had shifted significantly rightward nationally. Youth turnout was strong at approximately 28%, nearly double the 14% in the previous mayoral cycle. The key was not that young voters became dominant but that they turned out at higher rates and voted with near-unanimous support.

2.     Recent Arrivals: The Most Overrepresented Group

Among voters in NYC five years or less, 85% supported Mamdani—his most unified demographic group. Recent arrivals constituted 15-20% of his coalition while representing only 8-10% of NYC’s voting population. Mamdani’s coalition was young, mobile, renters. His message about rent freezes, universal childcare, and free buses resonated with direct economic self-interest.

3.     Middle to Upper Middle-Class Coalition

Mamdani won the majority of voters earning $30,000-$299,999 annually. Those below $30,000 and above $300,000 favored Cuomo—a salient inversion for a democratic socialist. His strongest performance was among voters earning $100,000-$200,000, where he won 55% to Cuomo’s 37%. His coalition consisted of people with financial stability to care about cultural and affordability issues but not so wealthy as to be insulated from housing cost concerns.

4.     The Multiracial Coalition

Mamdani won approximately 60% of white voters, 52% of Black voters, and 60% of Latino voters. White people make up only 31.3% of NYC’s population but roughly 40-45% of Mamdani’s voters. This reflects the concentration of recent arrivals, college-educated professionals, and gentrifying neighborhoods (heavily white) in his coalition. Mamdani also significantly overperformed among young Black voters (83% according to CIRCLE data) and in heavily Black neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn. Latino voters showed mixed support at 60%, which was 7% less than Kamala Harris’s 67% of the vote. Given Latinos’ share of NYC’s population (28.4%), this suggests that Latino voters split more evenly with Cuomo than other demographic groups. This split likely reflected class divisions and regional variation; working-class immigrant communities in some areas of Queens and the Bronx proved more responsive to Cuomo’s message. Mamdani won 49% of Asian Americans but 70%+ among young Asian voters. Approximately 90% of Muslim voters supported Mamdani, making this by far his most unified demographic group. He won only 31-33% of Jewish voters, creating a 29-point deficit compared to Cuomo.

5.     LGBTQ+ and Gender Dynamics

82% of the 14% of voters identifying as LGBTQ+ supported Mamdani, translating to 10-12% of his coalition despite LGBTQ+ voters representing only 5-7% of NYC’s population. Young women aged 18-29 voted for Mamdani at 84%, compared to young men at 68%—a 16-point gap particularly striking given young men’s national rightward shift.

6.     Partisan Alignment

Mamdani won 66% of Democratic voters compared to Cuomo’s 31%, demonstrating remarkable partisan cohesion. Among Independents, the race was tighter: Mamdani won 43% compared to Cuomo’s 34% and Sliwa’s 18%—a potential vulnerability in his coalition.

Socially, the coalition relied on demographics distinctive to large urban centers with high “culture industry” concentrations: recent arrivals, highly mobile renters, young multiracial professionals, LGBTQ communities, and culturally progressive middle and upper-middle class segments. These groups are overrepresented in New York but sparse across small cities, suburbs, and rural regions. Nationally, the working class is older, more rooted in place, more likely homeowners, more religious, and more culturally conservative. The social base powering Mamdani’s campaign is geographically concentrated, making national replication difficult without first reshaping broader conditions.

Urban conjuncture and the new socialism

A distinct urban conjuncture has emerged in a handful of U.S. cities, producing conditions far more favorable to socialist advance than those found nationally. These cities combine soaring housing costs, generational displacement, fractured middle-class interests, and dense networks of activists, tenants, and young professionals. It is within this alignment that Minneapolis, New York City, Los Angeles, and similar metros have become laboratories for new socialist politics.

For decades, American cities operated under a stable class coalition: developers received profitable construction areas while white middle-class homeowners secured low-density neighborhoods with appreciating property values. As housing became unaffordable, a younger generation—including both workers and middle-class professionals—found themselves priced out of homeownership. Housing became the central issue introducing intra-middle-class conflict within a class demonstrating remarkable unity since the 1980s. This generational conflict precipitated splitting of the urban middle class into three factions: NIMBY (dominant older fraction), YIMBY (market-oriented professionals), and DSA (abandoning homeownership aspirations, aligning with the working class for non-market solutions).

These divisions characterize New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other expensive cities where the young middle class cannot afford entry into the housing market. Mamdani’s coalition in NYC mirrors this pattern: his strongest support came from young renting professionals and workers who had defected from traditional middle-class politics. And this is not the first time we have seen this pattern: between 2010 and 2021, Minneapolis’s City Council shifted from three progressives to eight, driven by gentrifying neighborhoods with concentrated university-educated millennials. Similar dynamics are reshaping NYC electoral politics. 

However, Minneapolis reveals a crucial limitation: despite sweeping political victories and near-unanimous City Council support for upzoning legislation, the old homeowning middle class used its structural resources to block implementation through planning offices, county jurisdiction, courts, and the state legislature. Technical policy solutions, even progressive ones, cannot overcome fundamentally political problems rooted in lack of hegemony. Winning elections does not automatically translate to policy implementation when economic elites maintain veto points throughout governmental and civil society institutions.

The pattern is replicating in NYC. Mamdani won through coalition with young renters and recent arrivals, yet the old neoliberal coalition still controls courts, real estate boards, and bureaucratic institutions. His ability to govern will depend on constructing sufficient hegemonic power to overcome structural veto points.

So what is to be done? Mamdani’s victory was inspiring and points to a better future for socialists. Using Gramsci as a guide, the answer should be clear: we must fight a war of position, not maneuver. Why?

First, this was a very narrow victory with almost no margin for error at the national level.

The narrowness (50.4%) meant minimal margin for error. Loss of just 1%, approximately 10,000 votes, would have resulted in plurality victory with ranked-choice complications. Alienating even smallest fractions of constituent groups would have cost the majority—far more difficult to replicate in northern Wisconsin than Brooklyn.

Second, potential fickleness in the coalition.

Vulnerabilities were distributed unevenly. Loss of 15-20% of young voter support would have cost 25,000-30,000 votes. The greatest vulnerability appears in working-class support, which Mamdani split with Cuomo rather than dominating. A shift of 10% of working-class voters could have changed the outcome.

Third, the local trap and why the coalition cannot scale nationally.

The relative youth of his coalition (20-22% under 35 compared to 15-18% nationally), higher proportion of renters (67% in NYC versus 35% nationally), college-educated concentration, and high proportion of recent arrivals suggest demographic foundations specific to cities like NYC. A candidate replicating this strategy in suburban or rural areas would face different terrain. Homeowners (70% nationally versus 30% in NYC) would be significantly less likely to support rent control and wealth-taxation policies.

Fourth, he needs to improve margins with Black, Latino, and working-class voters.

He won a majority of the Black vote but not margins as large as past Democratic candidates. More concerning: Latino vote at lower margins than Harris in 2024, with Latino support for Democratic candidates dropping nearly 10% every election cycle.

Fifth, uncertainty regarding the left message.

Strident left positions drive high turnout in large global cities, especially among young gentrifiers, but may repel centrist blocs in suburbs and rural areas. Strong commitment to his critical position on Israel cost a large share of Jewish votes. His strong embrace of socialism resonated with youth but lost homeowners, many ideologically conservative Latinos and immigrants. In NYC, this trade-off worked because renters comprise nearly 50% of the city. Nationally, the split is 70:30 favoring homeowners. These positions admired in NYC may repel certain voting blocs while offering only limited reservoirs from which to extract new voters.

Conclusion: consolidate political territory, not just geographic territory

The fight for hegemony is a war, not a single battle. Electoral victory constitutes one engagement in a protracted struggle.

1. The goal of all parties is to achieve a socialist hegemonic project nationally; the point of debate is which strategy is best suited for achieving this end goal. This analysis suggests a strategy of scaling up to the national level through consolidating regional hegemony and using consolidated regions as leveraging platforms to propel expansion to the next opportune battle.

Mamdani’s coalition depends on specific structural conditions: high concentrations of young renters, recent arrivals, gentrifying neighborhoods, and university-educated populations facing permanent exclusion from homeownership. DSA should prioritize deepening its foothold in cities and regions where: 1) these demographic conditions already exist, 2) DSA has established organizational infrastructure, and 3) the fracturing of the middle class has created openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating in NYC while contributing to expanding power in LA or Chicago, rather than upstate NY, if the political terrain is more favorable. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic and organizational readiness.

2. Once a battle is won, consolidation of position becomes imperative through three simultaneous processes: securing the consent of civil society institutions, bolstering domination throughout the state apparatus, and neutralizing political enemies by extracting them from the structural conditions that enabled their power.

Enemies of socialist forces never truly disappear; they retreat into the shadows, awaiting opportunities for counter-offensive. 

Building our first instances of regional influence therefore requires simultaneous forward and backward movement: looking forward to construct intellectual and political leadership across an expanding and increasingly indomitable coalition, while looking backward to extract reactionary enemies waiting in the shadows, sabotaging and scheming for restoration.

In New York City, this challenge is complicated because political enemies come in multiple guises and display little consistent loyalty. This ambiguity blurs the line between friend and enemy when clarity is most needed. Mamdani’s dependence on a substantial Democratic base complicates efforts to target enemies within the party apparatus itself. However, he currently enjoys extraordinary levels of public support, which makes Democratic elites less inclined toward outright sabotage and more inclined toward a cynical strategy of appropriating his charisma and momentum for their own purposes. Recognizing this temporary advantage, Mamdani must move with strategic urgency to establish Democratic dependence on him for their political futures rather than the reverse.

3. Mamdani’s symbolic power is at its peak now and will wane. Maximal consolidation sooner will avoid closure and restoration later.

This moment provides his greatest leverage to consolidate asymmetric power relations over potential rivals within the Democratic apparatus, establishing himself as indispensable rather than replaceable to their political futures and livelihoods. With other enemies (reactionary business interests, the police bureaucracy, the real estate establishment) different tactics apply. These are the fickle constituencies least bound by party loyalty or ideological coherence. They respond to power and the credible threat of counter-power, not to appeals to shared governance or compromise. The tempo of consolidation matters enormously. Delay allows enemies to regroup, rebuild coalitions, and mobilize their substantial structural resources. The question facing Mamdani in his first months in office is whether he recognizes that electoral victory opened a war, not concluded one, and whether he possesses the strategic clarity and ruthlessness necessary to consolidate his position before the inevitable counter-offensive begins.

4. Hegemony must guide tactical choices over consolidation and expansions: Until a political bloc emerges capable of bridging these divides and constructing the intellectual and moral leadership necessary for genuine cross-class hegemony, urban governance will remain volatile and ineffective.

What is needed is not merely electoral victory but a transformative political project that unites diverse constituencies around a shared vision of the city as a common good and reorganizes civil society according to socialist principles. For DSA chapters, this means the painstaking work of organizing across class and racial divides to create hegemonic blocs capable of challenging the commodification of housing at its root, not merely winning individual campaigns but systematically constructing “the permanent organization of the intellectual strata” necessary to build durable, transformative political power. The Minneapolis experience demonstrates that without such systematic hegemonic construction, even left-wing electoral victories will be neutralized by the counteroffensive of established economic interests defending their structural position.

Workers with Ziff Davis Creators Guild won pro-worker language in their latest collective bargaining agreement. Here's how and what they won.

The post How we won AI protections in our contract appeared first on EWOC.

(October 2025)

Across Ecuador, Indigenous, peasant, and working-class communities have risen once again to defend life, dignity, and sovereignty in the face of a government that governs for capital, not the people. The Noboa government has answered peaceful resistance with systematic state terror—deploying thousands of troops to occupy Indigenous territories, firing live rounds and tear gas indiscriminately at protesters and residents alike, and criminalizing the very act of defending one’s community. The Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee extends our unconditional solidarity to the families of those killed and wounded, to the hundreds detained, and to the peoples of Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo, and every territory now under siege.

1. We join their demands

We endorse the demands articulated by CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), UNORCAC (Union of Indigenous Peasant Organizations of Cotacachi), FICI (Federación Indígena y Campesina de Imbabura), and allied popular organizations:

• Immediate repeal of Executive Decree 126, which raised diesel prices more than 50% overnight and deepened poverty across Ecuador.
  
• An end to militarization, emergency decrees, and curfews imposed under the false pretext of “public order.”
  
• Neutral, civilian-led humanitarian corridors, coordinated with the Red Cross and human-rights monitors — not military convoys disguised as relief.
  
• Freedom for all detainees, the dropping of “terrorism” and related charges, and full reparations to the victims and families of state violence.
  
• Independent, international investigations into killings, disappearances, and the criminal use of live ammunition against demonstrators.
  
• Guarantees of non-repetition: training, command accountability, and civilian oversight of the Armed Forces and National Police.
  
• Protection of Indigenous and community media, including Radio Ilumán, TV MICC, and Apak TV, whose journalists have been attacked or censored.
  

2. We reject the authoritarian referendum

President Noboa’s referendum is not a democratic exercise but a tool to consolidate executive power, criminalize protest, and entrench the neoliberal model that produced this crisis.

In solidarity with CONAIE and Ecuador’s social movements, we support the campaign for a nationwide “No” vote and affirm that true democracy lives in the assemblies, cabildos, and territories of the organized people—not in plebiscites designed to legitimize repression.

3. We affirm an internationalist duty

We call on the U.S. government to end all forms of military and police cooperation that enable repression in Ecuador.

We urge labor unions, Indigenous federations, and left organizations worldwide to send observers, condemn the violence, and amplify the media of the Ecuadorian movement.
We encourage DSA chapters and members to:

1. Circulate this statement through your chapter’s mailing lists, internal communications, and social media channels to raise awareness about the crisis in Ecuador.
2. Contribute to neutral humanitarian funds identified by CONAIE and UNORCAC.
3. Pressure their elected officials to demand an end to militarization and to support international investigations.

As we stand with the First Nations here, we stand with the Indigenous peoples of Ecuador — one struggle for life and sovereignty.

In Conclusion

Ecuador’s uprising reminds us that austerity and authoritarianism are two faces of the same project. The struggle against neoliberalism in Ecuador is inseparable from our fight in the United States for public goods, workers’ rights, and socialism.

From Quito to Chicago, from Cotacachi to New York, our struggle is one.

¡Ni un paso atrás! We stand with the peoples of Ecuador in defense of life, territory, and dignity.

DSA Declaración de solidaridad con el pueblo de Ecuador

(octubre de 2025)

En todo el Ecuador, las comunidades indígenas, campesinas y la clase trabajadora se han levantado una vez más para defender la vida, la dignidad y la soberanía frente a un gobierno que prioriza al capital, no al pueblo. El gobierno de Noboa ha respondido a la resistencia pacífica con un terror estatal sistemático, desplegando miles de soldados para ocupar territorios indígenas, disparando balas reales y gases lacrimógenos indiscriminadamente contra manifestantes y residentes por igual, y criminalizando la defensa de sus comunidades.

El Comité Internacional de los Socialistas Democráticos de América extiende su solidaridad incondicional a las familias de los fallecidos y heridos, a los cientos de detenidos y a los pueblos de Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo y todos los territorios que ahora se encuentran sitiados.

1. Nos sumamos a sus reivindicaciones

Respaldamos las reivindicaciones articuladas por la CONAIE (Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador), la UNORCAC (Unión de Organizaciones Campesinas Indígenas de Cotacachi) y las organizaciones populares aliadas:

• Derogación inmediata del Decreto Ejecutivo 126, que aumentó los precios del diésel más de un 50 % de la noche a la mañana y agravó la pobreza en todo Ecuador.
• El fin de la militarización, los decretos de emergencia y los toques de queda impuestos bajo el falso pretexto del «orden público».
• Corredores humanitarios neutrales y dirigidos por civiles, coordinados con la Cruz Roja y observadores de derechos humanos, en lugar de convoyes militares disfrazados de ayuda humanitaria.
• Libertad para todos los detenidos, retirada de los cargos de «terrorismo» y otros relacionados, y plena reparación para las víctimas y las familias de la violencia estatal.
• Investigaciones internacionales independientes sobre los asesinatos, las desapariciones y el uso criminal de munición real contra los manifestantes.
• Garantías de no repetición: formación, responsabilidad del mando y supervisión civil de las Fuerzas Armadas y la Policía Nacional.
• Protección de los medios de comunicación indígenas y comunitarios, incluidos Radio Ilumán, TV MICC y Apak TV, cuyos periodistas han sido atacados o censurados.

2. Rechazamos el referéndum autoritario

El referéndum del presidente Noboa no es un ejercicio democrático, sino una herramienta para consolidar el poder ejecutivo, criminalizar la protesta y afianzar el modelo neoliberal que ha provocado esta crisis.

En solidaridad con la CONAIE y los movimientos sociales de Ecuador, apoyamos la campaña por el «No» a nivel nacional y afirmamos que la verdadera democracia vive en las asambleas, los cabildos y los territorios del pueblo organizado, y no en plebiscitos diseñados para legitimar la represión.

3. Afirmamos un deber internacionalista

Hacemos un llamamiento al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos para que ponga fin a todas las formas de cooperación militar y policial que permiten la represión en Ecuador.

Instamos a los sindicatos, las federaciones indígenas y las organizaciones de izquierda de todo el mundo a que envíen observadores, condenen la violencia y amplifiquen los medios de comunicación del movimiento ecuatoriano.

Animamos a las secciones y miembros de la DSA a que:

1. Difundan esta declaración a través de las listas de correo, las comunicaciones internas y los canales de redes sociales de su sección para crear conciencia sobre la crisis en Ecuador.
2. Contribuyan a los fondos humanitarios neutrales identificados por la CONAIE y la UNORCAC.
3. Presionen a sus funcionarios electos para que exijan el fin de la militarización y apoyen las investigaciones internacionales.

Así como apoyamos a las Primeras Naciones aquí, apoyamos a los pueblos indígenas del Ecuador: una sola lucha por la vida y la soberanía.

En conclusión

El levantamiento de Ecuador nos recuerda que la austeridad y el autoritarismo son dos caras del mismo proyecto. La lucha contra el neoliberalismo en Ecuador es inseparable de nuestra lucha en Estados Unidos por servicios y bienes públicos, los derechos de los trabajadores y la democracia descolonizada.

De Quito a Chicago, de Cotacachi a Nueva York, nuestra lucha es una sola.

¡Ni un paso atrás! Nos solidarizamos con los pueblos de Ecuador en defensa de la vida, el territorio y la dignidad.

The post DSA Statement of Solidarity with the People of Ecuador appeared first on DSA International Committee.

[[{“value”:”

By: Matt Wolfinger

NEWTON, MA – Members of the Newton community braved the cold on Sunday, December 7 for a 5K fun run to support striking Starbucks baristas. The run, organized by Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) and Boston Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), started and ended on the picket line at the Centre Street Starbucks with a unionized Brighton location serving as the midpoint.

Runners and volunteers joined striking Workers United baristas, holding handmade signs and chanting slogans like “No contract, no coffee” and “What’s disgusting? Union busting.” The event also featured live music from the Scollay Square Skiffle Band, who played songs about working class solidarity.

The Newton Starbucks is one of more than 145 stores in over 150 cities engaged in Starbucks Workers United’s open-ended strike called the “Red Cup Rebellion.” The name is a nod to the strike kicking off on Starbucks’ “Red Cup Day” – an annual promotion where customers receive a reusable red cup with their order – disrupting one of the busiest days of the year for the coffee giant.

92% of union baristas voted to authorize a strike following a relentless series of unfair labor practice (ULP) violations.

The baristas are calling on Starbucks to address three key demands: better hours and staffing, higher-take home pay, and the resolution of hundreds of ULP violation charges filed against Starbucks by SBWU through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Ellie Gonzales, a barista with Workers United in Newton, said:

The staffing conditions aren’t what we want. They’re short staffing our stores. They’re cutting our hours and refusing to give us better pay, which is causing morale to be very low while working at Starbucks.

Negotiations between Workers United and Starbucks hit a snag last December, when Starbucks denied a set of proposals put forward by union baristas to improve wages and benefits. They instead offered an economic package that did not address any of the barista’s key concerns.

Baristas at Starbucks have faced an influx of challenges due to new policies enacted by their CEO, Brian Niccol, who took over the role from Howard Schultz in September of last year. Niccol’s first massive change as CEO was his controversial “Back to Starbucks” campaign. Instead of addressing the need for fair compensation, hours, benefits, and an end to union busting. Niccol changed the dress code without warning and required baristas to write handwritten messages on every cup. The outcome was the opposite of what Niccol and Starbucks senior leadership aimed for: longer wait times and angrier customers.

“When they first launched writing on the cups,” said Gonzales, “we did short messages like ‘Hello!’ or a smiley face or their name. Then that wasn’t enough. They wanted us to write phrases, ‘Have a nice day’ or ‘You’re Brew-tastic’, everything they could think of. And that just led to even longer wait times, because we’re already short staffed and now we have to stop to write a longer message that has to keep varying. We can’t write the same message over and over.”

According to Gonzales, all of these issues weighing baristas down don’t just impact their day-to-day work: they also lead to a worse experience for their customers.

“Short staffing the stores has led to significantly increased wait times,” she said. “There’s typically only three or four people on the floor, so customers come in regardless of how they ordered, mobile or in person, and wait upwards of 20 minutes just for a drink.”

Former customers like Adam, one of the roughly 50 runners in attendance on Sunday, attested to this decrease in efficiency. “It feels like a very slow collapse,” Adam told Working Mass.

I wasn’t totally aware of the issues, but, you know, there’s been a decline. I encourage everyone to stop going. It’s the only way things are going to change, for sure.

A November report from the Strategic Organizing Center found that 86% of frequent customers surveyed say wait times have worsened or stayed the same in 2025. Long wait times were the biggest in-store complaint from Starbucks customers.

Starbucks has also opted to shutter some stores altogether. In September, Starbucks shut down hundreds of stores across the U.S.

At least twenty of the shuttered branches were in Massachusetts, including eight unionized locations. Notably, the Starbucks in the Davis Square neighborhood of Somerville was permanently closed just one week after the workers voted to unionize.

While many baristas (both current and those impacted by closures) struggle to pay their bills, executive compensation packages remain unaffected. According to the AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch report, Niccol took home $95.8 million in 2024 despite only joining in September of that year. At 6,666 times more than the company’s median employee, it’s the largest CEO-to-worker pay disparity in the country.

Beyond pure compensation, an inordinate amount of money is put into optimizing Niccol’s day-to-day work. His commute to Starbucks HQ in Seattle is on a company-funded private jet. A satellite office was constructed just a 5 minute drive from his California home complete with a $14,000 espresso machine and an oceanside view. The company also spent $81 million on a four-day retreat for managers in Las Vegas in June 2025.

It would take the company less than a single day’s profit or less than 0.0025% of annual revenue to settle the remaining disputes with the union.

The disparity between corporate priorities and workers’ needs both inside and outside Starbucks was highlighted at Sunday’s event. Marissa, a DSA member and organizer, encouraged attendees to take the fight beyond the Starbucks picket line and into their own workplaces. Her place of employment has faced layoffs of its own in recent weeks. With a megaphone, she said:

We had six people laid off last month. No opportunity for recourse and no compensation packages on the way out. With a union, you can.

The 5k is the latest collaboration between Workers United and Boston DSA, who’ve been long-time supporters of their union drives. 

“We try to do weekly events for the picket lines to draw attention to the Starbucks workers and get more eyes on it,” said Ryan G, who co-chairs the Somerville branch of Boston DSA and hosted Sunday’s event. “We thought some kind of event like this would be more approachable for people. And Boston loves to run.”

This is one high-profile event that underscores a broader commitment. DSA has also set up a strike kitchen and logistical transportation support for Starbucks Workers United members through the strike, sustaining the workers whose pocketbooks are more impacted by the strike. DSA and Workers United are already brewing up future ideas for picket line events, including more live music and a set from a stand up comedian. “There’s really no idea too big or too small for these events,” Ryan said. “We’re trying all sorts of things.”

While the indefinite nature of the strike may seem intimidating, recent wins for the union signify that victory is not only possible – it may be within reach. A recent ruling from the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) found Starbucks violated the city’s Fair Workweek Law more than 500,000 times since 2021, when Workers United’s first union was formed in Buffalo, New York.

Baristas are asking everyone to avoid purchasing Starbucks for the duration of the strike. They also encourage donating to their strike fund, showing up to local picket lines, and spreading the word on social media.

Matt Wolfinger is a data journalist, Northeastern University graduate and a contributing writer to Working Mass. Read more of their work here.

The post Cross the Finish Line, Not the Picket Line – Newton locals run 5k to support striking Starbucks Baristas appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

There is a feeling among the American working class that has not been felt in decades. The feeling is so electric that it cuts through despair over the move toward outright fascism by the far right. The feeling is so electric that when Mayor Brandon Johnson called for a general strike in this country at Chicago’s October 2025 No Kings rally, it was imbued with possibility rather than just dismissed as a leftist pipedream. But what is a general strike? What does it take to organize a general strike? And what can we expect to see on May 1, 2028, the date called for by the Chicago Teachers Union, United Auto Workers, and now Mayor Brandon Johnson for attempting a general strike by aligning the expiration of as many union contracts as possible?

The General Strike – Origins and Socialist Adoption

Workers have been withholding their labor collectively to exert political power for as long as there has been civilization. However, with the advent of capitalism and the system of wage labor, withholding labor became both more dangerous for workers and more powerful. It was more dangerous because workers no longer did subsistence farming and often did not have the kind of networks of mutual aid which were once common because they were necessary to survival. Now workers could buy their food and other necessities with wages, liberating them from the work and risk of subsistence farming and social reproduction like making their own clothes, but also putting them at the mercy of the capitalists who paid their wages.

But strikes also became more powerful because capitalists depended on workers even more than workers depended on their wages. Labor is not cheap, even at the poverty wages that many capitalists have paid, but capitalists will always spend some of their capital on it because without labor no value is created, and without the creation of value no profits can be made. Capitalists can only earn a profit by paying wages that are less than the value created by the labor provided to them by workers.

Capitalists act as a class as well as individually. Not necessarily in some kind of smoke-filled backroom conspiracy way, but rather because their class position predisposes them to actions that become more than the sum of the individual actions. 

One example of this concerted action by capitalists as a class was in 1842 in Britain. In the midst of one of the worst depressions the country would ever experience, British capitalists slashed wages, laid people off, and cut corners on making workplaces safe. In response to these abuses, a group called the Chartists, formed by utopian socialists, liberal reformers, and workers, submitted a petition to the House of Commons in Parliament demanding  six significant reforms to introduce universal male suffrage, reduce corruption, and strengthen democratic representation and accountability in Britain. The petition had over three million signatures. The vote was not even close; it failed 287 to 49.

Two months later, a coal miner strike began in Staffordshire. For the most part it was like many strikes before and since. But there was one thing that stood out – the miners stated that they wanted the Chartist petition passed, and they connected their strike to it. Less than a month after that strike began, cotton workers who had their wages cut proposed “A Grand National Turnout” in support of the Chartist petition. Within less than a week, all work had stopped in Stalybridge and Ashton, then in Manchester, and soon throughout the country. Though the strike was eventually violently crushed, the capitalists got the message. They reversed  the previous wage cuts. Parliament got the message as well, passing the Factory Act in 1844. Worker organizers learned an important lesson – when the capitalist class uses their collective power to oppress, it takes the collective action of a whole nation of workers to fight back.

However, when early Marxists analyzed the general strike in Britain, they dismissed it due to its connections with utopian socialists and anarchists. Writing in 1873, Friedrich Engels argued that to use a general strike for revolutionary socialism (rather than the liberal reforms accomplished by the Chartist general strike) would require a level of organization and resources that would essentially beg the question “Why not simply use that organization and resources to take over the state rather than carry out a general strike?” But that changed in 1905, when the first of many revolutions swept the Russian Empire. While Russia was still largely feudal, especially compared to a nation like Britain, revolutionary socialists were nonetheless able to organize hundreds of thousands of workers to go on strike, shutting down electricity and newspaper distribution in St. Petersburg completely. The tsar eventually capitulated, abdicating a totalitarian feudal monarchy and creating a constitutional monarchy with a legislature and civil rights. Though these would later be rolled back, prompting the more famous Russian revolutions that created the Soviet Union, in 1906 the socialists of the world stood in awe of the historical victory of their Russian comrades.

One of the most inspired was a German economist and union organizer who had always believed in the potential of strike actions to bring about revolutionary change – Rosa Luxemburg. Not only did Luxemburg join the struggle in Warsaw, where she was arrested, but she eventually met up with Lenin, Trotsky, and others for an intensive weeks-long discussion in Finland about how the Russian revolutionaries were able to pull it off. She turned her take-aways from this discussion into her most influential political writing, The Mass Strike. In it, Luxemburg pointed out that the political mass strike in St. Petersburg was preceded by several strikes all over Russia in the years proceeding – and we now know in 2025 that there were even more of these smaller economic strikes leading up to it than Luxemburg even knew about.

Luxemburg argued that it was the participation of revolutionary socialists in these seemingly just-economic strikes over the years that was crucial to building toward the eventual general strike in 1905. These strikes were almost always unanticipated and unconnected to the socialists – the socialists did not start the strikes, but rather took the opportunity created by them to agitate for revolution and build working class organization. And they were cumulative – like the adage of Paulo Freire, workers make the road to a general strike by walking it, by carrying out strike actions repeatedly.

While Rosa Luxemburg dismissed the idea of “equal authority,” that trade unions should have as much political authority as a socialist party, she argued “everywhere trade-union work prepares the way for party work.” But Luxemburg was not concerned with winning over the trade union leaders, trying to convince them that their political “neutrality” was misguided – the value of trade union work was in the connection to rank and file members. Worker organizing raised class consciousness just as much, and perhaps more, than socialist party organizing. 

To summarize, the general strike is the mass withholding of labor by organized workers across an entire nation and multiple industries which has a political aim that confronts the capitalist class as a whole rather than a single capitalist employer. The experience of the Russian Revolution of 1905, as distilled by Rosa Luxemburg, presented a socialist political theory: revolutionary change could be accomplished through a general strike, built by organizers participating in smaller strike actions and engaging with the rank-and-file workers carrying them out.

The 21st-Century Push for a General Strike in the U.S.A.

There are considerable differences between the 21st century United States and those of 19th century Britain and early 20th century Russia. Most notably, labor unions and strikes were illegal in both of those historical cases, whereas in the U.S. both are, at least for now, legally protected if carried out in the way prescribed by the law. This has made it safer for workers to go on strike, but has also successfully pushed labor unions into less militant action.

While it appears the U.S. labor movement is rebounding from its historic lows of strike actions, we are still below the number of strike actions happening in the 1990s, let alone at the high points of labor militancy in U.S. history like in the 1970s. So is the general strike still a relevant concept for modern U.S. socialists?

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) decided it was still relevant, and did so before the recent resurgence in interest. On March 26, 2019, Barry Eidlin published an article in Jacobin titled “What is the Rank-and-File Strategy, and Why Does It Matter?” This article was not the origin of the rank-and-file strategy – that traces back to a working paper authored by Kim Moody in 2000 for the organization Solidarity. But with this article, Eidlin applied Moody’s most famous theory to the organizing DSA was doing in some places and seeking to do elsewhere. “Unions give workers a platform to wage class struggle in a coordinated and sustained way,” writes Eidlin, “in the process developing the capacities necessary for future fights.” For this reason, Eidlin argues that DSA projects like YDSA’s campaign to encourage members to become teachers and join or form unions was the crucial way for DSA to engage in labor politics. Eidlin cited the wave of teacher strikes in 2018 as an example of how the rank-and-file strategy had already produced success. 

Like Luxemburg and Moody, Eidlin casts doubt on the revolutionary potential of union staff and leaders, at least as the primary focus of socialist agitation, given their predisposition to conservatism from their material interest in minimizing risk to the financial well-being of the union as their employer. But Eidlin does not argue that these figures cannot play a part in the rank-and-file strategy – the question is whether those union staff and leaders will use their power and roles to empower a militant minority in the union.

Eidlin does not expressly cite the concept of the general strike, but it is easy to see how it fits into his argument when he writes that the rank and file strategy is “a theory of how to build power to change society in the interests of the vast majority…linking workplace struggles to broader community struggles.” But as Rosa Luxemburg notes, the general strike is not simply a campaign that socialists decide to do one day, but rather a culmination of a series of militant labor actions engaged in by socialists.

That is why the DSA Rank-and-File Strategy does not tell our members to “organize for a general strike” but instead to:

1. Educate DSA members about unions and the local labor movement.
2. Launch a jobs program for those interested in taking strategic jobs.
3. Create support structures for our members in these jobs.
4. Support members organizing new unions in their workplaces or choose strategic targets to organize.
5. Join and build union reform caucuses.
6. Support strike and contract campaigns through connections with workplace leaders.
7. Build and use the Labor Notes network.
8. Connect local unions and worker leaders with broader DSA campaigns such as Medicare For All and Green New Deal.
9. Work with unions on electoral campaigns for DSA-endorsed candidates.

We can see this strategy in the work of the Labor Branch of Chicago’s DSA chapter.. Every Labor Branch meeting has a political education section to educate our members about unions and the local labor movement. Our pipeline program connects our members to jobs in unionized workplaces. Our members who get into these jobs form formal or informal networks for discussing our organizing as socialists as well as labor militants. Our CHIWOC (Chicago Workplace Organizing Committee) organizing helps members start new unions in their workplaces. Our members are involved in reform caucuses of unions like Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators (CORE) in CTU and Teamsters for a Democratic Union in the Teamsters. And our strike support program has brought our members out to talk to UAW workers, Teamsters workers, and Illinois Nurses Association workers on the picket line.

There is always more that we can do, especially as we expand our membership, but this work we are doing is laying the groundwork for a general strike. A lot of it may not fit our romantic ideas of what carrying out a general strike is – the epic rallying cry speeches, the grand stands against authoritarian politicians and bosses. But as Rosa Luxemburg taught us, it is this work that may only be remembered deep in the pages of history books that builds the road to the general strike. And her own tragic death, in which she was murdered by right-wing forces after a failed attempt at revolution that she reluctantly joined, shows the consequences of trying to force a general strike to happen without laying enough of that foundation.

But we may be getting closer to that crescendo. President of the UAW Shawn Fain, whose election was the result in no small part of socialists organizing as members of the UAW in a reform caucus, has called for unions to line up their contracts to expire on May 1, 2028, providing a legal impetus for a coordinated cross-industry and nation-spanning strike. It is an exciting development in labor militancy and collective working class action across unions rather than siloed in individual unions and individual workplaces. But what can we expect?

The future is always unwritten, and those who make unequivocal predictions should be treated with as much skepticism as a strip mall clairvoyant. But we can use our understanding of history and our analysis of the current conditions of the political economy to outline the most likely possibility. As aforementioned, strike actions in the U.S. are still at a relative low in our history, and there has been no indication within any of the major unions that this will be changing in the near future. Nearly every union has contracts with a “no strike” clause that prohibits going on strike until the contract expires. Even under Trump with the courts and National Labor Relations Board being disarmed as weapons of the labor movement, unions are still stuck in these legal-based strategies and unwilling to engage in strikes. Union density continues to decrease (11.1% in 2024) despite being at newfound highs of popular support according to polling. Lastly, the COVID pandemic unfortunately threw a wrench in the momentum that labor had following the strike waves in 2018 and 2019, with 2020 having the least amount of strikes of any period in U.S. history since the information first started being tracked.

All of these factors weigh against May 1, 2028 becoming a real general strike. Despite whatever their public statements may sound like, the labor leaders involved with organizing the effort are well aware of this. The point of the proposed May 1, 2028 action is to show the working class the power of their collective action and union collaboration, so that in the future if those workers face the decision of whether to go on strike, they will understand the potential benefits as well as the risks.  May 1, 2028 may not be the general strike its organizers hope it to be, but it is part of the process of building toward one, and that is why socialists should absolutely engage with the effort and take hope from it. But even this campaign, with the lofty aim of a general strike, still boils down to the basic work Chicago DSA and the organization nationwide is doing through the rank and file strategy – in the simple words of the UAW, “organize, organize, organize.”

If and when a general strike one day brings revolutionary socialist change to this country, it is impossible to say who will be the faces of that moment or the leaders whose names will be captured in the history books. No one can show you the path to capture that glory. But what DSA can do, through our understanding of the history of the general strike and of the current conditions of the U.S. political economy, is give you a strategic framework through which you can organize your workplace and get it ready for the beautiful day when we will cast off our chains and step bravely forward into a socialist future.

The post Building the General Strike appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Organizing large workplaces can seem daunting. It's crucial to find co-workers to connect with and analyze the power in your workplace together.

The post Sources of power in your workplace appeared first on EWOC.

By: Jo Coutts

It is hard to imagine the future. When I was a young hip hop head in Washington DC in the early 1990s it was inconceivable that icons Ice Cube, LL Cool J, and Ice T would join the police propaganda machine playing cops in mainstream movies and TV shows. What would Biggie think?

S. Trotter seems to ask this question in their piece Rappers Die Every Day B in Swords into Plowshares’ current exhibit Detroit 2050: A Future Beyond Billionaires. Like Trotter, most of the artists in the show focus on the present and the past rather than that oh so hard to imagine future.

In the present, Mike Williams looks at billionaires’ appropriation of our neighborhoods, children, and very lives from the perspective of Greek and Roman sacrifice. His painting, One Hundred White Bulls, depicts “a symbolic herd of sacrifice” to remind us that we are the resources sacrificed to capitalist greed.

Next to Williams’ piece, Andrea Cardinal’s 26 Billion Dollars visualizes that greed by screen-printing Dan Gilbert’s estimated $26 billion net worth. The billion-dollar notes are a stark reminder that our sacrifices lead to unimaginable amounts of money for the rich.

Looking back to the past, Melanie Bruton’s When Memories Fade depicts a rain-swept fresh produce stand and asks us to consider what it feels like to lose your community. How does it feel when places that brought life feel ghostly? The piece brings to my mind the iconic drawing of “the shooter” by an unknown to me artist on Dequindre Cut. Created when the Cut was a hub of community creativity, today, The Shooter lives in a ghostly emptiness of iron railings, shipping container pop-ups, and surveillance cameras. If you close your eyes on the Cut, you can just about imagine the community of artists with spray cans, people hanging out drinking beer out of brown paper bags, music, relationships growing and failing, and conversations that never end. But the memories are fading as the denizens of the Cut have been moved out to make way for developers building condos funded by our tax dollars through tax increment financing (TIF).

Tax Increment Financing is a way that government “economic development” departments like the Downtown Development Authority and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation “capture” our taxes and redirect them to private businesses without our knowledge or oversight. TIF is not the same as tax abatements. Tax abatements, which developers also receive, are a direct reduction in taxes for a certain period. Tax captures actually take our property taxes and give them to developers to use to pay for their projects.

Dan Gilbert has received more than $618 million through TIF. Ian Matchett’s portrait of Gilbert as an empty suit ready to dump all we hold dear into a trash can counters the prevailing official narrative of Gilbert as a philanthropic billionaire who has brought Detroit back from the trash heap.

And it is so hard to counter this narrative. In the face of the overwhelming propaganda by the City, the media, and even in some cases Detroiters like ourselves, we have to remember that none of the so-called Detroit revival is for our benefit. Gilbert’s theft of the taxes we pay to the City has gone to develop Library Street — when we approved the millage to fund libraries. It has gone to build a glass skyscraper where the Hudson’s building used to be — when we continually ask the City Council to increase the funds for home repairs. It has been used to develop $1,755 a month studio apartments in the Book Tower while we plead for water affordability.

A Future Beyond Billionaires is more than libraries, home repairs, and water affordability. Arthur Rushin III asks us to look for What Lies Yonder? to contemplate whether freedom is in the stars. Not just the stars in the heavens but also the stars in our hearts, our minds, and our souls.

Detroit 2050: A Future Beyond Billionaires is at Swords Into Plowshares Peace Center and Art Gallery, 33 E. Adams Street until December 20, 2025.

Gallery hours Fridays and Saturdays 1 to 6 p.m.

Political Discussion Thursday, December 11 at 6 p.m.

Artist Talk Friday, December 19 at 6 p.m.

Free Parking in the lot behind the gallery. Let the parking attendant know you are visiting the Gallery.

Jo Coutts is a member of Metro Detroit DSA.

---

Detroit 2050: A Future Beyond Billionaires was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Author: Mike B

A multigenerational, intersectional hub for Palestine organizing in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio.

Vision
A free Palestine as part of a liberated world.

Mission
Mobilize and organize the greater Cleveland community to elevate the visibility of Palestine and put material and political pressure on the occupation.

Save The Dates

• PSL Rally – W 25th Market Square, Saturday 3pm. In response to the US’s threat to invade Venezuela, we’re having a rally at Market Square.
• Dec 8th – Game Night at Algebra Tea House. $10 suggested donation going to Ivy’s legal fees.
• Dec 9th – We’re showing PYM’s webinar on US Imperialism in the Middle East and having a discussion afterwards. This, and the next event are great if you are interested but can’t commit to weekly meetings.
• Dec 16th – Starting at 6:30 whole group will meet to reflect on petal work for the year and set goals for the first meeting in January.
• Potluck for second half of the meeting. As a social, this is a great time to meet the larger coalition.

OFF DEC 23 & DEC 30
First meeting back will be Jan 6th

The post Cleveland Palestine Advocacy Calendar: 12/6-12/16 appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

By: Mike Kinnunen

Finland. Land of saunas. Happiest place on earth. One of the homes of Nordic Socialism.

Being half-Finnish from my father’s side, I’ve always wanted to visit Finland, and have been a bit jealous of my relatives fortunate enough to do so. I’ve got one benefit going for me, however, that my relatives don’t: I’m a member of DSA, and I’m curious to see how Finland’s brand of “Nordic socialism” works for their people.

As I started plotting out my places to visit in Helsinki this fall, I realized I was staying near the Socialist Democratic Party (SDP) national headquarters. The SDP is the largest party in Finland by membership, and is a driving force behind what is often called “Nordic socialism” and something all the nations of Northern Europe are famous for: Although they have not exactly dismantled Capitalism, they generally have a much stronger social safety net than countries like the United States, and have enacted many policies that socialists here would want to see. (Some of us may debate whether they are truly “Socialist,” but that debate is outside the scope of this article.)

I also came across a restaurant, Juttutupa, that was one of the oldest restaurants in Helsinki and was also a Socialist club. Lenin used to frequent Juttutupa before his return to the Soviet Union and it was right across the street from the SDP offices.

RIGHT-WING GOVERNMENT

Politically speaking, Finland is going through some struggles. The government since April 2023 is led by a right-wing coalition headed by the National Coalition Party, with Petteri Orpo serving as Prime Minister. Besides the National Coalition Party, this coalition consists of the Finns Party, the Swedish People’s Party of Finland, and the Christian Democrats.

Since coming into power the National Coalition Party has been trying to weaken labor unions with, for example, fining unions for organizing strikes deemed “illegal” as well as deregulating bargaining to make it easier to deviate from sectoral agreements. They also are attacking social programs for youth and the elderly with budget cuts. Finland is experiencing high unemployment, high inflation, and domestic slowdowns in industries such as construction. They also have an aging population, which affects the workforce. In conversations with everyday citizens, they are starting to see impact from the U.S. tariffs, resulting in more slowdown due to added inflation. The ultra-right-wing Finns Party has seen membership steeply decline since 2017 which saw an anti-immigration faction assume leadership, while conversely the SDP has become the largest political party in Finland.

Even through these tough economic times, the Finnish people seem very happy overall. In my conversations I found that people, regardless of party, have their main priority rooted in happiness and security for their fellow citizens, not just themselves. This was a theme that held true in my observations and experiences over eight days there.

Further, I found that Finland was much more diverse than I expected. They have a pretty robust population of Afghani immigrants, not to mention sizable Asian and Black populations. My first cab driver, Juma, had been in Finland with his family for about 15 years and was from Afghanistan. Upon hearing my accent, he said, “Oh, you’re American? You guys have a lot of problems.” We proceeded to talk about Trump and how the effect of right-wing American politics has spread globally.

COFFEE LOVERS

I like to pick a coffee shop when traveling and make it a “home base,” where I can do a once-over of my daily itinerary before I head out as well as getting some local flavors both literally and figuratively. The coffee shop I frequented was Afghani-owned and the staff was quite friendly. Finns drink more coffee per person than any other nation in the world. I had the luxury of four coffee shops within a two-minute walk from my Airbnb, not to mention thrift stores, record stores, bars, restaurants, and an optometrist! The neighborhood square also had built-in chess boards, pingpong tables, and a mini half-pipe, all for public use. Daily, the square was filled with people of all ages, from break dancers to lovers on a date, to dog walkers (lots of dog walkers!).

Monday, September 29 was the day I picked to make my visit to the SDP and to Juttutupa. I had a Metro Detroit DSA “solidarity pack” filled with buttons, flyers, and stickers to give them, and I was quite excited to ask them questions about their brand of socialism, what works (or may not) work for them.

The SDP office is in a pretty modern-looking office building, a part of the top floor. The main doors to the elevators and offices were locked, but an office worker from another company let me in the locked security door. My years of being a salesperson paid off, I guess. I must have looked professional!

I told the Office Manager, Malin, that I was with the Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America and I was there to drop off some “solidarity swag.” Once she knew my intentions she instantly opened up. (One big misconception is that the Finnish people aren’t friendly. They are. They’re just stoic. Huge difference).

Malin told me the last American visitor they had at their offices was Elizabeth Warren, a couple of years ago. Yes, they knew she wasn’t a socialist, but it was nice that she’s progressive enough to want change and respects the work the SDP and other organizations in Finland are doing.

The SDP fears that all the attacks the National Coalition Party is doing to labor and to social programs may take several election cycles to fix, even if the SDP wins the next election. A big takeaway I got is that the far right has lost momentum, and that the SDP has grown at the same time. However, the main reason the SDP has grown is by creating their mass movement through coalition, and then has recruited members through those coalitions. Then, they begin to educate their new members to their platforms after they’re in the door.

This definitely seems like a clear and logical approach that we — DSA — can use to create our own mass movement and increase our membership quickly. In my opinion, we cannot barrage our new members with various positions on socialist theory or positions on various hard-line stances immediately. I brought a potential new member to one of our chapter meetings in April, and sadly she won’t be back. She told me that she got stuck in the middle of an in-depth ideological discussion in one of the breakout groups. That was her first exposure to DSA. Maybe we weren’t going to be her cup of tea ultimately anyway, but a softer approach when someone enters our “big tent” may help us in the long run in gaining and retaining new members.

Conversely, the SDP is not joining other left coalition groups in protesting. The SDP is quite cognizant of their position as a leading party in the country and they do not want to lose favor with the general population or undecided voters. To that end, they seem to avoid association with groups that may be seen as “extreme” by the general population. Of course, DSA may be the type of group that might be shunned by the SDP in this way. But maybe for them it is a successful tactic, and has brought about many Socialist-inspired policies and made them more palatable to the general population.

And of course more radical influences are prominent and very visible in Finland as well. In fact, the day after the Global Sumud Flotilla was intercepted by Israeli forces, I happened upon a pro-Palestine protest that was formed by the group Rhythms of Resistance, which has a presence in many of the major cities in Western Europe.

The SDP is very excited and curious about the electricity Zohran Mamdani is bringing to our movement and to American politics in general, and hopefully more further left candidates and DSA members in particular can start replacing the liberal corporatists and centrists that seem to run the Democratic platforms in America. Malin was aware of the work Rashida Tlaib and AOC are doing, and I think Malin saw my grin get bigger as she mentioned our local comrade Rashida.

At that point, SDP National Chairman Antti Lindtman walked past, gave a kind nod, and walked into a meeting he was late for. Yes, Malin assured me that she would be giving him a MDDSA button!

Malin escorted me to “the wall” for a picture, which was a rose mural of the SDP logo. (When we get our own chapter office, we definitely need a wall mural of our chapter logo, for fun and inspiring photo ops!) She then gave me some SDP swag, and I was on my way.

I proceeded to Juttutupa for a traditional Finnish buffet. Even though it’s a known Socialist club, there were no Socialist activities displayed on their calendar, and their dance poster sadly was not a Dance Against Fascism.

NORDIC SOCIALISM?

Finland was indeed a magical place, and I intend on going back one day, especially in summer when there’s 20 hours of sunlight. However, the last topic of my discussion with Malin stuck with me: Why do socialist ideas seem to perform better in the Nordic nations? Scandinavians in general are joiners and organizers. For them, it really boils down to trust. They trust in their neighbors, in their government, and in their social programs. They trust that in the end they will be happier people, and they won’t let others’ views get in the way of that quest for happiness. Rashida said during her DSA convention speech this summer that “trust is built on human connection.”

That is what makes so much of American politics and life in the current climate pretty disheartening. That lack of trust. That lack of human connection. In my neighborhood, I see a house with a MAGA flag, and their next door neighbor has a Pride flag. Do you think that those neighbors trust each other? Do those neighbors have any sort of human connection with one another? How do we get back to trusting in our neighbors, our institutions, and our government?

I think it starts with us. It starts with empathy for our neighbors, and showing others that things don’t have to be the way they are. We are a new way forward, and a new path in re-establishing that trust in our life fabric. The more people we bring into our mass movement, the more of that life fabric we can create. It starts with us, and it starts with trust.

---

Social Democracy in Finland: Lessons for the Left? was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.