Iran is under savage imperialist military and economic onslaught against its people and soil. At this existential moment, we must stand unequivocally with the Iranian people and against their aggressors. At the same time, we must not forget that standing with the Iranian people requires an ongoing defense of their democratic rights. Serious deficiencies in addressing both of these urgent tasks are apparent in Western leftist currents.

At the moment, there is no anti-war movement similar to the 2003 opposition to the war on Iraq, when the left mobilized millions of people around the world to say no to the U.S.-led invasion. At the same time, a minority but vocal segment of the Western left that correctly prioritizes anti-imperialism as its primary strategy, displays a lack of creative internationalism in dealing with Iran. This view, particularly espoused by the so-called Campists, seems disinterested in the sacrifices of Iranian protesters–who are literally being killed when they stand up for freedom and economic justice–by either avoiding any criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), or sometimes exalting it. ¹ Conversely, much of the Iranian left in the diaspora, while aware of the imperial designs on Iran, has suffered from its own lack of creativity in delivering a cohesive and compelling internationalist vision–of simultaneous resistance to autocracy and colonialism–especially to the Iranian people.  A significant part of this Iranian left, at this vital moment, insists on equal condemnation of the IRI and the aggressors, and as such, in practice, remains in the gray zone. This group, consisting of different Marxist and republican (see below) tendencies, rejects those voices on the left—some with similar views as Campists—that side with the IRI’s resistance to U.S. imperialism, as resistance leftists. From fundamentalist perspectives, both views—articulated by the Campists and proponents of equal criticism—may be plausible. However, we must act both strategically and with the sense of urgency that this moment demands. This article will argue that in the face of naked and highly destructive aggression on Iran, opposition to imperialism, especially in the U.S., must take the highest priority for the left: we must oppose this aggression–unequivocally and vociferously. On the other hand, this opposition must not descend into blind support for the Iranian state. Assuming that Iran and the IRI will survive this insane war, most observers believe that if anything, the state will become more repressive domestically. Therefore, even now, the left must strengthen its support of Iranians struggling for democracy and social justice.

The IRI presides over a capitalist, rentier economy–in which the majority of the national income results from the extraction of oil and not productive activity–while refusing to play the role of a U.S. surrogate. It supports resistance to Israeli colonialism in the Middle East, but only within the confines of its own theocratic ideology. Yet the IRI’s domestic repression—executions, imprisonment of dissidents, suppression of labor organizations, patriarchal policies, and its brutal “war on drugs”—has countered the Iranian aspirations for justice and democracy for decades. To confront these seemingly contradictory challenges facing Iran, the left needs to articulate a stance that is unequivocally pro–social justice, democratic rights, and human rights, while being loudly against all foreign machinations and interventions in Iran, whether military or economic. Developing this stance will require building more bridges between Western and Iranian progressives. It also requires a deeper participation of the latter in all internationalist causes.  Our collective position must embrace an expansive solidarity sensitive to the reality of Iran’s political sociology, with the welfare of its people at the center of our vision for change.

Promises Betrayed

Before the 1979 revolution, the left’s position on Iran was straightforward: oppose the Pahlavi dynasty and its imperialist patrons. The Shah, acting as Washington’s regional proxy, lacked legitimacy: with an Americanized military, he helped create a regional tableau reflecting the Washington (and London) hegemony, e.g., by arming the Iraqi Kurds against an Iraqi Arab-nationalist regime, by direct military intervention to suppress the Dhofar uprising in Oman, and furthermore, as a buffer against any southward projection of power by the U.S.S.R. Inside Iran, much of the opposition sought independence from foreign interference, freedom, and economic justice. Yet in the absence of democracy—and with the growing influence of clerical Islam—debates about Iran’s post-Shah order were suppressed.

Ayatollah Khomeini, a dissident while living in Iran and later in exile, commanded widespread respect. As the anti-Shah movement gained momentum in 1978, he consolidated leadership and guided the revolution. From exile in France, he assured Iranians and the world that he did not intend to rule, promising economic justice and political freedom in a post-Pahlavi Iran. The revolution was celebrated domestically and abroad, including by leading advocates of human rights and social justice. Western governments, fearing Iran’s drift toward the Soviet bloc, soon abandoned the Shah and accepted the rise of an Islamic regime hostile to communism.

The post-revolutionary reality diverged sharply from Khomeini’s promises. After a brief period of openness, it became clear that Khomeini and his inner circle envisioned a theocratic state, with ambitions to export their model across the Muslim world. Within two years, they orchestrated systematic assaults on free speech, shuttered independent newspapers, banned many political organizations that had helped topple the Shah, imposed severe restrictions on women, and launched military campaigns against pro-autonomy regions such as the Turkmen northeast and Kurdistan in the west. By June 1981, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr—the liberal-minded first elected president of the IRI and once a strategist for Khomeini—was ousted and forced into exile. Much of the opposition now recognized that the revolution had been betrayed.

The left’s response was fractured. A significant segment, influenced by pro-Soviet leanings and seduced by Khomeini’s anti-American rhetoric (primarily the Tudeh Party and the majority faction of the Fedayeen People’s Guerrilla Organization), continued to support the regime. Other smaller leftist groups (primarily the minority faction of the Fedayeens), along with Islamic-leaning progressives (Mujahedeen Khalgh) and moderate liberal-democrats (e.g., the National Front), formed an incongruent opposition. The U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iraq’s invasion (encouraged by Washington), and the ensuing eight-year war further complicated matters, fueling nationalism among Iranians.

The Anti-Imperialist facade

The revolution’s anti-imperialist veneer rested on two pillars:

• Socio-cultural: purging decades of Western influence and imposing strict Islamic traditions.
• Geopolitical: rejecting the West’s interference in the Middle East–The U.S. in particular–especially its unrestrained support of Zionism.

The Socio-cultural Pillar

A large faction of the Shia hierarchy had always been a force against progress.  For example, while a few notable senior clergy supported Iran’s 1905-1911 European-inspired Constitutional Revolution, others, most importantly Ayatollah Nouri, were steadfastly against it; instead, they demanded a religiously based (Shia sharia) alternative to the then absolutist monarchy. During the 1951–1953 National Movement, led by the democratically appointed Mossadegh government, the leading Ayatollah Kashani collaborated with the CIA to defeat it.  Then, in 1963, a younger Ayatollah Khomeini rose in opposition to the Shah’s reforms–encouraged by President Kennedy–and was consequently arrested and sent into exile.  Common to all this clerical resistance was its opposition to modernity, meaning all secular and democratic reforms–women’s right to vote and land reform, among others.  

The Geopolitical Façade: A Country under External Aggression

In the decades before the 1979 Revolution, the imbricated relationship between imperialism and modernity fueled anti-Westernism among conservative religious factions, first mobilized by the clerical hierarchy and later articulated by intellectuals such as Ali Shariati. The Shah’s autocratic rule helped legitimize the reactionary nature of Khomeini and his movement in two ways: a- it made it impossibly difficult to gain direct access to pertinent information and to conduct open debates, and b- the distrust of the monarchy made almost any opposition to it appealing. Thus, a lack of rigorous challenge to the clerical leadership by civil society played a vital role in the failure of the 1979 revolution in replacing authoritarianism with democracy.

Iran’s post-revolutionary foreign policy quickly became marked by a veneer of anti-imperialism through anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans. Its rejectionist posture toward the U.S. regional interests and Israeli apartheid, is simultaneously authentic and disingenuous.

The authenticity stems from widespread resentment among Iranians toward decades of Western interference in their affairs, most notably the CIA-staged 1953 coup that, in response to the successful nationalization of Iran’s oil industry, overthrew the popular Mossadegh government, as well as the U.S. support for Iraq’s war against Iran soon after the 1979 revolution; add to this a genuine distaste for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. Despite its many negative qualities, the IRI is not a U.S.-surrogate.  This is in contrast to the Persian Gulf emirates, for example, whose economic and foreign policies–resource management (especially petroleum and the reinvestment of petro-dollars), their relationship to Israel versus Palestine, and military strategy–are almost entirely aligned with U.S. interests. This fact, along with the IRI rejectionist rhetoric, and its overt support for regional para-state actors such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Hamas in Palestine, unsettles the U.S. policymakers and its regional client states. Yet since the inception of the IRI, this perceived threat has been paradoxically useful to the U.S. corporate economy: it has justified the purchase of advanced U.S.-made weapon systems by Iran’s oil-rich neighbors.

But the IRI’s combative foreign posture has also been self-serving. Domestically, it has fostered national pride among its loyal supporters; regionally, it has sought to extend its hegemony by positioning itself as the champion of Islamic aspirations and Palestinian rights. The inauthenticity of this posture is evident to many Iranians, including its politically conscious left, who see the regime’s external rhetoric at odds with its brutal suppression of domestic rights and minority aspirations. Also, at the popular level, the same inauthenticity, amplified by Israeli propaganda, has caused a sense of resentment against Palestine and Lebanon among some Iranians – those who are led to believe that their economic hardship is in part due to the IRI’s foreign projects.   The IRI’s support for Palestine is narrowly ideological, limited to its fundamentalist factions such as Hamas. Even before Yasser Arafat’s death, the IRI had adopted a hostile stance toward the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The “Resistance Front”

The regime’s revolutionary posture led to the creation and sponsorship of a so-called resistance front—encompassing Palestine to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—intended to expand Iran’s regional influence and to serve as a line of defense against U.S. or Israeli aggression. This strategy was tested during Israel’s 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza, and in its attacks on Lebanon and on Iran itself. The resistance quickly lost much of its military capability, with a heavy toll on the ordinary people of those countries, leaving the strategy relatively ineffective.

In addition to the above, Iran’s material support for Russia’s war on Ukraine, its strategic alignment with Russia and China, and its increasing prominence in the BRICS economic block, at least until now, are serious irritants to U.S. hegemony and economic strategy.

The Rule of theocratic authoritarians

The clerical system of government in Iran is profoundly patriarchal. Its regressive vision of society stands in stark opposition to modernity and secularism. While the regime recognizes the necessity of modern technology and the physical sciences for its survival—particularly in military, defense, and manufacturing domains—it holds a deeply dismissive view of modern social sciences, prevailing concepts of human rights, feminism, ethnic or national autonomy, individual freedoms, and democracy.

Despite a procedural façade of representative democracy, Iran is governed by the constitutionally mandated Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist)—an unelected Supreme Leader appointed for life, without popular oversight, and supported by the all-powerful Revolutionary Guards–the primary military force in Iran, and a financial and industrial conglomerate in its own right. And now, the selection of the assassinated Ayatollah Khamenei’s son to succeed him as the country’s supreme leader, has explicitly violated a fundamental premise of the revolution: its rejection of hereditary transfer of power. Candidates for the comparatively weaker presidency or the parliament (Majlis) are vetted through constitutional requirements that discriminate against women and religious minorities, and through arbitrary decisions by the Council of Guardians—a body submissive to the Supreme Leader—also against ethnic minorities.

Human rights violations are systemic. Women, religious minorities (especially the Baha’is), and ethnic nationalities such as Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs face persistent discrimination and suppression. Genuine opposition media are nonexistent, reformist media are frequently attacked, and free speech is curtailed. Iran ranks among the world’s leading states in the number of executions, carried out for both political reasons and ordinary crimes such as drug trafficking or murder. The Special Rapporteur for the Situation of Human Rights in Iran reports 1,639 executions in 2025. Such violations intensify during existential crises, including the aftermath of the 2025 Israeli and American aggression against Iran. It is not unreasonable to assume that after this ongoing war on Iran, a weakened ruling establishment could resort to even more draconian measures of internal repression, including executions, which are multiplying even now, as hostilities continue. 

Economic Mismanagement

Although the crippling U.S.-imposed sanctions on the Iranian people have been a key contributor to economic decline, the regime’s own mismanagement bears significant responsibility. Monopoly control of key industries, illicit financial practices facilitated by so-called trustees who are tasked with circumventing US sanctions while personally benefiting from it, and corruption have caused entrenched social and economic disparities. Transparency International ranked Iran 150th out of 177 countries in 2024, with a corruption score of 23/100.

Development & Decline

While the assassinated Supreme Leader professed an austere lifestyle, politically-connected elites and their families enjoy luxury and excess, sometimes sparking public scandal. In stark contrast, the dwindling middle class and ordinary workers—including industrial laborers, teachers, nurses, government employees, and retirees—face severe economic hardship. According to IRANWIRE, the Iranian Parliament’s Research Center report suggests that 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, though this is likely an underestimation given inflation rates exceeding 42% in 2024. These conditions have fueled widespread protests, strikes, and civil actions, many of which have been brutally suppressed.

Iran’s vast natural and human resources have enabled progress in illiteracy reduction, infrastructure development, and domestic technological capacity. Yet chronic mismanagement has produced existential challenges: water scarcity exacerbated by climate change, water overuse due to poor agricultural policies and outdated irrigation techniques, energy shortages, pollution, and a massive flight of human capital abroad.

In the end, the IRI has failed to fulfill its revolutionary promise to serve the interests of the middle class, working people, and the poor. Inflation, corruption, sanctions, and political repression, and a misdirected foreign policy have brought a resource-rich nation to the brink of systemic failure.

Nuclear Policy

Another policy with profound foreign implications has been Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has a legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear technology, and it has successfully built domestic expertise in enrichment. Whether this program serves dual purposes—energy generation and possible weaponization—is debatable, and is possibly a point of contention within Iran’s own political and military establishment. Tehran has consistently declared opposition to nuclear weapons on religious grounds. This assertion is also supported by reports from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency that the enriched uranium does not exceed 60% in U-235, i.e., below its 90% weapon grade requirement. Moreover, multiple statements, most recently from Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard), indicate that Iran was not in the process of developing nuclear weapons.  However, after the second U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran in less than a year, the IRI must and most likely will reexamine this decision.  This is especially important as the possibility of a nuclear attack against Iran is now openly discussed in the media.

Until the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran had abided by its commitments. The Iranian government even continued to allow inspections by the IAEA afterward, yet it also accelerated enrichment, possibly as leverage in negotiations. At the same time, the U.S. and Israel collaboratively reinstated severe sanctions, assassinated Iranian scientists, and engaged in military aggression—actions that disregarded international law and Iran’s sovereignty. Regardless of legal arguments, the IRI’s nuclear policy has inflicted economic damage and human suffering on its people. Economic sanctions have prevented foreign investment and technical upgrades in the oil industry and other manufacturing sectors, reduced the GDP as Iran is forced to sell its oil below market price, and misdirected precious resources toward the economically nonproductive nuclear enrichment and missile programs.

Foreign Aggression

Despite its support for allies in Palestine, Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthis of Yemen, Iran has never initiated aggression against its regional neighbors or the United States.  As the 1953 coup against the independent-minded yet U.S.-friendly Dr. Mossadegh demonstrates, merely acting in the interest of one’s own nation can attract the hostile reaction of the empire. Thus, acts of sabotage, armed aggression, and economic warfare directed against Iran in the past 45 years have harmed not only its government but most importantly its people, deepening their suffering and often their resentment against the state.

The combination of Iran’s sovereign nuclear and foreign policies, legitimate alignments, and regional instigations, has motivated U.S.-Israeli past aggression and the current cowardly attack on Iran.  In both instances, the attacks began while negotiations between Iran and the U.S. were underway. In spite of Iran’s highly accommodating approach in these negotiations (as reported by the foreign minister of Oman and senior U.K. security advisor present at the talks), Trump and Netanyahu began a unilateral attack on Iran with no legal or legitimate justification. The waning fantasy that decapitation would lead to a change in government continues, despite its evident failure. Vast economic and human damage has been inflicted on Iran. This includes significant damage to its military and economic infrastructure, residential areas, hospitals, and schools, as well as environmental degradation, and according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, the loss of more than 1400 civilian lives at the time of this writing, including about 200 children and an unknown number of military personnel.  In spite of all this, Iran has resisted and has inflicted significant economic pain not only on the aggressors and their proxies, but the entire world. There is ample evidence of the adverse impact of the aggression on the world economy, including its increasing harm to the working and middle-class Americans who are already feeling the economic impact of the war.  At least 13 U.S. servicemen have died as a result of the aggression, and many injured. The war is increasingly unpopular in the U.S., but Washington–Trump in particular–refuses to heed the popular sentiment.

Resistance to Military Aggression

The decades-long anti-democratic policies of the regime, along with the crippling U.S.-imposed economic sanctions, have led to a fragmented society. There are diverging views (see below) among groups consisting of the ardent supporters of the regime, the independence-minded and democratic internal opposition, the opposition among the ethnic or national minorities, and those who wish the overthrow of the regime at any cost. Therefore, I must note that to speak of a single view among the Iranian people is imprecise, even now! However, Trump’s reversion to “gunboat diplomacy” does not go unopposed. The Guardian and the BBC, as well as other independent media, report that the Iranian people are increasingly coalescing against the U.S.-Israeli aggression. 

The regime’s roots are in Iran–it is not a client state. This, and the development of a large military force and deterrence arsenal, consisting of ballistic missiles and drones, has allowed Iran to put up a resistance to the most fearsome military assault on its soil and its people; this was unanticipated by Trump. Another well-known risk—dismissed by Washington’s hubris—was Iran’s strategic command of the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf’s gateway to the Indian Ocean through which roughly 20% of global oil exports flow. Iran’s effective closure of the Strait, only allowing selective passage, has constricted supply, driving up prices for every end user. The refusal of the European states—usually submissive to U.S. military adventures—to overtly take part in this aggression, is a clear indication that Iran’s military resistance has been substantially effective. None of this, however, reduces the immense suffering and danger that this aggression continues to impose on the country.

A continuing popular resistance

The IRI depends on a homegrown ideological system in which religion remains a central element of culture. Historically, many clerics are rooted in the lower strata of the society; they run neighborhood mosques across cities, towns, and rural areas; they are adept at speaking the language of their followers, and provide basic social support, thereby sustaining loyalty. The early populist beliefs and messages of the IRI’s founder are still repeated and resonate with many who hold conservative religious outlooks. Moreover, the very significant role of the government in providing jobs, attracts many believers as well as opportunists to the regime’s security apparatus.

Yet the regime’s authoritarian nature and repeated failures have generated a broad spectrum of opposition. Resistance to theocratic rule, and its violent backlash, began soon after the revolution and, despite pauses, it has never ceased. Forces of modernity, exposure to the outside world, economic collapse, and nostalgia for the past continue to fuel opposition both inside Iran and among the diaspora. For now, war has consolidated popular support for defending the country. However, this may not last, and certainly after any cessation of hostilities, existing grievances will resurface.

Internal Resistance

Domestically, acts of defiance have taken forms, both organized and spontaneous. Notable examples include:

• The 1979 International Women’s Day marches across Iran to protest the new laws discriminating against women’s rights.
• The June 1980 massive action against the internal coup aimed at Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadre, and the brutal backlash against the progressive opposition ranging from communists to Islamic Socialist to liberal nationalists. The exact number of prisoners executed without open trials, between 1980 to the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, consisting mainly of those from the ranks of previous revolutionaries, is unknown, but is certainly in the many thousands.
• The 1999 student uprising in response to the closure of a reformist newspaper.
• The 2009 “Green Movement.” Mir-Hussain Moussavi, a former prime minister, and Mehdi Karoubi, a cleric and former speaker of the parliament, both presidential candidates, led days of demonstrations, with as many as 2 million protesters early on, to protest the results of a rigged presidential election. These protests were eventually suppressed violently by the regime.
• The 2017–2018 protests against inflation and economic shortages.
• The 2019 nationwide demonstrations against sudden fuel price hikes.
• The 2022–2023 “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman detained for violating the mandatory dress code. This uprising, due to its broad national presence, and strong leadership by women, took on an international character inspiring major support not only within Iran, but also externally. In her Z Article Frieda Afary, points out: “The most important achievement [of progressives in Iran] has been the 2022 Woman, Life Freedom Movement which raised explicit emancipatory demands involving women, labor, education and the rights of oppressed minorities.”
• The December 2025 – January 2026 revolt started with a Bazar strike to protest against the out-of-control price inflation and the devaluation of the Iranian currency, the Rial. It rapidly gained momentum and spread to numerous small and large cities. The uprising began in response to legitimate economic hardships. However, it is likely that Israeli and American interference worked to influence the authentic demonstrations, which quickly turned violent; in fact, the former U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo gleefully suggested the presence of Mossad agents at the demonstrations. The call for taking part in the street demonstration by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, along with his promise of U.S. support, was heeded by many, adding to the regime’s nervousness and its brutal backlash. In part, by closing down the internet, the government managed to suppress the rebellion violently, killing protesters in their thousands, and injuring and imprisoning thousands more.

Even before these recent nationwide protests, smaller street actions and strikes had persisted—organized by retirees, teachers, nurses, and other workers. Sit-ins, hunger strikes, and demonstrations against political arrests and executions continued, often led by prominent activists, many from within prisons. The regime’s typical response is often violent, deploying paramilitary Basij forces, plainclothes agents, and the Revolutionary Guards. In some cases, however, concessions did follow: fuel prices were reduced after mass protests. And women’s particularly courageous resistance, culminating in the “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising, when hundreds of young demonstrators lost their lives, forced the regime to significantly reduce policing of women’s dress codes—a revolutionary achievement in its own right.

Regime Change by Whom?

Under dictatorial rule, it is difficult to gauge whether all dissatisfied citizens hope for regime change; a question even more difficult to answer under the wartime conditions. Yet spontaneous uprisings before the current aggression were increasingly radicalized, demanding the overthrow of the regime. These movements had often lacked organized leadership, though underground cells emerged during the 2023–2024 protests, and there is reason to believe that external actors, including the Israeli-supported royalists might have had an agitating role in this year’s street actions–the rise in the popularity of Reza Pahlavi seems to have contributed to an appreciable increase in the numbers of protesters. Since the onset of the revolution, dissidents inside Iran have spoken out at great personal risk, with women activists particularly outspoken despite severe repression. In exile, the opposition is fragmented, while some factions are more organized.

Two broad currents of opposition can be identified:

• The Client Opposition: Two relatively unified but separate groups dominate: the Pahlavi-royalists and the Mujahedeen Khalq Organization (MKO)–a formerly left-leaning Islamic guerrilla group, with current cult-like behavior. Despite rhetorical commitments to democracy, both insist on their own predetermined leaders for a perceived post-IRI (purportedly transitory) stage. Both seek support from U.S. elites, particularly from Republicans, and from Israel. The royalists, in particular, openly celebrate the U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, and the former Crown-Prince continues to encourage the continuation of the war to topple the regime.  Each faction has its own patrons within the most right-wing Western circles.  The MKO is supported by such figures as John Bolton and Rudy Juliani, for example, while Reza Pahlavi is Israel’s own–albeit often subpar–Manchurian Candidate. The increase in the Pahlavi popularity has been fueled by massive monetary injections (possibly by Saudi Arabia and Israel) into television, most prominently the satellite broadcaster Iran International, and a broad array of social media propaganda tools.
• The Independent Opposition: This consists of left-leaning or democratic individuals and groups who have failed to coalesce around unified programs. Many are active among the Iranian diaspora, with some having semi- or completely clandestine presence inside the country.  Also, many have their roots in the pre-Islamic revolution era in Iran–some quite prominent at that time, but not as much in the imagination of today’s Iranian masses. The left consists of disparate and relatively small groups of Marxist tendencies, while the liberal democratic groups belong to a range of secular tendencies from Mossadegh’s National Front (including both secular- and religious-nationalist), to the proponents of a federal republican system of government, e.g., as demanded by regional political parties–to address ethnic and national aspirations for autonomy–most prominently in Kurdistan, but also among the Baluchis, the Arabs of Khuzestan and in Azerbaijan, some with guerrilla fighters among their ranks.

Shared demands could form the basis of a platform: social democracy, opposition to foreign intervention, abolition of capital punishment, political freedoms, and regional autonomy. Yet lingering mistrust rooted in past conflicts, sectarian tendencies (especially among the left), and an aging leadership disconnected from younger generations–less ideological, at times nostalgic for the pre-1979 era, and inclined towards a somewhat sanitized normal western life–have hindered coalition-building.  Any rising or recognized leader who advocates for transition to a democratic Iran, e.g., figures such as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi or a former prime minister and presidential candidate Mir-Hussain Moussavi, are undermined by both the regime–arrests and imprisonment–and the royalists–disruption of their events and character attacks through the social media, including accusations of collaboration with the regime. However, the Pahlavi success in his call for demonstrations early in 2026, and the royalist initiative to offer a platform for transition, as anti-democratic as that platform is—for example, Reza Pahlavi’s absolute authority to choose the members of the transition government, his advisors, and the timing of various proposed referenda—has motivated more serious initiatives within the left, but especially among the democratic opposition currents to form alliances. This is promising. Particular examples include the coalition of six Kurdish groups, and a new congress consisting of various republican-minded opposition formations based outside Iran, which consist of regional parties, social democrats, as well as liberal entities, reportedly formed in support of a still-undisclosed list of an internal leadership council.

From outside the country—and even for observers within—it remains unclear how influential these groups are among Iranians. There is significant grassroots support for democratization, modernity, and economic justice.  Courageous activists inside Iran openly call for change at great risk to their own freedom.  The government has never allowed the formation of active opposition parties inside Iran, nor a free civil society, including independent trade unions.  In this vacuum, there is evidence that the right-wing factions, namely the royalists, have gained support. However, their past record, and now their outright support of foreign aggression, limits their popular appeal, or potentially will reverse it if the war ends without a regime collapse.

Where To go from here?

It is indeed possible for a government to be simultaneously anti-imperialist and repressive against its own people. Foremost, especially at this moment, there must be unequivocal and nonstop opposition, and as much as possible tangible resistance to U.S.-Israeli aggression whether military or economic. All anti-war and anti-imperialist activists, in spite of any ideological difference–importantly this includes the Iranian left in the diaspora–must come together to oppose this aggression.

Iran’s support for Palestine has been relatively unique on the global stage. As I have argued, the IRI’s posture toward Israel and Palestine has been both authentic and disingenuous. Combined with decades of opposition to U.S. hegemony, this duality complicates how left-leaning activists in the United States perceive the IRI.

In my conversations with many Palestinians and their allies, at first these distinctions appear as unimportant subtleties in the face of the Israeli genocide and the U.S.-Israeli imperial war on Iran. Yet for progressive internationalists committed to social justice and human rights, ambiguity is unacceptable. The Islamic regime is hostile to modernity, secularism, democracy, and social justice. While the left must continue to organize the opposition to aggression against the Iranian nation-state, its solidarity—irrespective of geopolitical considerations—must be directed only toward the Iranian people, including those individuals and organizations that champion human and democratic rights, and social justice.

This is a moment for the anti-war movement to reenergize itself. Three years of protesting the Israeli genocide–and the normalization of extreme violence televised to the world–has likely sapped the energy that surfaced in 2003 to organize the mass opposition to that American war on Iraq. Possibly as a result, to date, the opposition to the war on Iran has been an addendum to the continuing, albeit weakened rallies for Palestine. The U.S. has been the key enabler of the Israeli genocide; but now, it is the direct perpetrator of the aggression. Thus, an independent anti-war initiative can and must form. Moreover, this war, due to its geography and oil, has become an environmental and climate disaster, and if it continues, it is likely to become even more so.  Destroying water desalination plants will cause irreversible social dislocations, while the burning oil fields and storage depots, together with massive explosions and aerial transportation are causing a huge injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.² The combination of the direct U.S. role in inflicting atrocity and economic damage, and the environmental impact must be a call for alliance of the anti-war and environmental activists to unite in opposition to the U.S. war.

Therefore, especially in the U.S., the opposition to the war has to be first and foremost; this is indeed the time to reignite a broad expansive alliance to do so. However, our slogans in the condemnation of the imperialist war must not include support for the theocracy in Iran; sentiments heard regularly not only at pro-Palestine rallies—where fundamentalist Muslims and anti-imperialist communists converge—but also in smaller, more deliberative political milieus.

There is ample hypocrisy.  Western governments, with imperial ambitions, criticize governments such as Iran’s and Venezuela’s for human rights violations, Russia for her militarism, and China for its economic expansionist policies, yet they close their eyes to genocide in Palestine, abduct a President, and without provocation attack a sovereign nation both militarily and economically. The powerful, with their impatience for the niceties of human rights and social justice, can afford to be hypocrites, at least for now. But the left, whose only path to political influence lies in standing for what is right, cannot afford its own double standards.  Its credibility can only come through its consistent adherence to its principles.

Thus, our message to Trump and all war criminals must be clear: while we support the struggle of the people of Iran for freedom, we strongly condemn the aggression on its sovereignty and demand an immediate halt to all military and economic war on Iran–only Iranians can choose their own future path.  At the same time, our message to the government of Iran must also be as vivid: We stand with Iran against all aggression on the Iranian territory, but we are united with her people in their struggle for economic justice and political self-determination.

Notes:

1. PSL (Party for Socialism & Liberation) is a primary example of groups in the anti-imperialist camp.  They correctly point the finger at the U.S. administration and the mainstream media for falsifying the Iranian nuclear threat to justify the imperialist designs on Iran, while ignoring the Iranian regime’s internal brutality (see: 47 years of hybrid war against Iran, Liberation, March 24 2026, where a quote from Vijay Prashad essentially dismisses the responsibility of the Iranian government for the January killings of thousands of Iranian demonstrators).  In the rallies against the war on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, the rhetoric often extends to praises for the IRI for its resistance to imperialism and support for the Palestinian cause.
2. Democracy Now, April 1 2026, Interview with Dr. Kaveh Madani

By Chris GH

Who gets to vote in DSA?

Do you think every member should be able to vote on key decisions like leadership and campaigns?

Or should you have to meet an attendance policy to vote for the campaigns we take on and the leaders of our organization?

If we want a real chapter democracy, then we need to take questions of access and participation incredibly seriously.

NFL fans love to say “any given Sunday” to emphasize the idea that any team can beat any other team in an individual game. No matter how unpopular or disappointing, what matters is who shows up on that game day and how hard they play, regardless of how the rest of the season went.

Anyone can win the Super Bowl, even the Cleveland Browns (okay, maybe not the Browns, but the point stands).

“Any given Sunday” might be a great basis for a fun and dramatic football league, but “any given Tuesday” — the current time you have to be available to vote on political education matters — is a terrible basis for chapter democracy.

Winning socialism isn’t a game, and we should remember that even at our most divided we’re all on the same team. Our goal shouldn’t be trying to “defeat our enemies” by holding votes they can’t attend. Instead, we need a real commitment to democratic consensus and member-led political decisions in every corner of our organization. Democratic decisions need to be made by our whole membership, not just a self-selecting group of people who are able to participate regularly enough to qualify for voting rights on Tuesday evenings.

Other members of the Groundwork caucus and I wrote amendments to resolutions 4, 13 and 16 to expand our inclusive democratic voting process, which is built on the principle of One Member One Vote, to include leadership of labor and political education.

These amendments are part of our commitment to allowing every single member to have a say in how our name is used to further external organizing and our political vision.

But a significant portion of our members — including both the Bread & Roses and Marxist Unity Group caucuses, as well as the Detroit Democracy Coalition — strongly oppose the accessible and democratic process provided by One Member, One Vote.

These groups are pushing to restrict voting on political education and labor decisions to only the members who are able to attend specific meetings, some of which are exclusively in person on work days.

It’s a fact that only 10–20 members routinely find time in their busy lives and other organizing work to attend and vote at these meetings. That’s less than 2% of our chapter’s 1,300+ members.

And yet these groups want to bar anyone else from having a say in who leads our political education and labor efforts or the topics presented to you at our general meetings.

I find that alarming, and if you care about keeping our democracy accessible rather than insular, you should too.

What is One Member One Vote Anyway?

At present, all key votes in Metro Detroit DSA outside of convention happen via a system we refer to as One Member One Vote (also known as OMOV or 1M1V).

As standard practice, 1M1V allows any member to vote online usually over a 72 hour period on steering committee elections, campaign endorsements, resolutions, and other items brought by members. 1M1V makes voting accessible to every single dues-paying member of Metro Detroit DSA.

Our amendments to R4, R16 and R13 allow every member in good-standing to vote via 1M1V on:

• Which topics to debate at general meetings
• Which political education topics to cover at general meetings
• And who will serve as our next political education and labor chairs; adding onto the already existing chapter-wide elections for Electoral Chair, Member Engagement Chair and the co-chairs of the Socialists in Office Committee.

These amendments affirm our commitment to open, inclusive and accessible voting on key chapter decisions like leadership within Metro Detroit DSA.

Though we democratically voted to adopt the 1M1V system over two votes in 2024 by nearly 70%, the groups I mentioned earlier are eager to restrict voting on all topics — not just political education and labor — to those in attendance of specific meetings.

We believe that’s just plain wrong.

As Socialists, We Roundly Condemn Restricted Voting in Every Other Context

The argument against 1M1V is that if you can’t make labor or political education meetings, you’re not committed or educated enough on these topics to have a say.

But why should we completely reverse our attitudes on voting access whenever we talk about democracy within DSA?

We love mail-in and early voting because they’re huge steps forward for voting access. Conversely, imagine if voters in the United States were required to prove they had watched a presidential debate in order to vote in elections. Or if you had to prove attendance at a town hall to have a say in local politics.

We would rightly condemn it as a right-wing power grab to benefit special interests and the capitalist elite at the expense of the working class. Besides, to say that people must meet some arbitrary standard of education in order to vote is incredibly infantilizing.

Who are we to decide whether or not someone is educated or committed “enough” to vote?

We believe you don’t have to be an expert labor historian or a theoretical genius to know if you are in favor of the plan and ideas someone has for engaging the chapter and community in our politics.

Restricting Voting Access to Meetings Excludes Many of Our Most Dedicated Comrades

My own caucus, Groundwork, is one of the only caucuses in Metro Detroit DSA that has proudly supported 1M1V.

Not just for labor and political education, but for all key chapter decisions.

Many working class members are excluded from our democracy without 1M1V because they’re simply not available for a specific, narrow and rigid time slot each month or week. This includes members with incompatible work schedules, chronically ill members, those who lack reliable access to transportation or internet…the list goes on.

It’s not just a fringe group of members who would be excluded. Several chapter leaders that I know personally would be disenfranchised, including a member of our National Political Committee, which is essentially the national board of directors for DSA.

Consider parents. We don’t even offer childcare at our meetings. We should, but right now, we do not. How can we honestly call ourselves an organization by and for the working class if we intentionally and needlessly make the organization inaccessible to single parents?

Evidently, when the Detroit Democracy Coalition, Bread & Roses or the Marxist Unity Group share their strong democratic vision for the chapter, they’re not talking about a democracy for parents who can’t find childcare, baristas, grocery store and other retail workers, bartenders, and many others.

Are We Building an Organization for the Many, or the Few?

Our organization puts “Democratic” in our name because we’re committed to the idea that important decisions should be made by and for our entire membership. If we’re going to include ‘democracy’ in our name, then I think it’s time to put our money where our mouth is and extend that democracy to our chapter’s political education and labor decisions.

Political education and labor shouldn’t be democracy-free zones. I believe that decisions about our chapter’s political education and labor programs are important — and that means they’re important enough to make them democratically, and to ensure that every member gets a say.

Here in Groundwork, we believe that winning socialism requires building an organization of millions of everyday people. And the only way to do that is to meet people where they are. That means making the work as accessible, understandable, and tangible to as many people as possible.

It means not requiring a reading list, a poll test, or any other sort of “filter” to determine whether someone is the right type of member to vote on decisions as basic as who leads our collective project.

I urge all members to vote YES on the amendments to R4, R13 and R16.

Vote to expand our democracy, not restrict it.

The Shadower is an artistically stunning and darkly humorous graphic novel

The post The Spy Game in Comics appeared first on Democratic Left.

Members brought aid to Cuba — and returned with a new commitment to fighting U.S. imperialism.

The post DSA joins the Nuestra América convoy appeared first on Democratic Left.

[[{“value”:”

By: Mitch Gayns

This was originally published as video footage for Working Mass digital on Instagram.

LYNN – On March 21, hundreds took to the streets to defend their neighbors from ICE raids and deportations. Lynn organizers are among the most impacted– and they’ve looked to Minneapolis for inspiration on how to defend themselves. 

“When you see it in the WhatsApp, you blow the whistle!” said the rally organizer.

Rally attendees all blew the whistles as if on cue. 

After organizers launched the rally, immigrants directly impacted by ICE were the center of the Lynn demonstration. One woman, dressed for the brisk weather holding her speech, told the crowd “immigration kidnapped my brother in front of my children’s school.”

One community organizer, Ampara de Pad, told us in Spanish:

This is our city. We love it. And they say we only come to do wrong, that we come to destroy everything. But no. We come to improve ourselves.

From Minneapolis to the North Shore

Adam Kaszynski of the North Shore Labor Council, hands thrust in his pockets, spoke to the tactics that have drummed up militancy against ICE in Lynn. Techniques like whistles, he indicated, were inspired by Minneapolis.

What we learned from Minneapolis is that they had set up these verifier networks, mutual aid networks, organizing beforehand is the key to that, and having those networks already there, the phone trees already there, for if ICE is banging on our doors, we know we have enough people that we can make serious interventions to get them out of our community.

The role of labor to fight ICE is necessary, but underestimated. Labor unions – alongside tenant unions – are memberships capable of taking direct action strategically and effectively against ICE. For example, unions can shut down production, transit; labor can freeze cities.

When the North Shore Labor Council puts up LUCE flyers and materials, that means that labor isn’t just against ICE; they are actively building the network from below to defend communities beginning in vulnerable community members’ own workplaces, since many unions consist of immigrant workers and leaders themselves. Labor in doing so joins the long tradition of bargaining for the common good, which has included not only political causes but also has historically included the building of cooperative housing by unions, to fight the deadliness of rising rent. Now, labor forms also a bulwark advancing tactics from Minneapolis in Boston.

Over the din of whistles, community organizer Jessica Rivera argued:

People are scared, but we know it’s actually when we’re in together like this, when I can look at my neighbor and know who they are, that’s when we are safest, when we keep each other safe.

Mitch Gayns is a digital creator and campaign organizer based north of Boston.

Transcribed By: Travis Wayne is the managing editor of Working Mass.

The post Lynn, MA Organizes ICE Resistance appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

by Richard P

Why do we protest? In a recent blog post, comrade Kevin N spoke of how his “romanticized 1960s images of crowds of protestors” transformed eventually into a commitment to “organizing, not just mobilizing,” and on both points, I agree with him. However, his argument that protests are “cathartic, empowering, and publicly visible” but ultimately “will accomplish … little” misses a few key points.

Kevin suggests that protests are simply tools to mobilize people to show up, and that organizing, which has “a deep commitment to developing one another into leaders both inside and outside the organization,” is fundamentally different and unrelated to this mobilization effort. I would instead argue that if we want to “organize people into DSA and build it into a formidable political force that can leverage its power from below,” we must engage with them where they are, and that includes through endorsing and attending protests. Thousands of people showed up for the No Kings rally last October, and the numbers increased in March. These protests are thus an excellent opportunity to meet potential comrades, and show left-leaning Clevelanders that Cleveland DSA cares about the issues that they care about enough to march in the streets about it.

As a chapter that says we are informed by labor organizing strategies (shout-out to No Shortcuts), we recognize that the foundation of that organizing is solidarity. The working class acting together in solidarity has ended authoritarian governments, improved the lives of millions of union workers, and spurred some of America’s most necessary changes such as civil rights legislation, expanded healthcare coverage, and child labor laws. Protesting, too, just like those romanticized 1960s marches in the civil rights and anti-war movements, is an act of solidarity.

But what does solidarity look like in 2026? The socialist theologian and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in his upcoming book Solidarity: The Work of Recognition, makes the argument that we need a “solidarity of the shaken,” that is, “a radical human togetherness formed out of an acceptance of our shared vulnerability and reliance on each other in a fallen world.” To protest, then, is not just to have a shared moment of catharsis, but to stand in solidarity with those who are feeling vulnerable. Our current moment, brought on by the failed capitalist state that is the United States of America, has left too many people vulnerable and marginalized. It is an outward and visible sign of our inward emotions, worries, and hopes, being present in physical space and taking on risk to support the marginalized (especially when they may not be able or willing to take on that risk themselves), not just posturing “allyship.”

This solidarity requires urgency and discernment in where that urgency is applied. Not everything is a five-alarm fire, but these emergencies do exist. When the next Tamir Rice or Tanisha Anderson is brutally killed by the police, the next bomb is dropped on a country we do not want to be at war with, the next ICE action crosses yet another line, or some fresh hell that we cannot begin to imagine occurs, our solidarity is important. We can’t just ignore what other organizations and people think about us – they, as our fellow humans and potential comrades in collective struggle, deserve our solidarity and for us to be in solidarity together. When we remember the civil rights movement, we remember the titanic work of Black-led organizations like the NAACP, the SCLC, and the SNCC, but there were white people and groups who showed up in solidarity too, from Dwight Eisenhower’s personal physician Paul Dudley White to the lawyer Jack Greenberg, who argued over 40 civil rights cases in front of the Supreme Court. When we recognize that we are all vulnerable and hurt by the system of capital, we then realize that it is incumbent on each other to be in solidarity and support – including at protests.

In the last verse of that great union anthem, “Solidarity Forever,” we sing that “In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold, / Greater than the might of armies, multiplied a thousand-fold. / We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old / For the union makes us strong. / Solidarity forever! / Solidarity forever! / Solidarity forever! / For the union makes us strong.” 

Our union comrades show us what this means every day – even when their union isn’t on strike, members show up to other protests, teach others about the power of the picket line, and support union organizers that are helping other people get the same protections they have. There is no reason we shouldn’t want to do the same for everyone suffering under the boot of capital and fascism, especially when we are discussing building towards a General Strike in 2028. That takes organizing, from conversations, to strike votes, to picket lines. But it also includes collective action, i.e. a protest on May Day this year.

If you consider the prototypical protester, the “liberal wine mom,” if you will, there are avenues available to us to welcome them into our movement. An avowed democratic socialist with the NYC-DSA endorsement won a plurality of all white women in the 2025 New York Mayoral election. Even amongst older white women, he still got over a third of their support last November. They’re not turned off by democratic socialism and might even be interested in our work – but what have we done to recruit them and get them to join our movement? We need to show up in the places where they gather, including protests. Protesters are already agitated and will know something about our organization or democratic socialism because of figures like Zohran, Bernie, or Rashida – that’s a lot of our organizing conversation already done! Cori Bush, a phenomenal fighter for the working class in Congress, came out of the movement in Ferguson. Our comrade, Cleveland City Councilman Tanmay Shah, as well as many other electeds, have come out of the labor movement.

The more than twenty DSA members who were at the Cleveland No Kings protest at the end of March saw a moment that encapsulated the issues we’re dealing with. State Senator Nickie Antonio, who gets to be considered “progressive” in part because of her sexuality, despite her fundraising with senior Republicans, stopped the speech of a Latina activist speaking in Spanish about the fight for immigration rights. A video of something similar happening to a pro-Palestinian speaker in Pennsylvania has gone decently viral. Antonio, like current Flock employee and former Cleveland City Councilman Kerry McCormack, benefits from a system where, as Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò argues in Elite Capture, identity politics has been twisted to serve the elites and their interests, not those of working class people.

If you are unconvinced by the establishment’s choices, you can either sigh and return to being apathetic, or you can work with an organization that is actually trying to challenge the Democratic status quo that self-aggrandizes itself as “brave” while simultaneously snatching the mic from a Latina discussing immigrant rights. A protest isn’t the end of our anger and frustration – it’s the beginning. Being present and using that presence to invite someone to consider joining DSA and enter our membership pipeline gets them into a structured mass party-like movement that takes them away from the unstructured progressive movement that, in the immortal words of Jo Freeman, isn’t “very good for getting things done,” a take echoed by Vincent Bevins in If We Burn.

Our transformation into a mass party does not need to be slow and incremental – as comrades in New York showed us last year and as our comrades in Wisconsin are showing us right now with Francesca Hong. The voters supporting her and putting her at first place in the polling aren’t just members of Wisconsin DSA chapters. When we present our message, as Oliver Larkin is doing in his primary against Jared Moskowitz in Florida, we see voters joining with us. Mass action, be it electoral work, protests, public comments, community response networks, or encampments, helps people get to know us better by meeting them where they are and on the issues they care about – and that’s the core of solidarity.

The word “solidarity” comes to us from the French solidarité which is rooted in the Latin solidus – Firm. Whole. Undivided. Entire. What transformations might we see in our work and our world if we lived into those four words as a goal for who we are fighting for and the type of movement we have to build? Every time we turn up and show out, a new organizer grows in their skills and learns even more what solidarity means, not just with each other as comrades, but with the marginalized who we continue to fight for. Let us be firm on our beliefs and what we are called to do, but with the understanding that we are seeking an improved life for the working class of the entire country, and indeed the world. Together, the people must be undivided – no matter where or how we meet them.

The post “Solidarity Forever”: The Need for Protest Activism appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

A letter from the new Democratic Left editorial board.

The post Presenting Our Politics appeared first on Democratic Left.

March Chapter and Verse: Bernie in the Bronx, AOC at endorsement forum, chapters in new offices and more chapter news.

The post How DSA’s Top-Ranking Chapters are Changing appeared first on Democratic Left.

By Ian AM and Jess N

With 16 resolutions and four amendments, the ramifications and nuances of the decisions presented for the 2026 annual convention for Metro Detroit DSA are enough to make your head spin if you’re a new member not thoroughly steeped in internal politics, caucuses and coalitions.

Let’s demystify that.

Beyond all the resolutions, amendments, debates, factional squabbles and general commotion ahead of convention, the broader political divide in our chapter boils down to three big questions:

1. Do you want Metro Detroit DSA to center ambitious, external-facing campaigns that deliver meaningful wins for our communities, like Money out of Politics or electing Cadre candidates like Chris Gilmer-Hill or Denzel McCampbell? Or should we focus on internal political education, reading groups and following the lead of smaller left or liberal advocacy groups?
2. Do you want Metro Detroit DSA to grow more accessible to every member of the working class so that it may evolve into a true mass movement as part of a National DSA with membership in the millions? Or would you rather Metro Detroit DSA maintain some degree of exclusivity with smaller ranks so that it may center more committed, ideologically pure members who have read “enough” theory?
3. Do you trust your comrades that you elect to handle administrative decisions so that we can meet the urgency of this polycrisis with decisive action? Or would you rather we spend valuable organizing time at GMs relitigating every decision of the democratically elected Steering Committee?

As a Metro Detroit DSA member attending our annual convention, most every vote you cast will essentially support one side or the other of these three key decisions.

For example, the Unity in Action resolution (R11) proposes we vote, as a chapter, to elect nine members to a commission to deliberate and propose structural changes. These proposals would take effect only if the membership voted to adopt them.

In other words, it creates a democratic and multitendency body tasked by the membership with developing proposals that address complex organizational challenges. In doing so, it streamlines the process of drafting and proposing effective yet broadly popular structural changes, which is a complex undertaking in and of itself.

For clarity, every member already has the power to make these proposals with or without the passage of this resolution. Creating a commission dedicated to this purpose simply ensures that proposals to organizational issues will indeed be created for members to consider.

The argument against this resolution is that it is anti-democratic to elect any other member to perform a specialized task for the chapter. The claim is that members should lead. It remains unclear why the chapter members we ourselves would elect to this commission would not count as “members leading.”

It’s ultimately a decision between a party-like structure focused on outward facing organizing vs. an absolutely “flat” participationary democracy — one with a high bar for participation in decision making and a focus on internal debates among factions.

DSA has had this debate before. In fact, this was the main debate in DSA nationally in the period leading up to the 2017 and 2019 conventions. Eventually, the side favoring a party-like structure won decisively.

It’s a good thing they did, because that orientation is the one that has allowed DSA to grow to over 100k members nationally and to achieve historic victories like the election of Zohran Mamdani in NYC.

Resolution 8 proposes that general meetings include a balanced mix of 30 minutes for political education, 30 minutes for working group and committee updates, and 60 minutes for our democratically-endorsed campaigns. It also gives the democratically elected Steering Committee the ability to be flexible with setting the agenda based on the needs of the organization and our membership.

Conversely, the amendment to Resolution 8 proposes 60 minutes of virtually every meeting be devoted to political education and reactive discussions of current events, with no requirement that it include any discussion of campaigns or other actionable next steps. Under this amendment, discussion of our campaigns and outward facing organizing would strictly be reduced to 35 minutes.

And so it is essentially a decision between prioritizing external-facing campaigns or internal political education.

At the end of the day, the decisions that we will collectively make at convention are not as complicated as they may seem.

We are deciding whether we wish to focus our efforts inward on those already “in the club,” or focus outward on the working class that we are trying to organize.

And we are deciding whether we trust the comrades we democratically elect — to unpaid and demanding volunteer positions — to act with integrity and handle administrative matters in good faith, or whether we will let factional resentment convince us that no comrade in a leadership position can be trusted with even the most basic tasks.

My co-author and I trust our comrades to elect effective leaders and to hold them accountable by voting them out the very next year if they fail to meet our standards.

We’re here to organize on campaigns that deliver working class wins that matter and involve our community.

And we’re here to build a mass movement that includes as many members of the working class as possible, all fighting to beat fascism and win socialism in our lifetimes.

Are you?

Beyond the Slogans, What’s Convention Really About? was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

By Ian A.M.

Labor and political education are two of the most important spaces for our efforts to build socialism in our lifetimes here in Metro Detroit. In this article, I’m arguing for three amendments that empower every member.

Amendment to R16: A Level Playing Field for an Open, Fair and Democratic Debate Series

As a “big tent” organization with a range of political traditions and tendencies, it’s vital that our members understand the various and often conflicting visions for the future of our chapter and organizing work.

The original resolution, R16, proposes a series of five debates for our general meetings discussing these topics. Holding debates regarding our organization, political theory and how we approach our work is indeed a critical and healthy measure for our chapter’s democracy. I suspect most members, despite tendency or caucus affiliations, would agree that a debate series is beneficial.

However, the resolution bases the series of debates on the book A User’s Guide to DSA. This is a publication that is now a few years old and doesn’t necessarily reflect the current status of debates in DSA today.

Besides, should we really ask our members to buy a specific niche book in order to understand the debate series they’re agreeing to at convention? The topics are not listed anywhere in the resolution, nor readily available online anywhere the book is listed for sale (Labor Power Publications, Amazon).

In short, members are being asked to agree to debates with almost zero context, and it’s not realistic to expect most members to proactively seek out this information in less than two weeks while they are also seeking to understand the ramifications of 15 other resolutions and three amendments.

This amendment allows the full membership to have a say in the topics of the debate to ensure all perspectives are presented fairly and given equal consideration.

In brief, the amendment empowers any member in good standing to submit a topic for consideration, and allows the full membership to vote on which five of the submitted topics should be selected for the debate series. For transparency, members submitting a topic must state any caucus affiliation.

A healthy debate starts with bringing everyone and all perspectives to the table to set the terms and topics. This amendment does just that.

Amendment to R4: Ensuring Democracy in Political Education Leadership and Sessions at General Meetings

As democratic socialists, we believe in member-led democracy and the core tenet that all members should have a say in how our chapter operates. That includes political education, a function and committee of the chapter that exists to support your own political development.

Therefore, you should have a say in the leadership of the committee and what topics and material are covered at the political education sessions at general meetings.

This amendment has two key pieces. First, it allows any member in good standing to propose and vote on the topics for this year’s political education sessions at general meetings.

Secondly, it grants every member in good standing the right to vote for the Chair of the Political Education Committee.

At first blush, you would be forgiven for thinking these are terms that every member of an explicitly democratic organization would find agreeable. The argument I’ve most often heard in opposition to this amendment is that in order to have a say in your own political education and the design of sessions facilitated for your benefit, you must first make time to routinely join the Political Education Committee’s meetings, which these days take place exclusively in person.

While that’s reasonable enough on paper, at present, only 10–20 members of our 1,300 member organization routinely find time in their busy lives and other crucial organizing efforts for the Political Education Committee’s meetings. In short, that means political education sessions for around 200 members at our general meetings are decided by a self-selecting group that represents less than 2% of the full membership. That is not a healthy democratic process, least of all for something that can be as partisan and contentious as political education.

It’s time we empowered the full membership to have a say in their own political development by letting them choose both the Chair of the Political Education Committee and the topics for our general meetings.

Amendment to R13: Creating Industry Specific Subcommittees for More Effective Labor Organizing and Ensuring Labor Chairs Are Also Selected Democratically

As our organization experiences a second wave of historic growth, our efforts to support labor organizing are expanding accordingly.

Like the above political education amendment, this amendment to R13 has two key elements. The first is creating industry-specific subcommittees for labor organizing. The second is empowering every member in good standing to vote for the Chair of the Labor Working Group.

To better allow labor organizers to coordinate and share knowledge on how to navigate the unique challenges and landscape of their industries, this amendment proposes the creation of several subcommittees to support organizers in specific fields: teachers, healthcare workers, service workers, non-profit workers, auto workers, and more.

This amendment takes inspiration from the commendable initiative many teachers in our chapter have already taken to form their own subcommittee to advance organizing among teachers and find solidarity with one another.

The Amendments of R4 and R13 Bring the Political Education and Labor Chairs to the Exact Same Democratic Standards as the Membership Engagement, Electoral, and Socialists in Office Chairs.

It’s important to note that across the chapter, members in good standing already exercise their right to vote for the chairs of the Membership Engagement, Electoral, and Socialists in Office Committees.

These amendments do not impose any new standards but bring the Political Education Committee and Labor Working Group up to the same democratic processes as these other committees. They establish a more level playing field and give you a say in how your own chapter operates in these vital spaces.

Every member in good standing should have a say in who leads organizing efforts within our chapter, even if they cannot make time to join a specific meeting. After all, it may not align with their work schedule, they may be busy with childcare, are chronically ill, are already at capacity with other vital initiatives within the chapter, have transportation difficulties, lack internet access, etc. That shouldn’t preclude their ability to vote on leadership.

What’s the Difference Between a Working Group and a Committee, Anyway?

Great question! The truth is our bylaws do not make a clear distinction between working groups and committees. At present, the two function identically in our chapter, as smaller groups of chapter members working together toward a certain interest, niche, or set of projects of the chapter.

So long as our bylaws do not make a clear distinction between these two types of bodies and how they should operate, they should be governed under similar practices.

Hopefully, with the passage of the Unity in Action resolution (R11), these ambiguities will be clarified with new bylaw language proposals.

Altogether, the amendments to R4 and R13 bring democracy to the full membership for two key organizing efforts in our chapter and offer you the chance to guide your own political education.

It’s Your Chapter — You Should Get a Say in Political Education and Labor was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.