The Shadower.  Peter and Maria Hoey. Los Angeles: Top Shelf, 2026. 192 pp, $19.99. The Shadower is an artistically stunning and darkly humorous graphic novel by Paul Buhle Comics can offer deep truths. A public cynicism toward the world’s competing spy networks became clear as the Cold War narrative of romantic Americans versus creepy Russians began to […]

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

Since the first stunning victories in Buffalo, New York, the union drive to organize Starbucks stores in the United States has been an inspiration for the labor movement. Over the last few years, young workers have expanded the campaign nationally with strikes, actions, and shop-to-shop organizing. The drive has shown exceptional rank-and-file energy and leadership, while also pioneering organization in a sector with almost no history of a union presence. From this past November to February, Starbucks workers organized their largest sustained national strike yet.

Nick Wozniak, a union activist with SEIU 73, interviews Connor Brennan,a rank-and-file strike captain, store organizer, and campaign activist with Starbucks Workers United(SBWU). Both reside in Chicago and are active in the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America. The interview has been edited for clarity.

NICK WOZNIAK: Can you describe how this most recent strike fits into the longer union organizing drive at Starbucks?

CONNOR BRENNAN: Starbucks stores across the U.S. have been organizing with Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), a campaign of the union Workers United, which is itself an affiliate of the much larger Service Employees International Union (SEIU), at a relatively steady rate for over four years, since December 2021. There are now over 650 unionized Starbucks locations, which make up around 5% to 7% of all corporate-operated Starbucks retail locations in the United States.

For over two years, Starbucks effectively refused to recognize the union and bargain in good faith despite the steady increase in election victories. Starbucks also accumulated an enormous number of unfair labor practice (ULP) charges during this time, including for firing hundreds of workers and closing dozens of stores illegally, as well as making unilateral changes to union shops without bargaining. SBWU organized many smaller actions including one- and two-day ULP strikes with as many as 300 stores participating. These actions protested Starbucks’ aggressive union-busting and demanded the company come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

In February 2024, Starbucks and SBWU finally agreed to a framework for collective bargaining across all union stores. Starbucks appeared to have caved to the consistent increase in election victories and escalating actions, even in the face of their union-busting and the overwhelming number of ULP charges they were facing. They were also likely responding to additional pressure from a spontaneous boycott that arose in response to Starbucks’ statements on October 7th and the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Several bargaining sessions then took place, where Starbucks and SBWU reached tentative agreements on over 30 articles of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), including on key issues such as grievance and arbitration, shop stewards, and improvements to the non-discrimination, health and safety, and dress code policies. However, bargaining stalled in December 2024, when Starbucks refused to make any meaningful economic concessions beyond guaranteeing annual 2% raises that they already typically offer non-union workers, meaning if SBWU settled a contract now, there would be virtually no economic difference for union stores.

Since December 2024, there has been little communication between Starbucks and SBWU, and Starbucks has reverted to its earlier policy of stalling and aggressive union-busting. This strike was the union’s first major attempt to break that impasse by building the biggest strike they could to inflict as much damage to Starbucks as possible to bring them back to the table with a reasonable offer.

NW: How did you originally get involved in the campaign and what has your experience been like?

CB: I started working at Starbucks as a barista in March 2022. I was looking for a stable job out of the COVID pandemic, and had some previous food service experience, so it was a pretty natural fit; but I did specifically apply to Starbucks because I was aware of the unionization effort there. Being a young socialist looking for work, I wanted to find a place to put down roots in the labor movement, and it seemed like this could be a chance to contribute to organizing a key workplace in the service industry.

Having little prior organizing experience, I did not expect to be able to organize my store immediately, but conversations arose naturally with co-workers considering the economic and political environment at the time, especially with the union effort making national news. Within six months, a group of us began meeting regularly, and within a year we had successfully voted 12-0 to unionize.

After that, I became active on the campaign, regularly attending Regional Organizing Committee (ROC) and Contract Action Team (CAT) meetings, and helping lead a number of workplace actions including several short ULP strikes. I was elected as a delegate to the national bargaining committee in 2024. I also played a leading role on the ROC, particularly with fundraising and organizing community support, and I was elected as one of three strike captains at my store this past August.

Unfortunately, my store was abruptly closed in September, just weeks before the strike began. This was part of a massive corporate restructuring where Starbucks closed over 400 stores with only two days’ notice and laid off the majority of the workers, including myself and nearly all of my co-workers. While most of the stores that closed were non-union, a disproportionate number were union (14%, even though unionized stores only represent 5-7% of all stores), suggesting that union-busting was part of the calculus of this decision.

Having my store close and being laid off right on the cusp of this monumental action was devastating for me personally. However, while now unemployed, I have still devoted the past few months to supporting the strike full-time, including by attending pickets and other actions almost every day as well as remaining in my role as treasurer of the local strike fund and liaison to the support organizing committee.

NW: So how would you evaluate this strike? Where does the campaign go from here? 

CB: This strike, while still modest overall, was far more impactful to Starbucks’ profits than any previous action. The strike was organized in waves, with 65 stores walking out on November 13th (a major promotional day for Starbucks known as Red Cup Day), and 30 to 40 more joining each week until Christmas. The initial plan was to end on Christmas, but a strategic decision was made for 40 to 50 stores to remain on strike through late January, with one final wave joining in mid-January.

Around 300 stores participated altogether, which fell slightly short of the union’s target. But compared to previous actions, the stores that did participate struck for far longer (ranging from one week to three months), with a higher degree of worker participation, while also experimenting with new tactics such as disrupting deliveries and asking customers not to cross picket lines at non-union stores, effectively calling for a boycott.

In the past, SBWU’s strategy relied more on influencing the media and public opinion to exert pressure on Starbucks as opposed to disrupting business to directly impact sales. Many have pointed to this as a weakness of the campaign, arguing that a corporate campaign like this can produce only limited results. I generally agree with this analysis, and saw it as a positive that this time the union seemed more interested in targeting profits directly.

Unfortunately, Starbucks is an incredibly rich and powerful company, and Chief Executive Officer Brian Niccol seems committed to keeping his head down and ignoring the union at virtually any cost. While this strike was an impressive effort, it will take more than this to move Starbucks significantly in negotiations.

I think this strike needs to be seen as a capacity-building action that fits into an ongoing escalation strategy to bring Starbucks back to the table. As long as Workers United remains committed to this campaign, there is every reason to believe they can continue organizing more stores and build a larger strike threat as they have done every year up to this point. The hard reality, in my opinion, is that it might take another year or two to achieve a fair contract, but viewed through that lens, I think this was an encouraging step in the right direction.

NW: What was learned during this strike that can be useful in the future? 

CB: In a situation where the bargaining unit represents a minority of the workforce, it seems logical that a strong boycott would be one of the most promising ways for the union to exert pressure on the company. As I mentioned, the pro-Palestine Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement temporarily targeting Starbucks was a key factor in bringing them to the table initially, even though it was not directly initiated by the union.

During the strike, SBWU used the language “Don’t Buy Starbucks while workers are on strike”, and workers and supporters flyered outside of non-union Starbucks asking customers not to cross their picket line. Most customers had not heard about the strike, but many agreed to go elsewhere in these instances. But in order to really be effective, the message to not buy Starbucks must be heard on a national scale and last until a settlement is reached. 

One glaring issue is the union’s reticence to explicitly call for a ‘boycott’ in so many words, presumably for fear of legal repercussions. This seems very cautious, considering that primary boycotts are legal and only secondary boycotts prohibited under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which infamously restricted many effective labor tactics in the U.S. Even if there are legitimate legal concerns, the unwillingness to use the word ‘boycott’ certainly limits how loudly and clearly the message is heard.

Logistics disruption is another promising tactic used extensively for the first time during this strike. Starbucks stores receive daily deliveries of many essential products from a transport company called QCD, where drivers are organized under the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Teamsters are authorized not to cross active primary picket lines, which includes pickets at non-union Starbucks stores, since all corporate Starbucks are under the same employer. 

Many striking workers blocked deliveries to their own stores, and Chicago was one of several areas that had modest success organizing “flying pickets” that moved from store to store and  blocked sometimes as many as 15 to 20 deliveries in a single night. There were also blockades organized at high-traffic locations in downtown areas, and even at major distribution centers on a couple of occasions.

By intercepting deliveries and getting customers to support a boycott, it’s possible to impact sales at a far larger number of stores than those on strike. Expanding and refining these tactics seems like the key to impacting revenue and profits on the scale needed to get Starbucks to make real concessions. This will require careful planning to navigate legal obstacles, coordination with other unions, and training a large number of workers and supporters, but the experience gained during this strike is a good start. 

NW: What was community support like during the strike in Chicago? 

CB: Most communities around Chicago are liberal or left-leaning, and/or have a relatively working-class composition, meaning customers are generally more supportive than not – although there are notable exceptions, particularly in wealthy suburbs and downtown areas. But even where customers are sympathetic, mobilizing people to support in meaningful ways requires more work.

A few other workers and I reached out to some of our closest allies in Chicago prior to the strike to establish the SBWU Support Organizing Committee. This committee met regularly to organize a strong support network, including by reaching out to a wide variety of organizations and unions asking them to sign a public letter of solidarity and commit to supporting the strike in various ways.

Overall, this proactive effort made the community support in Chicago significantly more widespread and reliable than in years past. Some organizations prioritized picket support, others adopted non-union stores where they flyered regularly to promote the boycott, and others joined flying pickets or helped raise money for the local strike fund. CDSA organized a strike kitchen along with dozens of flyering actions, and many other socialist and left-leaning organizations contributed in various ways. The support committee collectively organized a concert fundraiser which raised thousands of dollars for strikers and helped solidify this community of workers and supporters that I hope can last into the future.

Notably, while many union members supported in a personal capacity, the leadership of major unions was largely absent when it came to mobilizing members to support. This failure to prioritize solidarity between unions is a major shortcoming of the labor movement in the U.S. in general and in Chicago specifically, and this is something that socialists and labor activists urgently need to correct.

NW: Briefly, what’s your view on what this struggle shows about prospects for rebuilding a fighting labor movement?

CB: The continued determination of Starbucks workers, the support of the left and of society broadly, and the shift toward a class-struggle mindset, including experimentation with bold new tactics during this recent strike, should all be reasons to remain hopeful. But the fact that Starbucks workers remain without a contract after four years is a testament to just how steep of an uphill battle this is for all workers.

As of today, around 90% of the U.S. workforce remains without a union. Massive investments of time and resources are needed to change that, and so far major unions have not risen to the challenge. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was unable to keep up with the overwhelming number of ULP charges against Starbucks even under the Biden administration, let alone the current dire situation under Trump. This shows why relying on the law for fair redress is not a viable strategy for unions.

The SBWU campaign stands as evidence that not only are time and resources required to rebuild the labor movement, but also a willingness to take risks and get creative in our opposition to illegal attempts at union suppression. The corporate campaign can only get us so far, and in order to win, it must be combined with powerful strikes and other tactics that directly target profits. If established unions are afraid to venture into this territory, workers have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, and the socialist movement has a responsibility to help make this possible.

The post Learning from the Picket: An interview with a Starbucks Workers United strike captain appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

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.

This year before our annual membership convention, The Detroit Socialist asked for opinion pieces on the resolutions and amendments up for vote. Below, you will find 18 articles written by our fellow comrades.

In the spirit of democratic conversation, there are opposition articles. If you are interested in continuing the conversation before convention, please reach out to one of the co-editors (Taína S. or Casey G.) on Slack.

Our intention as editors of The Detroit Socialist is to provide a space for MD-DSA members to share our voices. We hope to provide a good faith platform for people to explain their resolutions and the reasoning behind them in a public forum.

Thank you so much to our writers, especially for your patience as we navigated these new waters and found them a little choppy.

Please enjoy the 2026 Resolution Extravaganza. We look forward to seeing you all at convention!

Resolution Articles:

All articles have links to the original resolution text.

1. R2–26: Why We Need “Continuing Towards Mass Membership Activation” by Joseph Green
2. R4–26 (with reference to R16 and A1-R8–26): Political Education at our Monthly General Meetings by Amanda Matyas
3. R5–26: Why We Need the 2026 Consensus Resolution of the Socialists in Office Committee by Ian SB.
4. R6–26: Building the Tradition: Why Metro Detroit DSA Needs a Mobilization Working Group by Rodney Coopwood
5. R7–26: Let the Members Lead by Collin P.
6. R8–26: Why We Need A Scalable, Balanced Model for a Growing MD-DSA by Francesca S.
7. R9–16: Electoral Campaigns and You: Why the Electoral Consensus Resolution by Aaron B.
8. R10–26: For Full Disclosure in Campaigns by Lauren Trendler
9. R11–26: MD-DSA: Everybody In, Nobody Out by Phil B.
10. Response Piece to R11–26: Against The Unity in Action Commission: Democracy Is a Practice, Not a Brand by Rodney Coopwood
11. R13–26: Open Debate Is Necessary For Developing Socialist Politics & Practice by Peter Landon
12. R14–26: Building a Pipeline, Not a Fence. Why We Need Term Limits and Real Democracy in Metro Detroit DSA by Jonathan Mukes
13. R15–26: Building Admin for The Party by Justin Skytta
14. R16–26: Experiencing R16 as a New Member by Fatima H.
15. R16–26: A Democratic DSA Is Strong to Act in the World by Jane Slaughter & Amanda Matyas

Amendment Articles:

1. A1–R8: Agitation, Deliberation, Education: An Amendment for a Radically Democratic General Meeting by Chris W.
2. A1-R14–26: For Leadership Development, Reasonable Term Limits, and Institutional Memory by Phil B.
3. A1-R16–26, A1-R24–26, A1-R13–26: It’s Your Chapter, You Should Get A Say in Political Education and Labor by Ian AM

The Detroit Socialist’s 2026 Resolution Extravaganza was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.