Portland’s silence tarnishes its progressive reputation

As the Israeli violence in Gaza escalates to horrifying levels, the human death toll continues to mount. More than 50% of those killed in Gaza are children. Israel has dropped thousands of tons of American-supplied explosives, with nearly 18,000 bombs and missiles raining down on the densely populated region. International organizations condemn the excessive use of force, war crimes, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the violation of human rights.

Portland City Hall remains silent. Portland DSA, and our boycott divestment and sanctions working group, call on City Council candidates — and current incumbents — to back a ceasefire resolution & arms embargo within their first 100 days in office. This is not just a moral imperative but also a reflection of the values we claim to uphold: peace, justice, and the dignity of all human beings.

In March 2024, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, said that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In its July 2024 ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion that, “all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (No. 2024/57, 19 July 2024).

Calls to end this genocide are ringing out across civil society, including from universities, labor unions, and cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Madison and San Francisco. Many of these statements recognize the interconnectedness of global justice movements. The labor movement, for example, has pointed out the parallels between the exploitation of workers in places like the Congo — where resources are extracted through violence — and the oppression faced by Palestinians. These struggles against imperialism, capitalism, and oppression are deeply intertwined.

Ceasefire resolutions were passed by Multnomah County, the city of Eugene, the Oregon Food Bank, and the Klamath Tribe. Salem, embedded in a more conservative context than Portland, passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire, calling for accountability for all parties, and condemning attacks on civilians. Cities calling for a ceasefire are a part of a meaningful, longstanding tradition of grassroots activism that sends strong signals to the Federal Government. As we head into the next election cycle, it is imperative that we demand concrete action from those seeking our votes. Candidates running for office — whether at the local, state, or federal level — must take a stand.

But how is it that there hasn’t been a resolution passed calling for a ceasefire in our city? Portland, known for its progressive stances on many fronts including trans- and LGBTQ+ rights, has yet to make a robust demand for a ceasefire and arms embargo.

As Israel’s aggression escalates, we’re seeing alarming developments in Lebanon as well, where Israeli forces have begun their bombardment of civilian areas. This broader regional escalation threatens to engulf the entire Middle East in further violence, with civilians bearing the brunt of the destruction. These attacks are not isolated but part of a broader strategy of expansion and domination, which the international community must urgently address.

Our organization, DSA, stands firmly in solidarity with the people of Gaza and Lebanon, against Zionism, and with all oppressed peoples across the world. The time for silence has long passed. Now is the moment to demand an end to the killing, an end to the bombing, and a real, lasting peace that addresses the root causes of the conflict. It’s time to call for an uncompromising ceasefire and Israeli arms embargo — our complicity must end.

It has been an honor to have been able to serve this past year on the 2023-2024 Steering Committee of our chapter. It was a successful convention season, with a new chapter priorities process bearing a renewed focus for our chapter and elected leadership containing both incumbents and a slate of new chapter leadership. Furthermore, […]

Deb K R Hi, comrades. For those of you who don’t know me, I am Debra Keefer Ramage or Debs (she/her pronouns.) I was one of the first co-chairs elected in 2016 under our then-new constitution and bylaws (which I also had a major hand in writing, so please forgive me if some of them […]

by Gregory Lebens-Higgins

There could be a variety of reasons you don’t consider yourself “a writer.” The thought of writing might cause uncomfortable flashbacks to grade school essay exams and writing assignments. Maybe you fear nobody wants to read what you have to say, or that you have nothing new to contribute to the conversation. Perhaps you just don’t know where to start after picking up the pen.

It’s okay to feel this way. Even the most capable writers encounter difficulties. “It is more pleasant and useful to go through the ‘experience of revolution’ than to write about it,” Lenin wrote in the postscript to The State and Revolution. Indeed, there are methods of socialist organizing and agitation that might rightfully take precedence over longform writing. But compelling reasons remain to encourage strong writing as a foundation for the socialist movement.

To push back on the propaganda of capitalism, we must be able to skillfully articulate our arguments and critiques. This requires, first, developing our own thoughts. Writing forces us to lay out and defend our arguments with reasoning and evidence. It also compels reflection and aids in drawing lessons from our experiences. 

As socialists, we believe that the working class—regular people—have the ability to govern the world for the benefit of all. To govern, the working class must comprehend its historical role. To quote the masthead of the Marxist Unity Group’s monthly bulletin, “If every cook can govern, then every cook must write.” Even if we do not intend on publication, we should write to understand.

Accessible socialist writing contributes to the overall rise in class consciousness, and can provide new tools for analyzing the world. Each member of the working class holds a unique experience, and each perspective helps us to better understand the nefarious mechanisms of capitalism. “All men are intellectuals,” claimed Gramsci. Each “carries on some form of intellectual activity, . . . participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought.”

To awaken political consciousness, we must approach our subject radically and “grasp the root of the matter.” By applying a socialist lens, we can explore the mechanics at work in our present moment and expose conditions for change. This means, first, a materialist analysis of cause and effect, and an understanding that ideology is reinforced by its material basis. Second, by thinking dialectically we can see how subjects both reinforce and reshape one another. Rather than living at an “end of history” punctuated by a series of meaningless events, the constant of change allows us to conceptualize the flow of time and history. Finally, we must present our theories as praxis, writing to “change the world,” rather than merely interpret it. Theory should provide a basis for action.

The difficulty with socialist writing comes with presenting ideas in a form the working class can grasp. “Accessib[ility] to the working class,” said Marx, is “a consideration which to me outweighs everything else.” Fortunately, good socialist writing does not have to be high-minded; it must merely incorporate our understanding of the world. According to Marxist writer Vijay Prashad, who teaches workshops on the subject, “Good socialist nonfiction writing does not assume that it emerges from the genius of the writer or an inspiration—but it comes from being absorbed by the common sense around us, and by being honest about elaborating it into philosophy of good sense.” We all live under capitalism, and good socialist writing makes intuitive the causes and effects we see and feel every day.

We now proceed to the mechanics of writing. First, you must select a topic. Think about why you are writing and what you want to accomplish. Do you want to tell a story? Make an argument? Explain a topic? Compare two topics? Or interpret a piece of art or literature? 

Much self-defeating worry occurs over offering a novel perspective. To develop an original essay, try looking at a new development, thinking about the unique overlap between two subjects, or focusing on a niche aspect within a topic. At the end of the day, it is okay to retread old ground in your words to a new audience—so long as you do not plagiarize the original insights of others as your own. Through writing, you will build a theoretical foundation to later reach for higher insights.

After picking a topic, you should brainstorm. What do you already know? This could take the form of bullet points, or maybe you just want to begin writing! Either way, it’s then important to draft an outline, taking a step back and organizing the information into a logical presentation. Paragraphs should build on one another, similar themes be grouped together, and arguments proceed logically. 

There are some standard formats worth considering. An argumentative essay presents the argument, then proceeds with evidence and reasoning. An expository essay explains a topic, by presenting the topic then adding organized details. A comparative essay presents one topic, then the other, before discussing how they relate. A critical essay might provide a summary, before presenting key themes and areas of agreement or difference with an author. Finally, a narrative essay can be creative, but should strive to tell a story in a compelling manner! Regardless of these standard formats, adapt the outline to most effectively convey your topic.

After preparing an outline, research your topic to fill gaps and back up assertions. We won’t go into the minutiae of research here; but it is important to emphasize the use of reliable sources and the need for citation. Add these findings to your outline where they are needed; though remember that your piece should not be merely a patchwork of quotations and reference, but should form its own tapestry.

Finally, you are ready to begin drafting. Just write! While composing a first draft, it is important not to get hung up on individual words or phrasing. You will address these concerns during the editing process. The initial draft should be about getting your ideas on the paper. One approach is to write like you talk—How would you explain your topic to a friend?

Feeling stuck? Return to your outline and focus on responding to one section at a time. Drafting does not necessarily occur in sequential order. Consider drafting the introduction last; using it to draw the reader’s attention, present key themes, or lay out a roadmap for the following paragraphs. A conclusion should summarize themes or inspire a reader toward further action.

Once you have an initial draft, it can help to give the piece some space; reading with fresh eyes before engaging in the editing process. Reading the piece in a different context—reading aloud, for example, or printing a copy and editing by hand—is another useful review technique. Editing should consider grammar, flow, and comprehension. It can be useful to address each of these with separate passes, rather than focusing on multiple aspects during the same read-through. 

Comprehension ensures the piece is understandable. Difficult words and key concepts should be explained by providing definitions and examples. Flow ensures the piece is interesting. It is worth trying different paragraph orders or sentence arrangements for a more effective option. To help one paragraph or idea lead into the next, consider transition sentences. Similarly, signposts such as “first,” “then,” or “finally,” direct the reader’s attention.

Proper grammar ensures the piece is legible, without distracting spelling errors or poor word usage. Use a spellchecker! Also, there is no shame in using a thesaurus to find the appropriate word, and writing will be more interesting if you avoid repetition (though repetition can be usefully employed for emphasis). But overuse of a thesaurus can be confusing, and will become evident to the reader if you’re using anomalous adjectives.

Asking a friend is a vital step in the editing process. Using the “comments” or “suggestion mode” features in your word processor are a great way to collaborate. Along with correcting grammar, your reviewer should note areas of confusion and lingering questions. Respond to these for the benefit of other readers! 

If you’re interested in publishing the piece, you should gather an idea of what to expect from the process. First, check the publisher’s submission guidelines. Some publications prefer a pitch over a completed piece. There could also be word limits or a style guide. Looking at other articles in the publication provides a sense of expected tone and style, which will help get your piece accepted. Don’t be surprised or offended if your piece requires heavy editing prior to publication—see it as a learning experience!

Since you’re reading this in Red Star—here’s an invitation to submit by using this form: bit.ly/SubmitRedStar. Our publication seeks to carve out a left media sphere that will form the intellectual basis for a vibrant socialist politics in our region. We’re interested in including your voice to forward this mission! Together, our writing will keep the spirit of socialism alive, and show the way toward making the world a better place.

The post Writing the Wrongs: Documenting Life Under Capitalism and Agitating for Change first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Thorn West: Issue No. 217

State Politics

• AB X2 – 1, which requires oil companies to maintain higher reserves with the goal of preventing gasoline price spikes, was approved by the State Senate today in a special legislative session. All that remains now is for the Assembly to approve the Senate’s amendments. Governor Newsom promoted the legislation and called for the special session.

City Politics

• DSA-LA has released its voter guide for this November! Read and share!

• Across California, ballots are in the mail. Here is how to register to vote.

• A quarter of the way through the current fiscal year, the city has already spent the entire $100 million budgeted to settle liability claims against the city. The Controller’s office had previously broken down which city departments are most responsible, with the LAPD responsible for over half of the city’s liability.

• Following the latest round of settlement payouts, the city’s reserve fund is now below 4% of the total general fund, and is likely to dip further. Per the Controller’s office, dropping below 2.75% triggers an official “fiscal emergency.”

Police Violence and Community Resistance

• Amid a budget crisis, Charter Amendment FF would spend 23 million to give certain police officers and park rangers better pensions. The LA Times (and DSA-LA) endorses a no vote.

• Non-stop fear-mongering from media, politicians, and law enforcement about a non-existent crime wave appears to have made an impact on voters. Nathan Hochman, considered the most right-wing primary challenger of incumbent LA County District Attorney George Gascón, leads him in the general by high double digits, according to a recent poll. Similarly, Prop 36, which rolls back criminal justice reforms voters approved in 2014, also shows broad support in polls.

Labor

• 2,400 Kaiser Permanente behavioral health workers in Southern California, represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, have announced that they will go on indefinite strike beginning on October 21 if their demands are not met. At issue are several concessions won by a similar strike of Kaiser workers in Northern California, in 2022.

Transportation

• AB 761, which further enables California municipalities to take advantage of federal loans to fund critical infrastructure projects, has officially passed. The new funding opportunity has been suggested as a way to expedite the planned extension of the Metro K Line from LAX to West Hollywood.
• This Sunday from 9am – 4pm, CicLAvia will hold one of its biggest car-free open streets events of the year, closing a route sprawling from Echo Park to East LA to all auto traffic.

Climate Justice

• The California Air Resource Board will soon consider whether to amend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to require that gasoline manufactured in California produce less carbon-intense emissions. Meanwhile, the media has focused on the likelihood that this would likely raise the price of gas.

The post DSA-LA Voter Guide is Here + LA Over Budget On Liability Claims appeared first on The Thorn West.

North Carolina chapters of the DSA are currently organizing mutual aide relief to address the impact of Hurricane Helene. Here is one NC member's reflection.

Steve was an early and active member of the Metro DC DSA’s Montgomery County branch and a beloved presence at branch meetings, picnics, actions and more.

This month we are proud to present part two in our three-part series on noted Maine socialist and naturalist, Normand Wallace Lermond. This episode focuses on Lermond’s political radicalization, his active role in the early socialist movement in America, and his efforts to help the Brotherhood of the Co-operative Commonwealth establish the Equality Colony in Washington state. Please listen, share, and enjoy!

The post Maine Mural: A Maine Socialist – Normand Wallace Lermond, pt. 2 appeared first on Pine & Roses.

By Connor Wright

SOUTHIE – Dockworkers in the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) have called off their coast-wide strike, after reaching a temporary back-to-work agreement with the U.S. Maritime Association (USMX). The three-day strike was the first shutdown of East Coast ports in almost 50 years.

Roughly 300 Boston dockworkers were among those on strike. Five Boston-area ILA locals picketed Conley Terminal in South Boston, starting Monday and ending on Wednesday night when the ILA and USMX went public with the agreement.

The deal includes a 62% wage increase for dockworkers over the 6-year life of the contract, not far from the union’s original demand of 77%. In exchange, the ILA is extending the terms of the current contract until January 15, to give the union and the USMX more time to bargain a full tentative agreement.

Hotly contested issues are still under negotiation, especially the ILA’s ongoing fight against the automation of dock work. But celebrations broke out on picket lines up and down the coast on Wednesday night, as workers cheered this blow against the shipping companies.

STATEN ISLAND PORT STRIKERS CELEBRATE STRIKE SUSPENSION

The port strike is suspended until January 15th, giving time for the union and U.S. Maritime Alliance to negotiate a new six-year contract.

Video by G Dano @FreedomNTV pic.twitter.com/eht4UAVmHZ https://t.co/RHxQJdZ9CA

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 3, 2024

If the ILA and USMX can’t reach an agreement by January 15, dockworkers may hit the picket lines again. That depends on how negotiations play out over the next three months, and how rank-and-file dockworkers judge whatever gains are made in the full tentative agreement.

Movement on Wages, Automation Still a Fight

The strike has been fought on two main issues: wages and automation.

The union has won most of what it demanded on wages, although the new wage scale would have ILA members just starting to pull even with dockworkers in the more radical, West Coast-based ILWU. But automation is an even bigger sticking point – and one the shipping companies are much less likely to give up on.

Automation has been an issue on the docks since the 1960s, when “containerization” (standardized shipping containers) revolutionized work on the docks and helped shipping companies – in the words of one industry website – “shed costly labor.”

In the past, dockworkers’ unions have accepted some level of automation. The ILWU, under the leadership of socialist Harry Bridges, compromised with the West Coast shippers in a series of negotiations in the 1960s, agreeing not to fight job losses from containerized shipping in exchange for massive increases in wages and benefits for the union’s existing membership.

The ILA largely followed suit – although with rampant corruption and mob control in most ILA locals, and a collaborationist approach toward employers, their wage increases were paltry compared to those won by the left-wing ILWU.

Many of these problems, including accusations of a continued organized crime presence, still plague the ILA today. To this day, West Coast dockworkers enjoy higher pay and stronger contracts, and even during the strike, ILA president Harold Daggett faced resurfaced allegations of mob ties and living a luxuriant lifestyle on member dues.

Now dockworkers on both coasts are fighting shippers’ moves toward “fully automated ports” – a process of mechanization that would cut even more union jobs from the docks than were lost through containerization.

At the time of writing, no public agreements have been made on automation in the ILA’s ongoing negotiations with shipping employers.

The Biden Administration Quietly Avoids a Strike

The dockworkers’ ability to shut down the ports was the biggest factor in winning a wage concession from the shipping companies. Without a credible strike threat, the USMX would hold most of the power in bargaining, and could have stonewalled the ILA as long as it wanted to on key demands.

But the strike wasn’t just a contest between the dockworkers and their bosses. The Biden administration has been heavily involved in the negotiations, and played a major role in the deal announced on Thursday.

According to a report from the Washington Post, Biden officials like acting Labor Secretary Julie Su and chief economic advisor Lael Brainard have been meeting with employers and union officials for months, hoping to avoid a major disruption to the economy so close to the presidential election.

These officials’ main intervention seems to have been pressuring USMX to boost their wage proposals to the ILA. It produced some movement early on, when late last month the USMX proposed a roughly 50% raise over six years. But ILA officers dismissed the offer as “fail[ing] to address the needs of our members adequately,” and the strike went ahead.

On the day of the strike deadline, Biden announced support for the ILA’s aims, calling on the USMX to “present a fair offer.” But even more significant than what he did is what he didn’t do – invoke the Taft-Hartley Act.

Under Taft-Hartley – a major anti-union law passed in 1947, and still on the books today – the President has the authority to declare a “national emergency” in major labor conflicts, forcing workers back to work for a 90-day “cooling off” period and locking the striking union into government-mediated arbitration.

Presidents from both major parties have used this law to suppress strikes 37 times since it was passed, against workers from many different industries. The repression and forced arbitration of Taft-Hartley was a major factor in the decline of strikes and the weakening of the U.S. labor movement, with effects that are still felt today.

The last time Taft-Hartley was invoked was in 2002, when George W. Bush used it to quash another major dockworkers’ strike by the ILWU on the West Coast. This easily could have been precedent for Biden, but the administration decided not to use the law. Biden even told a press conference during the strike, “I don’t believe in Taft-Hartley.”

Not only did Biden not break the strike, his officials kept up pressure on employers, both public and private, to move even further on wages. According to the Washington Post report, after an all-night call that lasted until 5:30 in the morning, White House chief of staff Jeff Zients told shipping executives he would tell the President that the USMX was making a new, higher wage offer to the union.

A source close to the shipping employers told Freightwave magazine that they treated this ultimatum as “marching orders” from the Biden administration. They quickly proposed the 62% raise and accepted the back-to-work plan.

The Politics of a Port Strike

Although in step with Biden’s general pro-union image, Biden’s strategy in the ILA strike was different from his approach to the last labor conflict that threatened a major disruption to U.S. commerce.

In the fall of 2022, during a major contract fight by railroad workers, Biden pushed legislation through Congress forcing a weak contract on rail workers, despite 55% of members across the dozen or so rail unions voting against the deal negotiated by rail union leadership.

So why didn’t Biden intervene to stop the strike? Why did his officials consistently pressure employers instead of the ILA?

One factor is the differences between ILA and the rail unions. The ILA is a single industrial union that has almost all ports on the East Coast and the Gulf organized. Rail workers, on the other hand, are divvied up into a dozen or so competing craft unions, making large-scale actions like an industry-wide strike far more difficult.

The ILA’s low current wage standards are another factor. The 62% figure is impressive on first sight, but it still leaves East Coast dockworkers below the standard set by the ILWU on the West Coast. The pressure put on the USMX was real, but the wage concession was less dramatic than the Post and other mainstream outlets made it out to be.

It’s also important to note that extending the current contract, and agreeing to call off the strike, was a major concession on the ILA’s part. Like most union contracts, the ILA’s contains a no-strike clause, which is now back in effect. That was the quid pro quo in Biden’s deal – a decent agreement on wages, but in exchange for the union giving up their most powerful tool.

The presidential election was likely another major factor. A prolonged strike could have caused shortages, inflation, job losses – a major economic disruption just weeks away from a presidential election in which Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democrats would be held responsible.

But trying to avoid the strike by locking the ILA into arbitration would have sparked a highly public dispute with the dockworkers, and could have complicated relations with important parts of the U.S. labor movement, which largely supported the strike.

The Democratic Party has been bleeding working-class support for decades. Despite some genuine pro-union moves from the Biden administration – from a more aggressive NLRB to his public support of the UAW strike – Republicans’ growing advantage with workers is hard to ignore. The 1.3 million-member Teamsters union even put out internal polling showing a whopping 58% support Donald Trump for President, over just 31% for Kamala Harris.

It’s possible that the Teamsters poll being released – and that union’s non-endorsement in the presidential race – factored into the administration’s thinking. The Teamsters represent a similar demographic of workers to the ILA: non-college educated, blue-collar industrial workers – exactly the demographic Democrats have struggled to attract. And Kamala Harris is on track to perform worse with union voters than Biden in 2020 or Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Altogether, Biden’s moves in this strike led to the best possible outcome for his administration and Kamala Harris’s presidential bid. Biden avoided a drawn-out strike, put off the thorny struggle over automation until after the election, and shored up the Democrats’ bona fides with a demographic they may need to put them over the edge in the presidential race.

The Fight Continues for Dockworkers

As for the dockworkers, a lot is up in the air. They have won a wage increase, but their job security is still on the line, and they have given up a big part of their leverage by agreeing to go back to work.

Whether the ILA can win restrictions on further automation – either at the bargaining table or back on the picket line – is unclear. The fight against automation and job loss has been a long-term one for U.S. labor., including the rise of “artificial intelligence” that played a major role in the recent actors’ and writers’ strikes.

A lot depends on how negotiations unfold over the next 90 days, and – if they stall again – the ILA’s willingness to take their members back on strike.

Connor Wright is a member of Boston DSA and a labor reporter for Working Mass.