By Makai Ako

Make no mistake: Artificial Intelligence is here to stay. A powerful development of the 21st century, AI has gone from a small concept to a massive, multi-billion-dollar industry that has generated massive gains for the ruling class. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, the most popular AI chatbot, is now currently valued at $300 billion. Although there are some benefits behind the continuing development of AI, there are also numerous consequences from it, far too many to be tackled in this brief article. Therefore, we will discuss the one that has faced the working class the most: its effect on employment.

Despite being a tool that could be used to do menial labour, giving workers more time to do what they desire, AI has instead been used by the ruling class to cut costs and reign in more profit. A report by Goldman Sachs says that it could potentially replace 300 million full-time jobs, with the additional potential to generate $13 trillion for the economy (read: ruling class). 

Graph detailing future trends on how many US jobs could be lost to AI and automation. Generative-AI could, in the future, result in many jobs being automated, with resulting mass layoffs.

AI is being used to replace workers in all sorts of industries. Creative industries, such as those in acting and art, are being the most impacted. SAG-AFTRA has had to deal with the AI question in many union contracts, having to argue with companies about how an actor’s likeness may be used. AI, more specifically Generative AI, has also heavily impacted the art industry. Many are feeling the pinch as companies throw out graphic designers, creative directors, and more in favour of AI. For example, Adobe has begun to roll out generative AI in its apps, though whether they are high in quality or not is up for debate. This turn towards AI has resulted in much frustration with workers. Interviewing those in the field of art, many make their discontent known:

“Seeing our own work being stolen and sold back to us as a feature is vile.”

“It feels like it takes respect away from people who do have these creative skills”

This is not to say that all view AI negatively. Indeed, it has reduced the necessary labor in some areas:

“It’s an incredible feat of human advancement, how it’s used is up to you. I use ChatGPT for help with my work.”

“It’s carried me through some non-core classes… or caught my stupid code errors, but I dislike how it causes me to approach things.”

Many other industries outside of creative ones are experiencing the major pains of such a new technology being introduced. The most infamous, Duolingo, the app allowing people to learn a language, has pushed an “AI First” model in the company, laying off workers in favour of cheap AI labour, with resulting backlash and a noticeable drop in quality for the app. Klarna has also, whenever it can, been replacing its human labour with AI labour. 

AI has also begun to seriously impact education, not just colleges, but high schools as well. Pew Research surveys show that up to 26%—nearly a quarter of students—have admitted to using AI models like ChatGPT to help with their homework. 86% of college students have admitted to using AI in their studies. This high usage of AI has created an atmosphere of uncertainty in many academic centers across the country, where teachers and professors are unsure if their students are using AI to write their essays and do their homework, with resulting false accusations discouraging many from writing honestly. 

Even American manufacturing and engineering, industries prioritized by the current administration, are predicted to see many workers replaced by AI—as many as two million according to an MIT and Boston University report. Solidworks, a CAD (Computer Aided Design) software used in the engineering industry, has itself announced new AI features. AI has even come to affect some parts of Rochester. RIT has been caught utilizing AI once or twice in their social media posts, much to the dismay of many students.

RIT Utilizing AI to generate images for their Instagram. Interestingly, RIT has its own college dedicated to art and design. Why these students could not be hired is up for debate.

The working class, in turn, now not only are forced to compete against each other, but now with AI as well. This competition forces them to accept lower wages at a time where everything from housing to basic groceries are experiencing skyrocketing prices due to tariffs and inflation. 

While this tale of AI may seem like a 21st century problem, we have experienced similar issues historically. The Luddites were a 19th century English movement who would organize raids to destroy the rapidly developing automated machinery out of fear of their skilled labour being replaced by machines. What happened following these raids was, unfortunately, predictable: the military was sent in to suppress them, and thus make way for the power loom and other machines to take over their skilled labour. This situation now repeats itself today. While rules and regulations will help curb the more sinister uses of AI (i.e. deepfakes) in the short term, it will not be enough to stop its usage in job cuts across the market. AI will continue to be used to line the pockets of the rich, all while making the already struggling working class even more desperate. 

What is the solution then? While short term solutions are up for debate, the long-term solution is clear: Socialism. The working class must develop itself and constitute itself and its goals into a party capable of waging a class struggle against the bourgeois. Only when the working class has taken the power to establish its own goals can AI be used to reduce the working class’s necessary labour. David Riazanov, while discussing the Luddites, put it best: “The workers must be informed that the fault was not with the machines, but with the conditions under which these machines were being used.” The labour movement must reach out to these disheartened workers and lead them to the movement of the liberation of the working class.

The question is AI. The answer is socialism.

The post On the question of AI – What is the correct answer? first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By: Jane Slaughter

Besides decision-making debates, the national DSA convention also offered educational workshops, such as how to organize your workplace, starting a local Amazon campaign, and “International Songs of Struggle.” I spoke on a panel titled “Lessons from the Lean Years.”

Almost all current DSA members have joined the socialist movement since DSA began its big surge in numbers in 2016. The idea of the workshop was to talk about how socialists had operated and survived when the organized left was much smaller, and share some lessons.

The other panelists were Chris Maisano of NYC-DSA, who’d been a DSA member back when it was small, and Todd Chretien, co-chair of Maine DSA, who’d belonged to the International Socialist Organization (ISO) for decades. I belonged to the New American Movement of the early 1970s, the International Socialists (IS) starting in 1974, and then Solidarity, before joining DSA in 2018.

The two big takeaways I got from the well-attended workshop were, on the surface, contradictory, but not really.

Todd stressed that a socialist organization has to be flexible enough to adapt when reality changes. The ISO had always had non-participation in the Democratic Party as a core principle, seeing it (correctly IMO) as a “graveyard of social movements,” leading the civil rights and feminist and other movements into mainstream dead-ends.

Then Bernie Sanders — always and still an Independent — ran for President as a Democrat in 2016. Hundreds of thousands of people were energized by Bernie’s self-described democratic socialism, and tens of thousands of them joined DSA. The Democratic Party hadn’t changed its nature, but something had decidedly changed. DSA was there to take advantage of the moment.

The ISO couldn’t handle it. The organization couldn’t deal with the idea that anything positive could come out of running in the DP. I can imagine the internal debates. At a mass conference call in March 2019, members voted to dissolve.

YES, BUT

The other takeaway from the workshop is the need to stand by your principles even when the world is changing. The example I gave comes from the labor movement.

Members of the IS had founded a newsletter called Labor Notes in early 1979, intended to bring together different rank-and-file movements in unions, from wildcatting coal miners to Teamsters and auto workers battling their own leaderships. Labor Notes was always intended to be a broad, nonsectarian publication, with participation from anyone who agreed. The politics were clear, and came from a socialist understanding of unions and class struggle: an injury to one is an injury to all; unions exist to fight the bosses; and members should own their unions to make that happen.

Then, just 10 months later, the ground shifted under the labor movement. Chrysler Corp. asked the UAW for contract givebacks — and the union leaders said yes. Today these corporate demands are commonplace, but at the time, it was a shock. Union members had assumed, correctly, that their contracts would get better each year — not that they would ever go backward. Other companies quickly took up the demand for concessions, aided by the recession brewing. It was an employers’ offensive. Movements sprung up in various unions to resist the concessions that union leaders — who considered themselves far-sighted — were pressing on members.

At the same time that companies were demanding concessions, they were also proposing “labor-management cooperation”: “We’re sorry, workers, that we didn’t value your brains in the past; now we want your ideas for how to make the company run better — it’ll be win-win.” Quality of Work Life programs and quality circles were set up everywhere, with the UAW leading the way.

The mainstream media, practically all top-level union leaders, and some sections of the left all promoted the idea that workers should give concessions on pay and working conditions in exchange for “a say” in shop floor governance. “New power for workers!,” they promised. Believe me, that “say” never amounted to anything more than getting off the assembly line occasionally to sit in a circle with supervisors and decide how to do the work of six “team members” with five.

Today, management doesn’t bother to pretend that it cares about workers (unless there’s a union drive). But in the 1980s, the ideology of labor-management cooperation and the “team concept” was everywhere.

A DISSENTING VOICE

Guided by its founders’ socialist politics, Labor Notes held firm: the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There’s no win-win — anything we gain is a loss for the bosses, and anything we give up helps the boss’s bottom line.

Labor Notes analyzed in detail the psychological tricks the new programs used to disarm union members. We held conferences and workshops and published books about fighting concessions and cooperation; thousands of workers credit these with helping them understand the onslaught and what to do about it.

Reaffirming union and socialist principles when all around us were losing their heads put Labor Notes on the map within the labor movement. The politics was, of course, combined with practical steps to take. And this same combination of socialist labor politics with how-to has continued at Labor Notes to this day.

After the workshop, throughout the weekend, people came up to me to say how much they’d gotten out of it. Firm class principles + flexibility and intelligence to meet the moment — that’s Marxism!

Surviving the Left’s Lean Years was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We had an absolutely fantastic time with our comrades at the 2025 DSA National Convention! Many of our Steering Committee members were serving as delegates for their chapters so we were able to catch up in person – some of us meeting IRL for the first time!

And of course – we have news to share with you regarding the direction of DSA’s national electoral work as determined by Convention as well as updates from our Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!

For the NEC, Convention kicked off with us hosting an electoral-themed social on Thursday night, where participants were invited to make buttons of their favorite nationally-endorsed DSA candidates and partook in a get-to-know-you BINGO as they mingled with our candidates and electeds. The activity prompted people to meet comrades from chapters running campaigns with national endorsement, socialize with people who serve on their chapter’s electoral working groups, and connect with comrades from a variety of chapter sizes. Participants received an NEC bucket hat!

Electoral Workshop Results

On Friday, we hosted an electoral workshop to an overflowing room of participants!

At the NEC workshop, we had attendees complete an Electoral Program Report Card where they graded their chapter’s programs according to a variety of pillars of our electoral work (endorsements, leadership development, SIO work, etc.). We got 96 responses, which provided the NEC with an unprecedented look into our chapters’ electoral programs across the country. 

The Steering Committee is pouring over the responses and will share a summary of our findings once we complete it.

Missed the workshop and want to grade your own electoral program? Check out our slides and then fill out your report card.

We also had great conversations at our table – leading to 38 applications being submitted by DSA members wishing to join the NEC. 

Electoral-Related Resolutions & Amendments Passed at Convention

This convention was a pivotal one for the future of our electoral work! Check out the following resolutions which will change the course of our electoral strategy both locally and nationally.

• NEC Consensus Resolution: This resolution sets a new course for our national and local electoral work, including running candidates on independent ballot lines, updating our national endorsement criteria, creating a national socialists in office network, and issuing best endorsement practices recommendations for locals.
• Towards Deliberative Federal Endorsements: This amendment to the consensus resolution updates our federal endorsement criteria, requiring Q&As with federal candidates and more deliberation prior to endorsement.
• Carnation Program Amendment to NEC Resolution: This amendment to the consensus resolution sets a goal of running 5 candidates for Congress in 2028 running on a platform of 5 priority issues, including ending U.S. militarism, Medicare for All, and more.
• Invest in Cadre Candidates and Political Independence: This amendment to the consensus resolution commits to prioritizing running more cadre candidates at the local level, expanding the NEC’s fundraising efforts, and increasing staff capacity to support NEC.

Next Steps

We’re very excited to begin implementing these mandates from convention, including our very own NEC Consensus Resolution. If you want to help out with this important work, please join the next all-member NEC call, or if you’re not a member apply to join the NEC!

Nationally-Endorsed Slate Fundraising at Convention

National Convention was the perfect opportunity to do some fundraising for our slate of candidates! Through the QR code at the table and promotion from Chanpreet during convention, we were able to get 104 donations during convention – 54 of which were first-time donors!

Since the start of convention, we have raised an additional $6,029.94 for our slate candidates (currently Denzel McCampbell, Jake Ephros, Joel Brooks, Kelsea Bond, and Willie Burnley Jr.) on top of the $67,688.76 we had already raised so far this year!

Thank you to everyone who attended the National Electoral Commission’s events! We hope to see you at our upcoming all-member meeting so we can get to work on implementing the mandates from convention.

Shout-out to Cleveland DSA and Snohomish County DSA for allowing us to borrow your button makers. And thank you to Nick W for your button production run prior to convention!

– Your National Electoral Commission Steering Committee

By: Frederick Reiber

SOMERVILLE, MA – From Hollywood writers to Boston dockworkers, labor unions are continuing to fight unethical usage of artificial intelligence. 

Now, journalists are joining the fight. Unionized workers at Politico and E&E News (PEN Guild) are currently in arbitration over the editorial board’s use of AI. After unionizing in 2021 and ratifying a first contract in 2024, workers secured protections against the use of artificial intelligence technologies, recognizing both the liberating and exploiting potential of said technologies. These included protections against workers being replaced by artificial intelligence technologies, added severance for artificial intelligence related lay offs, a focus on ethical and human checked implementation, and the ability to do impact bargaining over the implementation of workplace technologies.

The first breach of contract came in 2024 during the Democratic National Convention, with Politico publishing AI-generated summaries of the events. According to workers interviewed, Politico originally argued that these summaries “were just transcripts” further arguing that it “doesn’t impact our jobs because reporters don’t transcribe things.” The second breach came earlier this year, when Politico launched an “AI Policy Assistant” , a subscription based service to help organizations navigate policy changes, or generate white page reports on specific regulatory issues. 

Artificial Intelligence—An Arena for Collective Bargaining

Politico argued in both cases that technological tools developed through the tech and business side of the company fall out of the purview of the journalist’s union. Thus, they aren’t subject to the collective bargaining agreement.

For the union, these rollouts constitute a violation of contract. Workers were not given the opportunity for impact bargaining nor the required 60 day notice of new workplace technologies. Workers also saw the use of AI as a challenge to journalistic integrity. A recent Wired report on the arbitration preceding cites Politico’s AI using phrases like “criminal migrants” or failing to recognize the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As PEN Guild member Ariel Wittenberg put it, “it certainly was disheartening as a journalist who has worked for Politico for 10 years to hear our top editors say that sometimes the homepage doesn’t have to be printing ethical journalistic content.”

AI providing false information is nothing new with scholars and journalists providing mountains of evidence. For instance in 2022, Meta took down Galactica, a tool designed to help researchers after it became apparent it was making up publications, and Stack Overflow the go-to question and answer website for coding questions ended up needing to ban AI responses due them having an incorrect rate of hallucinations. These issues have still persisted today. For instance ChatGPT, when asked today about labor leader Big Bill Haywood, manufactures quotes and pamphlets that I have been unable to find cited or discussed anywhere else.

AI is also famously ripe with political bias in a similar manner to Politico’s “criminal migrants”. For instance Grok, Elon Musk’s chatpot, recently referred to itself as ‘MechaHitler’ and going on inaccurate rants about a South African ‘white genocide’. Other more malicious cases include Amazon’s male favored hiring tool or Northpointe’s racist criminal assessment tool.

Important for fellow unionists is recognizing that we can and should be organizing against forced technology in the workplace. When dockworkers with ILA and USMX threatened to walk off the job earlier this year, they were able to win protections against forced automation.  SAG-AFTRA is currently fighting against the use of AI to bring back the voice of the late James Earl Jones. Fighting against AI, however, is no easy battle. While workplace technology is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, workers do continue to fight and organize against harmful technology in large part because they recognize workplace technology for what it commonly is– a tool used to degrade working conditions and worker power.

AI Is the Boss’s Tool—Workers Are the Real Counterpower

As Marx famously argued, capital—and thus the exploitation of the working class—happens when value is put into motion. The forced implementation of workplace artificial intelligence is nothing new, another attempt to shift production and further extortion. As scholar Jathan Sadowski argues in his new book, The Mechanic and the Luddite: A Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism, AI is really a tool of the boss, with employers using AI as a mask for outsourcing or as a way to cheapen labor with deeper forms of extraction through workplace surveillance. 

For workers everywhere, this moment demands clarity, courage, and collective resistance. The fight over AI isn’t about resisting technology for its own sake—it’s about resisting who controls it, who benefits, and who bears the cost. Whether in a newsroom, a factory, or a film studio, AI is not neutral. It reflects the priorities of those in power—speed over accuracy, profit over people, efficiency over ethics.

As more workplaces rush to adopt AI under the guise of innovation, unions must continue to insist on democratic control over technology; how it’s introduced, how it’s used, and who it serves. That means fighting for robust contract language, building coalitions across sectors, and standing firm when employers violate those agreements.

The PEN Guild’s arbitration fight is not just about Politico—it’s about setting precedent. If workers can’t win the right to bargain over technologies that directly shape their labor, then every workplace becomes fair game for digital dispossession. But if they succeed, they send a clear message: AI may be new, but the power of collective action remains timeless.

Fellow workers can support the PEN Guilds fight by signing their petition linked here.

Frederick Reiber is a PhD student at Boston University researching collective action and technology. He is a member of SEIU 509 and Boston DSA.

The post AI in Court: Politico Workers Take the Boss to Court Over Forced Automation appeared first on Working Mass.

On August 23rd, Bernie Sanders will be hosting a “town hall” event with Rebecca Cooke, candidate in the 2026 Democratic Party 3rd Congressional District election, near Viroqua. This follows his June 19th endorsement of her. We, the Executive Committee of the Coulee Region chapter (CDSA) of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), denounce this endorsement and campaign event and urge Senator Sanders to withdraw this endorsement.

Senator Sanders has been a principled socialist for his entire life, and has been a leader and inspiration for millions of progressives and socialists for decades. This made his endorsement of Rebecca Cooke extremely shocking. Rebecca Cooke is no socialist, or even a progressive. She refuses to endorse Medicare For All. In 2024, she was “grateful” to be endorsed by the genocide-apologist organization Democratic Majority For Israel.¹ In June of this year, she was a featured speaker at “WelcomeFest”, a convention of the anti-progressive wing of the Democratic Party, sharing the billing with genocide-apologists and neoliberals.² In the struggle between progressives and reactionaries within the opposition to the current fascist regime, she has declared on which side she places herself- it’s not with us, and it shouldn’t be with Bernie Sanders.

There are two other candidates in this primary, namely Laura Benjamin and Emily Berge, who would make far more sense for Senator Sanders to endorse. Both have endorsed Medicare For All. Both have better stances on Palestine. Laura Benjamin is a member of DSA, is committed to socialist principles, and is a fiery public speaker. Emily Berge is firmly in the La Follette Progressive tradition and has years of experience in local elected office.

For these reasons, in the spirit of socialist comradeship, the Coulee Region chapter of Democratic Socialists Of America urges Bernie Sanders to withdraw his endorsement of Rebecca Cooke.

COULEE DSA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & CHIPPEWA VALLEY DSA OC, AUGUST 19^th, 2025

Coulee Democratic Socialists Of America can be found at https://coulee.dsawi.org/, on Facebook, on Instagram, and by emailing couleedsa@gmail.com. Chippewa Valley DSA can be reached at chippewavalleydsa@gmail.com

1“DMFI PAC announces new endorsements in Arizona, New York, & Wisconsin” https://dmfipac.org/news-updates/press-release/dmfi-pac-announces-new-endorsements-in-arizona-new-york-wisconsin/

2“I Just Got Back From the Centrist Rally. It Was Weird as Hell.” https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/welcomefest-dispatch-centrism-abundance/

The post Bernie Sanders Endorsement of Rebecca Cooke A Betrayal of Socialist Movement first appeared on Coulee DSA.

By Amanda Matyas & Lauren Trendler

The DSA national convention this month for the first time included a Cross-Organizational Political Exchange: more than 40 speakers from unions, social movements, and socialist parties across the globe came to confer with DSA. The convention website explained that the idea was “to pave the way for party-building and a May Day 2028 coalition.”

This exchange was critical to asserting DSA as a pre-party formation, as 1,300 delegates from across the country gathered in Chicago to debate the direction of the organization — six weeks after Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City and our subsequent membership surge. Amidst the contentious resolutions being debated, this non-voting part of the convention served not only as a space for comradely exchange but as a chance to see the enormous potential of international solidarity in building a socialist party.

Addressing the crowd and explaining the process of planning the exchange, convention co-chair Laura Wadlin said, “There [wasn’t] a spreadsheet of cool unions — but now there is.”

Now that the cool union spreadsheet exists, it can serve as a blueprint for building a real coalition that is often invoked rhetorically but rarely put into practice. We engaged with other groups and navigated how we orient towards the world. According to Wadlin, the two main goals in organizing the exchange were to make the convention less inwardly focused and to feel like it has stakes, and to create a next step for May Day 2028. “There were so many other benefits of the process,” Wadlin said, “that we ended up gaining more goals. I now see it as expanding our horizons for what’s possible in the working class.”

Delegates also had a chance to speak, interspersed with the guests, as determined by a lottery. Detroit DSA member Erin T was selected and spoke about her work in the teachers union.

The fast-paced cross-organizational exchange showcased our shared excitement for two massive projects: a new electoral formation independent from the two major parties, and UAW President Shawn Fain’s call for strikes and working-class political action on May Day 2028.

Union reform caucuses Higher Education Labor United (HELU), Build a Fighting NALC (letter carriers), Railroad Workers United (RWU), and Caucus of Rank-and-File Electrical Workers (CREW) all called for a new party (a call that RWU first made in 2012!). HELU noted they have a policy platform on higher education, a key battleground under Trump, ready for a new party to adopt.

The Palestinian Youth Movement urged DSA to commit to an anti-war strategy that could “be bold on Palestine because it is the winning thing to do.” CREW tied the call for party-building back to its roots, noting that a workers party must “…come from an organic and independent working class culture of self-activity and militancy. It stands to reason that there can be no labor party that does not have deep, organic ties to labor. Get a job in strategic industries and callous your hands alongside us.”

Organizing towards May Day 2028 gives us a concrete opportunity to build rank-and-file class consciousness, cross-union organization, popular support, and renewed ties between the socialist movement and the labor movement.

FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE

Political organizations from across the globe were moved to travel great distances to discuss May Day 2028 with DSA, and representatives from La France Insoumise and the Workers Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA) both noted their excitement to see this activity developing in the U.S.

They were joined by members of the Workers Party (PT) and the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) of Brazil, Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana of Puerto Rico, the Movement for Democratic Socialism of Japan, and the National Regeneration Movement (Morena) of Mexico, whose powerful speech ended with, “We [Mexican immigrants] will be deported if we go out on strike and you cannot allow that.”

The Amazon Labor Union urged DSA to “focus on political education to help workers connect issues in the workplace to issues outside the workplace.” The Los Angeles Tenants Union cautioned the group to “plan for before and after mass action,” and the Debt Collective, based in Washington, D.C., asked the crowd, “What would it look like if while workers withheld their labor, debtors withheld their payments?”

Not only were our guests from these unions, social movements, and socialist parties invited to speak; they also mingled with DSA members all weekend, met at the hotel bar, joined our parties, and made connections that will continue to guide DSA towards our goals.

The preliminary discussions that began at the Cross-Organizational Exchange show there is broad support for an independent working class party, but more discussion and debate are needed to determine what our next decade of organizing looks like. The Exchange gathered many key organizers for our massive May Day 2028 project, but two-minute speeches from dozens of organizations is just the beginning — much more collaboration is needed.

The resolution Fighting Back in the Class War: Preparing for May Day 2028 committed DSA to several specific next steps. Over the next two years, DSA will anchor a May Day Convention in concert with major unions and other organizations that have taken up May Day 2028 as a priority, to collectively establish a plan and a set of demands for May Day 2028. DSA will encourage members to get jobs in strategic workplaces, industries, and unions, and DSA members in unions will organize to line up their contracts to expire on or around May Day 2028. DSA chapters will develop materials for agitation and political education around the need to build class power ahead of May Day 2028, and hold political education events directed at workers broadly.

We hope that all DSA delegates returned to their chapters invigorated by this exchange and with a laser focus on our shared goals. “If we don’t recognize the obligation we have to act in the world, we could miss our potential,” Laura Wadlin remarked. “DSA is not just an online subculture. We’re a political player on an international stage, and we need to match that.”

[Amanda Matyas and Lauren Trendler were elected convention delegates from Detroit.]

Workers of the World Unite for DSA’s First Cross-Organizational Political Exchange was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

As a member of Starbucks Workers United, I've learned that real organizing is built on genuine relationships and shared struggles. While our campaign has become one of the most visible recent organizing efforts, the lessons we've learned apply far beyond coffee shops.

The post From Coffee Shop to Movement: Hard-Won Lessons from Starbucks Workers United appeared first on EWOC.

Ten years ago, the Illinois General Assembly passed a ridiculous law signaling unconditional political support for Israel. Now we have an opportunity to repeal it.

Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican and private equity investor who held the position from 2015 to 2019, was a political failure on his own terms. Once he got into office, he made it clear to the Democrat-controlled legislature that he would not sign any budget unless it was passed alongside the regressive “reforms” that constituted his Turnaround Agenda for Illinois. The legislature did not budge and as a result Illinois went more than two years without a budget. Rauner tried to take everyone in the state hostage, and he did a lot of harm trying to make the Illinois regulatory environment more like Republican-dominated Wisconsin. Today, he is remembered as a bush-league do-nothing who couldn’t get his agenda through Springfield.

But there was one thing that Rauner and the Democratic majority did agree on: that people should face consequences if they have the wrong opinion about Israel. In 2015, the General Assembly unanimously passed legislation that prevented the state from investing public pension funds in any company that participated in the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is a non-violent campaign to economically pressure Israel into adopting policies that would respect the rights and dignity of Palestinians. It functions similar to the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa in the late 20th century, encouraging consumers to spend their money ethically and pressuring businesses to divest from a country that systematically violates human rights.

Rauner drinks chocolate milk to celebrate the concept of diversity during Black History Month, February 2018.

In opposition to BDS, pro-Israel lobbying groups have convinced a super majority of state legislatures across the country to pass laws that impose a variety of legal consequences on individuals and organizations that participate in the boycott against Israel. The version that Rauner signed, which was among the first of its kind, created the Illinois Investment Policy Board. The law gave the board the authority to withdraw Illinois pension funds from any company that participates in a campaign to “penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel”. Essentially, any company that refuses to do business with Israeli companies or the Israeli government can lose investment from the state’s pension board, regardless of why or how they are choosing to sever their relationship.

There has never been a better time to get rid of this law. It does absolutely nothing to benefit Illinoisans, and it punishes constitutionally protected opposition to blatantly illegal actions taken by Israel. The law does nothing to fight anti-Semitism; in fact, it makes it worse. The law seeks to make support of Israel non-negotiable, and that position is firmly out of line with the wishes of a majority of Democratic voters across the country. As efforts to finally repeal the law escalate,  people of conscience have an opportunity to bring state law into line with the will of Illinois voters.

What the law does, and why it’s extremist.

For the uninitiated, most state and municipal employees in America are enrolled in a defined benefit pension retirement plan. These pensions pay out a set amount determined by a formula to retired public workers each month over the course of their lives, effectively acting as a 401(k) with a guaranteed payout. To ensure these benefits are funded, employees and the state government contribute money to a pool that is invested in the private sector. The returns on these investments are used to help pay for pension obligations. This model benefits everyone: Springfield uses the stability of a pension to attract workers that might otherwise pursue for-profit careers, retirees have a guaranteed source of income after they stop working, and companies receive extra investment that can help them grow. It is also very common for governments to form oversight boards to manage their pension investments. This ensures that the funds are stewarding public resources well, and they prevent state money from being invested in firms that actively harm the public interest. In Illinois, Springfield has passed laws that prohibit investment in companies that “shelter migrant children” (i.e., participate in Donald Trump’s nightmarish mass deportation plans) and companies based in a few countries that have been sanctioned by the federal government.

They also prevent the fund from investing in companies that refuse to do business in Israel. This already makes Illinois’ anti-BDS law unique compared to the other similar laws in the state; there are no other countries that companies are punished for not investing in. The law is very clearly meant to disincentivize firms from considering a boycott by excluding them from receiving any of the money that state pension funds invest in the private sector.

The law does not differentiate between motives. If a company decides to stop doing business with Israel because its board is dominated by avowed anti-Semites, then it is ineligible to receive any pension investment funds from Illinois. But what if a firm’s leadership divests because they agree with Amnesty International’s conclusion that the country is practicing apartheid? Or because they believe that what the IDF is doing in Gaza constitutes genocide? Or because the Israeli government regularly treats minorities who live in Israel as second-class or non-citizens? Or because they are disturbed by the number of Americans killed by the Israeli military or Israeli militias? Or because they are horrified by the Israeli refusal to allow food, baby formula, and medical aid to enter Gaza, resulting in mass starvation? The Illinois General Assembly made no distinctions between these reasons when it passed the state’s anti-BDS law, so the Illinois Investment Policy Board is forced to consider these motivations equally worth divestment.

This is already extreme, but the truly ridiculous part is that the law also punishes companies for boycotting illegal Israeli occupations of foreign territories. Since the conclusion of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli government has encouraged its citizens to cross the border into Palestinian territory and establish ‘settlements’ there. These self-described ‘settlers’ retain their Israeli citizenship, can vote in Israeli elections, are protected by the Israeli military, and live their lives under Israeli law. Their Palestinian neighbors who live in these areas do not enjoy any of those rights. Many of them are denied self-representation and live under martial law imposed by a government they have no say in. Palestinian families in the area are regularly dispossessed and attacked by settlers. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the Israeli government is using settlement as part of a strategy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, giving Israel an excuse to indefinitely control the region without having to offer Palestinians any sort of rights or sovereignty. Just this month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich unveiled a new settlement plan that he claimed would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Illinois prohibits investment in any company that refuses to do business in these settlements, despite the fact that they are illegal under international law and that they exist to deny the two-state solution that most American politicians claim to support. 

Embarrassingly enough, the most well-known invocation of this anti-BDS law was used to punish a company for violating this portion of the statute. In 2021, the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s (whose founders are both Jewish) announced that it would no longer sell their products in the West Bank because of the illegality of the settlements. The company also clarified that they did not support BDS as an organization. Ben & Jerry’s products would continue to be sold in Israel proper, and the company’s founders identified themselves as supporters of the country. This decision prompted the Illinois Investment Policy Board to pull any pension funds that were invested with the brand’s parent company, Unilever. Effectively, an ice cream company decided not to do business outside of Israel while continuing to do business in Israel. As a result, the State of Illinois declared it would blacklist the company and all of the firms they were associated with.

This law grants symbolic and unconditional support to Israel, including implicit support for policies that many people in the state consider to be criminal and in opposition to U.S. interests. Even if you think it’s appropriate for Illinois to engage in these kinds of sweeping foreign policy commitments, this is the wrong one to make.

The law doesn’t fight anti-Semitism

One common argument in favor of anti-BDS laws is that they are a protection against bigotry or an environment that encourages it. Rauner’s initial statement after the state’s law was signed in 2015 proclaimed that Illinois was standing up against anti-Semitism by distancing the state from boycotts. Other organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have taken the stance that BDS itself isn’t inherently anti-Semitic, but that it creates an atmosphere where engaging in anti-Semitism is more acceptable.

There is nothing about this law that actively combats anti-Semitism. It does nothing to address the enormous 900% increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the country in the last ten years, and it does nothing to discourage hateful rhetoric. It is simply a way to punish businesses for taking a moral stance against genocide or for responding to consumer demands to do the same. These kinds of laws are also an attack on the right to free speech and free association guaranteed under the U.S. constitution, and their legality is dubious at best.

There’s no actual prohibition against supporting bigotry written into the law. It punishes companies that boycott Israel, but there are plenty of disgusting people in business who say and do anti-Semitic things that wouldn’t lose out on the opportunity for state investment. Right-wing businessman and extremist provocateur Elon Musk is a perfect example. 

Not a bit from The Producers, somehow.

Regardless of whether you think Elon Musk throwing up a Nazi salute in January 2025 was an intentional expression of anti-Jewish hatred, he has a long history of embracing the kind of vile rhetoric most people would instantly recognize as anti-Semitic. Musk has indicated that he believes Jewish Americans are part of an anti-white conspiracy to flood the country with “hordes of minorities”. Under his direction, Twitter/X changed its moderation rules to allow a surge in anti-Semitic posts that have caused advertisers to flee en masse. The AI chatbot that his company built for the website has called itself MechaHitler and often launches into unprovoked rants about people with Jewish-sounding last names. Musk has received so much backlash that he’s felt the need to do damage control by visiting Auschwitz and making a PR trip to Israel alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite Musk’s repeated anti-Semitic comments and behavior, he hasn’t ruled out doing business with Israel, so Springfield is technically allowed to invest pension funds in his companies. The purpose of this law cannot be fighting the spread of anti-Semitism if it allows for Illinois to engage in a financial partnership with someone like this. Its only logical purpose is to shield the Israeli government from criticism.

Finally, it’s worth considering whether this kind of law could actually increase anti-Semitism. The State of Illinois has (wrongfully) declared to the world that it views an entire ethno-religious group to be inseparable from another country halfway across the world. They have also declared that there is no acceptable way to criticize that country, even as it engages in a genocide that most people (rightfully) find morally reprehensible. The potential effects of this kind of rhetoric were neatly summed up by New York Times journalist Ezra Klein on his podcast a few months ago:

I am a Jewish person…it is very important that it is possible and understood to be possible that you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic…you just have to be able to be against what the Israeli state has become and not be anti-Semitic. I think it is an incredibly dangerous game that pro-Zionist people have played trying to conflate those things. Because if you tell people enough that to oppose Israel is to be anti-Semitic at some point they’re going to say “Well, I guess I’m anti-Semitic”.

If Klein is right about this, our state’s anti-BDS law could be creating social permission for more conspiracy-minded people to slip into open bigotry. Is that worth risking to preserve a law that doesn’t do anything to fight anti-Semitism?

The biggest obstacles to repeal are elected officials, not voters.

All of these criticisms were true ten years ago, but it mattered very little at the time because supporting Israel has been a bipartisan project in American politics for decades. The real reason that it is an opportune moment to repeal the law is that there has been a seismic shift in how the electorate views Israel. 

Since the Israeli government launched their brutal response to the October 7th attacks, we have seen poll after poll after poll after poll showing that Americans view Israel more negatively than ever before. This is true across party affiliation, but it is especially true among Democrats. Now that Joe Biden has not been in a position to excuse Israel’s behavior and Trump is using the issue to justify illegal, politically motivated deportations, a clear majority of Democratic voters has come to sympathize more with the Palestinian cause than with the Israeli state.

There is an enormous gap between how party elites and voters think about this issue, and most Democratic politicians have yet to catch up to their base. Illinois has been no exception. Only one of the candidates running to replace retiring Senator Dick Durbin, Representative Robin Kelly, has indicated a willingness to pursue an arms embargo against Israel, and the vast majority of the Illinois congressional delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives has consistently refused to substantively criticize the government’s Israel policy. At the state level, only a minority of Democratic legislators have signaled their support for legislation to repeal the anti-BDS law.

This is disheartening regardless of whether politicians are deeply ideologically committed to what Israel represents or whether they have just decided to avoid challenging powerful interest groups. But there are signs that this gap between party elites and their voters nationwide could start to close. In New York City, home to more Jews than any other city in America, outspoken critic of Israel Zohran Mamdani handily won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a plurality of the Jewish vote, in part because of his views on Palestine. Over half of Senate Democrats recently voted to oppose some military aid to Israel, including both Senators Durbin and Duckworth of Illinois. Some Democrats in Congress have even started to call for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state. Just as crucially, it does not appear that Israel’s right-wing government has any plans to end their illegal invasion and blockade of Gaza, making the issue more pressing than ever.

It is possible to get Democratic politicians to adopt the positions their base holds under these conditions, even if it’s for entirely cynical reasons. A repeal of our state’s anti-BDS law would not just be popular, it could set the stage for even more policy changes on the national level, especially as Democratic candidates begin to position themselves for a presidential run in 2028. 

With this in mind, Illinois-based groups that have committed themselves to changing our country’s relationship with Israel like Chicago DSA should consider joining the Illinois Coalition for Human Rights as supporting organizations, and should come up with local campaigns to lobby their state officials. The ones that are planning to endorse candidates for state-level office should also take advantage of the upcoming March primaries to ask fresh faces to sign on as a condition for their support.

Like-minded individuals should also make an effort to tell their representatives this is an important issue to them by sending them messages like this one. They should consider getting involved with organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace Chicago, CAIR Action Illinois, and IfNotNow Chicago that have already signed on to stay engaged with the repeal campaign.

To steal a turn of phrase from the infamous American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), supporting Palestine is “good policy and good politics” within the Democratic Party. The only question now is whether we can get our elected officials to wake up to that reality while we have the momentum.

The post Now is the Time to Repeal Illinois’ Extremist Pro-Israel Law appeared first on Midwest Socialist.