This opinion is part of a series debating what, if any, endorsements Maine DSA should consider in 2026. We welcome contributions. You can read the first in the series arguing in favor of endorsing Platner and Troy Jackson here, What’s at State in Maine in 2026?

***

“[I]t is not sufficient to attach a “vanguard” label to rearguard theory and practice.” — V. I. Lenin, What is to be Done?

Since launching his senatorial campaign in August, 2025, Graham Platner has quickly gained national attention. Graham has presented himself as a progressive candidate, criticizing the Republican Party for its extreme reaction, but also criticizing the Democratic Party for its utter fecklessness. This hardline progressive and anti-oligarchy position has earned Graham much praise within the progressive movement of the U.S., even earning Graham a speaking opportunity at Bernie Sanders’ 2025 Labor Day Rally in Portland, Maine.

This has predictably led to discussion within Maine DSA about whether the organization should endorse Graham, of which this article is a part. I do not deny that there is much to like about Graham. There are many provisions in his platform which Maine DSA was already fighting for. I do not deny that there are ways in which Maine DSA can and should support Graham’s campaign, but I am also of the opinion that it would be political suicide for Maine DSA to endorse Graham. Hence why I am arguing for “support without endorsement” in this article.

My argument against endorsement rests upon the following premises: 1) to endorse something is to give said thing one’s stamp of approval; 2) it is the job of all self-identified/self-described socialists and their organizations to advance a socialist agenda; 3) Maine DSA is a self-identified/self-described socialist organization; 4) it is, therefore, incumbent upon Maine DSA to advance a socialist agenda; 5) Graham Platner’s platform in its entirety is not only not a socialist platform, but is arguably an anti-socialist platform; 6) Maine DSA would, therefore, not be advancing a socialist agenda by endorsing Graham Platner; 7) Maine DSA should, therefore, not endorse Graham Platner.

How can we be sure that Graham’s platform is not a socialist one? My, admittedly only, proof comes from the section of Graham’s platform titled Take on Waste and Corruption at the Pentagon; Rebuild American Shipbuilding, which includes the following articles:

“We need to take the funds currently paying for mansions in Virginia and Maryland for defense contractors, and reinvest them into closing the massive shipbuilding gap.

I’ve seen under the hood. I know exactly how much money is wasted, and where. Send me to Washington and I will work tirelessly to rebuild the American military.” (Archived Platform)

There still appears to be much to like in these provisions at first glance, but closer examination reveals content which is highly problematic when considered from a socialist perspective.

[Read next: Gaza solidarity… New Banner, New Location, New Friends]

In my larger critique of Graham, I argued that any plan to close the US-China shipbuilding gap would be economically unfeasible without deepening the United States’ already unprecedented imperial exploitation of the globe, and that this would likely entail imperialist war. The project of expanding US shipbuilding to where it could compete with China would likely dwarf the construction of the interstate highway in the US; a project which was undertaken at the peak of the US empire in the 1950s, whereas now the US empire is in a period of steep decline, as is evidenced by the country’s shift from free trade to economic protectionism. The US currently accounts for only 0.1% of global shipbuilding whereas China builds more ships than the rest of the world combined. (Center for Strategic & International Studies).

Even if it were economically feasible, it still raises the question of what purpose there would be in closing the US-China shipbuilding gap? It’s easy to grasp why China now accounts for 53.3% of global shipbuilding (Ibid.). As the industrial capital of the world, China needs a substantial shipbuilding infrastructure to build the shipping capacity it requires to effectively export the commodities it produces for countries around the world, including the US. This is not only affirmed by the historical example of the British Empire, whose naval peak coincided with their industrial peak as the industrial capital of the world in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth century, but is also affirmed by the example of US ally South Korea, a country which also produces a great many goods for export and accounts for the second most global shipbuilding output at 29.1% (Ibid.).

The US, by contrast, while still being a very large exporter, is an overall net importer (Bureau of Economic Analysis). The US has a far smaller industrial capacity than China owing to its much smaller population. The ability of the US to be a competitive exporter is already hampered by the comparatively high cost of US labor, and this also means that expanding US shipbuilding might not translate to making the US a more effective importer either. And this is also before we even consider the effect that Trump’s tariff policy has on all of these factors.

Thorough study of the US-China shipbuilding gap leads one to the conclusion that the gap is simply insurmountable for the US for several reasons. Firstly, because the US simply lacks the manpower to facilitate the expansion of US shipbuilding that’s necessary to compete with China. Secondly, even if the shipbuilding infrastructure of US allies like South Korea and Japan are counted as part of the US shipbuilding infrastructure, it’s still unclear that the US would be able to close the resultant 11% gap between the US and China, as China is likely to continue expanding its shipbuilding capacity during this same time. Thirdly, building a newer, more modern, and more efficient shipbuilding infrastructure in the US would likely require the deconstruction of the existing infrastructure to create a clean slate to build on, further allowing China to expand its lead over the US. Fourthly, even ignoring the military utility and all other logistical problems, it’s simply unclear what purpose is served by expanding the US’ shipbuilding capabilities.

As I currently understand the prevailing state of US shipbuilding, expanding the existing infrastructure would, at best, make for a good jobs program, but shipbuilding for the sake of job creation is a different matter than shipbuilding to close a competitive gap with another country. As I will explain later, socialists have no interest in competing with other countries anyway.

[Read next: As Cumberland County Goes, So Go Immigrant Rights in Maine]

The section of Graham’s platform which is most objectionable from a socialist perspective is the clause on rebuilding the US military. Socialists, including moderate socialists, have always been resolutely opposed to war between countries and service in the militaries of capitalist countries. This is due to the socialists’ adherence to the concept of internationalism—the concept that the working class has no country and is therefore international, if not anti-national—which rests on the following premises, as we have summarized elsewhere: 

1) under capitalism, individuals make money by selling commodities; 2) the thing that distinguishes the working class from all other classes is that they sell their ability to work to an external consumer as a commodity; 3) as a commodity, the price of labor power is subject to the same basic laws as any other commodity; 4) the price of labor power therefore decreases when workers compete with each other for work or when there is an increase in the availability of labor power; 5) workers should not compete with each other for any reason because all it accomplishes is the mutual immiseration of workers to the benefit of capital owners; 6) workers should cooperate or unite with each other for the mutual benefit of all workers; 7) this idea extends to workers of different national origins because competition between workers of different nations has the same mutually destructive effects on workers as competition between workers of the same nation, especially as labor markets become increasingly globalized in step with the rest of the economy (The Revolutionist). 

From these premises, it follows further that since socialiststs do not support workers competing with each other, we also do not support workers killing each other, which is the inevitable result of war between countries. This is stated explicitly and succinctly in the Resolution on Militarism adopted by the Socialist International at its 1907 congress in Stuttgart, Germany, which says,

“Wars between capitalist states are, as a rule, the outcome of their competition on the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones. In this, the subjugation of foreign peoples and countries plays a prominent role. These wars result furthermore from the incessant race for armaments by militarism, one of the chief instruments of bourgeois class rule and of the economic and political subjugation of the working class. 

Wars are favored by the national prejudices which are systematically cultivated among civilized peoples in the interest of the ruling classes for the purpose of distracting the proletarian masses from their own class tasks as well as from their duties of international solidarity. 

Wars, therefore, are part of the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished or when the enormous sacrifices in men and money required by the advance in military technique and the indignation called forth by armaments, drive the peoples to abolish this system. 

For this reason, the proletariat, which contributes most of the soldiers and makes most of the material sacrifices, is a natural opponent of war which contradicts its highest goal—the creation of an economic order on a Socialist basis which will bring about the solidarity of all peoples.”

In this regard, in the sense that it can be said that Graham is actively supportive of the US military and its expansion, it can be conclusively said that Graham Platner’s platform is an anti-socialist one. To endorse Graham would therefore be to endorse his platform, and endorsing a platform which clearly expresses explicitly anti-socialist values would constitute more than a simple failure to advance a socialist agenda, it would constitute the advancement of an anti-socialist agenda. This would be especially damaging for Maine DSA since it has already demonstrated that it understands the importance of internationalism by forming a working group specifically dedicated to internationalism, meaning that the organization should know better than to endorse a platform like the one currently being advanced by Graham.

It would be one thing if Graham’s platform was ambiguous on such core aspects of socialist politics, in which case we would be unable to offer a strong argument against endorsement, as the rest of Graham’s platform consists of fairly milquetoast social-democratic policy initiatives which socialists have historically supported with the cynical goal of showing the limits of social-democracy by removing any barrier to it. But as shown above, any self-described socialist organization cannot endorse/approve of Graham’s platform in its current state. If Graham is interested in obtaining the endorsement of Maine DSA, he should be made to earn that endorsement by changing his platform to one which conforms to socialist values.

[Read next: Trump’s Social Murder Bill Passes — Now What?]

DSA is the largest socialist organization in the country, and Maine DSA is the biggest socialist organization in the state of Maine. This means that it is the vanguard of the working class struggle regardless of the discomfort moderates in the organization may feel toward the label of vanguard. We have built that political capital through our own hard work and perseverance, and part of that has meant taking the correct position even when it would be easier not to. While building that political capital has been quite difficult, losing it by making unforced errors is quite easy, and giving Graham our endorsement without making him earn it would be one such unforced error.

By endorsing Graham, Maine DSA would be committing the error of workerism, that is, the tailist error of supporting whatever is popular with the working class, even when what the working class wants is not in its interests as a class.

While I speak very strongly against endorsing Graham, I do not deny that he is by far the strongest candidate in his race. I do not deny that Graham, if elected, would be a definite improvement over Susan Collins in the US Senate—though that could also be said of any completely inanimate object. We want to be quite clear that I support Graham. There are many individual articles in Graham’s platform which do not contradict a socialist agenda and are or have already been advanced by Maine DSA. In these regards, I cannot argue in good faith against supporting Graham in some form, I only argue that support must not come in the form of endorsement. Such alternative forms of support could be things like doorknocking, phonebanking, and other forms of volunteer work which will support Graham’s campaign much more materially than a formal endorsement while also allowing Maine DSA to maintain a critical orientation towards Graham. I recognize that socialist organizations need to be flexible in their tactics, but history shows that socialist organizations cease to be socialist when that same flexibility is extended to the socialist program. Hence why I argue here for support without endorsement for Graham Platner, as I feel this exemplifies the kind of programmatic rigidity and tactical flexibility that must be at the core of any socialist politics.

The post Support, but don’t endorse Platner appeared first on Pine & Roses.

DSA San Diego has voted to endorse and campaign for Proposition 50, which will be on the California ballot for a special election on November 4, 2025. If it passes, Prop. 50 would implement a temporary redistricting of California’s Congressional seats to counteract Republican gerrymandering by redrawing five Republican seats to favor Democrats until the [...]

Read More... from Fight fasciscm! Vote YES on Prop 50

The post Fight fasciscm! Vote YES on Prop 50 appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America | San Diego Chapter.

Can’t make one of our DSA San Diego canvasses? There are plenty of other ways to get involved in this fight: Donate to California DSA’s PAC! (Donate here) This helps us print DSA-branded literature and purchase canvassing tools for our outreach efforts. We rely entirely on contributions from members and supporters. Every little bit helps! [...]

Read More... from Yes on Prop 50 – Activities

The post Yes on Prop 50 – Activities appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America | San Diego Chapter.

The Colorado Springs DSA strongly believes in the power of public education to empower and to liberate. We believe that the best people to decide how and what to teach are professional educators. We have been deeply troubled at the consistent interference from the extremist school board in District 11 of Colorado Springs as they deprive teachers of the very agency that allows them to excel. Their decisions are becoming ever more concerning. No novels in high school English classes. Pages physically cut out of health textbooks. And just last week we understand they cut from the curriculum the incredible abolitionist, writer, and orator Frederick Douglass.

Instead of cutting Douglass from the curriculum, we choose to live by his words, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” We choose to unite with Charles Johnson, a union-endorsed candidate for the school board in D11. We know that he is trying to do right, even as the allies of the extremists now vying for seats on the board play into the shameful, racist tradition of painting Black men as criminals by sending out a mass text showing the mugshot from Charles’s 2020 arrest. True to what we know of him, he was guilty only of, as John Lewis loved to say, making good trouble.

In 2019, a good friend of Charles, De’Von Bailey, was shot in the back and killed by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Charles organized for greater accountability for the department. At COS DSA, we know that Black history is fundamental to American history. Maybe if these extremists spent more time studying it instead of erasing it, they would know how predictable it was that Charles was then singled out for arrest by CSPD. But they don’t know, and we suspect they just don’t care.

We stand in solidarity with Charles Johnson. Charles has been a friend to many of us who are organizers and activists in Colorado Springs, and we know him to be kind and insightful. A product of D11 himself, his commitment to teachers and students in the district is an inspiration. As the Colorado Springs Education Association prepares to strike on October 8th, we call on everyone able to show teachers their support by joining them on the picket line and by standing with Charles and the rest of the union-endorsed school board candidates come the November election. Their only goal is one we all surely share; outstanding public education in this city we love.

On 10/1/2025 the Global Sumud Flotilla was intercepted by the IDF while trying to deliver life saving aid to the Palestinians living under a blockade in Gaza. A coalition of organizers, humanitarians, doctors, artists, clergy, lawyers, and seafarers across 57 countries were just off the coast of Gaza, intending to break Israel’s blockade with much needed humanitarian aid, when they were violently intercepted by the IDF. 

We condemn this act of violence against a group of peaceful humanitarians working to end the man-made famine imposed upon the Palestinians in Gaza. While Israel continues to actively and mercilessly bomb the Gaza strip to complete its goal of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the Global Sumud Flotilla was a beacon of hope to those waiting for much needed relief. The Global Sumud Flotilla poses no threat. They are unarmed and only carrying supplies needed by the population of Gaza such as baby formula, medical supplies, and food. 

To meet a peaceful convoy of humanitarian aid with such violence and little regard for human life is appalling. The response from Italy to try and force the Global Sumud Flotilla to turn away, siding with the IDF and betraying their own citizens, is shameful. The United States is turning a blind eye to the U.S. citizens that have been kidnapped from the convoy while it continues to be involved with and enable the illegal and immoral actions of the illegal occupation known as Israel. 

We are living in a moment which, when looked back on, everyone will say they have always been against these violent acts. We must keep hope, because to keep hope is to believe truly and honestly that Palestine will be free.

Israel must release all the hostages they have kidnapped from the Global Sumud Flotilla, they must ensure their safety, and they must allow aid into Gaza. As activist and arguably one of the most famous members of the Global Sumud Flotilla, Greta Thunberg, has said, “I'm not scared of Israel. I'm scared of a world that has seemingly lost all sense of humanity.” We must not lose our humanity and continue to uplift the Palestinian cause as it is just, it is moral, and it is freedom, not just for the Palestinians, but for all of us. Because none of us are free until all of us are free. We stand with the Global Sumud Flotilla, we condemn the violence and kidnapping, and we stand with the Palestinians in their hope to someday soon be truly free.

By: Terence Cawley

SOMERVILLE, MA – The last few weeks have been tumultuous for the workers at the Starbucks store in the Davis Square neighborhood. On Wednesday, September 17, workers voted to join Starbucks Workers United. That made Davis Square the 650^th unionized Starbucks store. One week later, on Thursday the 25th, Starbucks announced the imminent closure of hundreds of stores nationwide – including the Davis Square store. By that Saturday the 27^th, the store had permanently closed. The new unionized location was gone.

Starbucks shuttered at least twenty locations in Massachusetts in this round of closures, including eight union stores. Besides the Davis Square store, the union store closures include the Harvard Square Starbucks, which unionized in May, and the store at 874 Commonwealth Avenue in Brookline, where the longest strike in Starbucks union history occurred over 64 days in 2022. 

Brief History of Starbucks Workers United

Since Starbucks workers in Buffalo, N.Y. started Starbucks Workers United in August 2021, 650 stores (representing over 12,000 workers) have unionized. More than 200 of those stores joined Starbucks Workers United since February 2024. Despite these successes, not one of these stores has so far reached a collective bargaining agreement with the company.

Starbucks Workers United’s demands include changes that will enable more baristas to make a living wage, like higher pay, expanded healthcare benefits and paid leave, and more consistent scheduling. The union is also asking for stronger protections from racial and sexual harassment, as well as the enshrinement of current benefits in a contract so they cannot be revoked by the company later. 

Starbucks initially opposed unionization efforts aggressively, leading to over 700 Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) filed against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board. The company reached an agreement with Starbucks Workers United in February 2024 to negotiate a “foundational framework” for contracts for union stores. Starbucks then failed to meet its own deadline to agree to this framework by the end of 2024, leading to workers at over 300 Starbucks locations going on strike on Christmas Eve for the largest labor action in company history. 

Starbucks Workers United and the company entered mediation in February 2025. While the union has made some progress in contract negotiations, reaching 33 tentative agreements with the company, Starbucks continues to hold out on the workers’ three core demands: increasing worker hours to address understaffing and ensure workers qualify for benefits, increasing take-home pay, and resolving all outstanding ULP charges. 

Starbucks Workers United claims on their website that Starbucks could finalize fair union contracts for less than the over $97 million Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol made for four months of work in 2024. Starbucks also covered the cost of Niccol commuting from his home in California to company headquarters in Seattle via private jet. 

Organizing at the Davis Square Starbucks

Ben Levin has worked at the Davis Square Starbucks since April 2023. “From the beginning,” he has loved his coworkers. However, when Levin and his partner began planning to have children, he saw how his coworkers with families struggled due to a lack of consistent scheduling, subpar benefits, and low wages, not to mention the high cost of living in the Greater Boston area. Levin reported to Working Mass:

I was like, it would be so cool to be able to keep this job and start a family, and the only way I can see that that would be possible would be to fight back and win some of those things.

Some Starbucks customers had already encouraged Levin and his fellow Davis Square workers to unionize, but workers spent several years organizing the groundwork to reach the point where the store was ready for an election. Levin partially attributes this to the “stigma Starbucks manufactures in the workplace” around unionizing. “I understand why people are scared,” Levin said. “There are very material reasons for that.”

While Levin said management at his store did not engage in active union-busting, they did discourage workers from organizing through what he characterized as “trying to manufacture a sense of divisiveness and fear.” Despite the opposition, Levin found success building support for the union by connecting with his coworkers on a human level, listening to the challenges they faced at work, and providing accurate information about how a union could help with those challenges. According to Levin:

At the end of the day, everyone cares, everyone wants a better workplace. [You just] have to keep shoring up support and reminding folks why we’re in it together.

Levin also found inspiration in the accelerating momentum of the nationwide Starbucks Workers United effort. “It’s important to be connected to a larger movement,” said Levin. “This is a really powerful and kind of explosive labor movement- you know, [Starbucks Workers United] is the fastest-growing unionization effort in modern history.”  

Additionally, the Davis Square workers had the support of Julie Langevin, a Starbucks Workers United staff organizer and former barista who has been involved with the union for over three years. She sees significance in the milestone of 650 unionized stores which Starbucks Workers United reached with the Davis Square election victory. Langevin said, on a hopeful note:

Every store that unionizes shows other baristas that they can do it too. 650 is a number some people thought impossible, but to us, it’s the proof that workers know what they’re worth and that they know when they fight, they can win.

Store Closures and What Comes Next

“It was sweet to celebrate,” said Levin. “It’s just hard to think about it not in the context of the closure.”

The official reason given in Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol’s statement is that the stores being closed are “coffeehouses where we’re unable to create the physical environment our customers and partners expect, or where we don’t see a path to financial performance.” In a separate statement, the company denied that unionization impacted which stores they closed.  Still, Levin believes that, while Starbucks targeted stores without customer seating (like Harvard Square) and stores with lower revenue (like Davis Square) for closure, a desire to close union stores, particularly newly unionized stores with “the most fired-up workers,” may have been a factor. 

While Niccol’s statement claimed that Starbucks would offer workers at closed stores the opportunity to transfer to other stores, as of September 30, Levin and his Davis Square coworkers have yet to receive any such offer. Fortunately, Starbucks Workers United has secured several protections for laid-off union members, including an extra month of health care benefits and the option to decline a transfer offer without losing their severance package. 

“For some of us, this is our last week at Starbucks, but we still got to see the real material impact that the union is having,” said Levin. And even in the face of store closures and protracted contract negotiations, Langevin and Levin remain confident that the union will ultimately prevail. As Langevin said:

We have no other choice. Workers can either accept what the company gives them, or fight for a chance at a better life. And every time workers reach out and want to fight, it brings me hope and continued inspiration.

Supporters of Starbucks Workers United can show their solidarity and receive email updates about future actions by signing the No Contract, No Coffee pledge at https://sbworkersunited.org/take-action/. The union and its supporters have been canvassing for these pledges since summer to demonstrate to Starbucks how many customers will not cross the picket line if workers go on strike. To that end, Starbucks Workers United will hold a practice picket outside the Harvard Square Starbucks on Saturday, October 4 from 11am to 1pm.

“I absolutely think that a fire has been lit. We’ve had so many customers come in and express outrage at what’s happening to us, and ask what they can do to support us.”

“We’re escalating to something major,” said Langevin. “This practice picket is just the beginning of us flexing that power to company leadership, and there’s more to come.”

Terence Cawley is a member of Boston DSA.

The post Starbucks Workers in Davis Square Join SBWU; Company Closes Store One Week Later appeared first on Working Mass.

On independence day during the first year of his second term, President Donald J. Trump signed budget reconciliation bill H.R.1 into law. Dubbed by conservative lawmakers as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’, H.R.1 was the catalyst for a tumultuous legislative cycle defined by rewrites, carveouts, and dishonesty. While the president claimed this bill would address inflation and the deficit and put money back in the pockets of Americans, realistically this bill functions as the continuation of the immense wealth transfer towards the ruling class that has been poorly masked in this country for decades. 

H.R.1 is abundant with cuts to multiple institutions that sought to uplift those in need. Perhaps the most dangerous of these gut the public health systems across the country, resulting in billions of dollars stripped from hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare services that millions of people rely on every day. Silicon Valley DSA believes healthcare is a fundamental human right. The Trump Administration and conservative lawmakers, who kowtow and walk in lockstep with everything the president demands, seek to deny this right to those who need adequate social safety nets to uplift and propel the community. 

Some of the more alarming cuts for the community Silicon Valley DSA calls home are those that impact Medi-Cal. Santa Clara County relies on approximately $3.5 billion in federal funding annually, and the cuts within H.R.1 are anticipated to cause losses of nearly 30% of that funding, which goes towards essential healthcare services within the community, including but not limited to emergency rooms, trauma response units, mental health programs, cancer treatment centers, community clinics, and the only burn unit in the Bay Area, one of only three such facilities between Los Angeles and the Oregon border. Additionally, a quarter of all residents and half of all county hospital patients rely on Medi-Cal for adequate, affordable treatment. 

The damage will not stop at those who rely on Medi-Cal, though. Budget cuts such as those seen in H.R.1 cause ripple effects. A loss of federal funding at this scale can devastate the infrastructure of the community’s public health system as a whole, being the impetus for longer wait times, shrinking staff and capacity, and even the closing of facilities entirely. As Santa Clara County already has the second lowest capacity emergency department (ED) beds per capita, losing this funding puts at risk the health and safety of all county residents, regardless of provider.

To combat what can only be described as a direct attack on the health and welfare of the American people, Silicon Valley DSA has unanimously decided to endorse Measure A, a ballot measure authored by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to be voted on during the November 4, 2025 special election.

Measure A is a temporary 5/8 cent sales tax increase across Santa Clara County that could raise upwards of $330 million annually to support the public health systems that are under siege by the current administration. This tax, which equates to approximately 62 cents per every $100 spent, will save lives. The generated tax revenue, while not completely offsetting the cuts, will keep hospitals open, keep medical professionals and facility staff employed, and protect access to care for hundreds of thousands of Santa Clara County residents. Measure A would expire in April 2031, and independent audits and strict oversight will seek to ensure this generated sales tax revenue will be allocated appropriately. We feel it’s also important to note that, per Regulation 1602 Sections 6091, 6353, and 6359 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, groceries, prescriptions, and other necessities are exempt from sales tax, meaning these daily bills will not be impacted were Measure A to pass this November.

We recognize that a sales tax is a regressive funding mechanism and isn’t the ideal answer to the circumstances we now face, but the urgency and severity of this crisis brought on by our lawmakers requires swift action. While imperfect, Silicon Valley DSA implores the community to vote ‘YES’ on Measure A during the November special election, and we intend to mobilize members, along with our allies in labor unions, community organizations, immigrants rights groups, public health advocates, and beyond to ensure its passage. Our initial campaigning efforts to help Measure A gain the momentum it needs have included phone banking and canvassing in collaboration with the South Bay Labor Council throughout September, and we will continue these efforts weekly until the election. We invite you to come join us. Find details on our calendar at https://siliconvalleydsa.org/events/.

In the meantime, recognition that this is not a permanent solution means continuing to push forward in our work garnering support for the ultimate goal of a fully funded, publicly owned, and democratically run healthcare system that ensures quality, timely care for all in need, as it has been proven time and time again private equity without fail negatively impacts healthcare. 

Our fight is against both Democrats and Republicans who continue to diminish the rights and voice of the constituents they promised to serve to instead benefit themselves and their billionaire corporate donors. DSA believes a better world is possible, one where we democratically decide on how society is structured for the common good rather than the profit of a few. Join us at https://siliconvalleydsa.org/join/.

The post SVDSA Supports Measure A to Protect our County Hospital System appeared first on Silicon Valley DSA.

Zoelle Lane is running for Fort Collins Council. Zoelle is an immigrant, union member, and renter running to tackle Fort Collins’ cost of living crisis and to empower its residents. One of her goals for office is to raise the minimum wage, which is long overdue!

Zoelle is part of a slate of candidates in the Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!