The post DSA Labor Statement on Spanberger Veto of HB1263 and SB378 appeared first on Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.

Procedure Steps

1. The Chapter Member(s) wishing to make an expenditure request (hereafter referred to as the “Requestor”) fills out and submits the Milwaukee DSA Expenditure Request Form at least one (1) week in advance of any deadlines associated with the request.
2. The Chapter Finance Team and/or Chapter Treasurer (hereafter referred to as the “Reviewer”) reviews the request within one (1) week. The Reviewer then determines if the request meets the following:
   • Criteria:
     • If the request meets both these criteria, the next steps of this procedure are then performed. If the request fails to meet any of the above criteria, the Reviewer denies the request and informs the Requestor of the reason(s) for denial, after which this Procedure is complete and no further steps are necessary. 
     • It is qualified for consideration according to the Governing Documents of Milwaukee DSA
   • If the request meets both these criteria, the next steps of this procedure are then performed. If the request fails to meet any of the above criteria, the Reviewer denies the request and informs the Requestor of the reason(s) for denial, after which this Procedure is complete and no further steps are necessary. 
3. The Reviewer determines what body of the Chapter is required to approve or deny the request (hereafter referred to as the “Grantor”), and refers the request to the appropriate party.
4. The Reviewer contacts the Requestor to inform them of the date, time and location at which the Grantor will consider the request, and asks if the Requestor or another person is available at that date and time to explain and motivate the request to the Grantor.
5. The Grantor approves or denies the request at the next available opportunity, and informs the Requestor of their decision. 

Purpose

The Internal Communication and Moderation policy will ensure that chapter communication spaces remain welcoming, constructive, and aligned with the DSA’s Code of Conduct for members as well as Milwaukee DSAs Online Code of Conduct policy and Meeting and Events Code of Conduct.  By establishing consistent moderation practices and clear guidelines, this Policy will help facilitate productive discussion, reduce disruptive behavior, and protect the ability of members to organize effectively online. 

Community Standards

1. At all chapter meetings and events, members must adhere to the Policy: Meeting and Event Code of Conduct.
2. For all online communication, members must adhere to Policy: Online Code of Conduct. 
3. Members may appeal a moderation decision through the Procedure: Moderation Appeal Process. All thoughts and concerns regarding a moderation action may not be shared on public platforms. Any questions regarding a moderation appeal or action must be asked privately and directly to a moderator or HGO.

Platforms

1. Milwaukee DSA members may use the Discord server, moderated by the chapter (hereafter referred to as the chapter Discord) to communicate with other active members, to discuss among themselves as individuals, and to advocate for their own individual perspectives. With the exception of announcements from moderators or duly elected or appointed chapter officers, posts are understood to represent individual opinions, not official decisions or positions of the Milwaukee chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
2. Signal should be used occasionally, concisely and for person to person, immediate communication. Signal may also be used in the event that said communications need to be encrypted.
3. The Milwaukee DSA Signal Chat has been terminated. There is no official Milwaukee DSA Signal Chat. 
4. The primary official method of outreach shall be through regular direct outreach to members and supporters at the contact information they have shared with DSA and Milwaukee DSA (e.g., email newsletters and occasional phone calls or texts). Chapter officers shall organize this outreach. Outreach using chapter contact lists shall be conducted using DSA resources to ensure members’ privacy. Scripts and emails shall be approved by duly elected or appointed chapter officers to ensure that they reflect the collective decisions of Milwaukee DSA.

Role Definitions

1. Moderators: members who moderate and monitor discussion in chapter chat servers
2. Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs): responsible for overseeing the investigation of Members accused of engaging in prohibited behavior according to the Harassment Policy (Resolution 33) of DSA. See chapter bylaws for more detail. 
3. Administrators: Maintain membership in the chapter chat server, adding in new members and channels plus removing members who are no longer in the chapter. Admin roles will be given to mkedsaoutreach@gmail.com and milwaukeedsa@gmail.com and be maintained by the Secretary, Outreach Officer and Communications Officer. More admins will be added on an as needed basis.

Role of Moderators

1. To remove, mute or ban any content or person that does not follow all applicable codes of conduct and policies 
2. To document all incidents in which the moderation team removed, muted, or banned content or persons
3. To seek advice from those on the moderation team for guidance on how to proceed with member infractions/removals
4. To cooperate with Chapter HGOs in the event of content needing to be retrieved for an HGO filing
5. To keep discussions and other chapter business on topic and concise
6. To receive feedback from members regarding content or user interactions, and clarify to members why the moderators modified their participation in the chapter server
7. Provide 48 hour notice to members who receive infractions or banning

Guidelines for Moderation Actions

1. This set of community guidelines follows a “three strikes you’re out” guideline for removing members from the chapter server. Once a member has acquired three or more infractions, they will be removed from the chapter server for a year or possibly more, depending on the severity.
   • Infraction #1
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member about how to interact with the chapter chat server in the future
   • Infraction #2
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring.
     • Member will be banned from server ranging from a day to a week, depending on severity
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member about what they can do in the future
   • Infraction #3
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring.
     • Member will be banned from server ranging from one  to indefinitely, depending on severity 
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member after the length of the ban time to determine if both parties are ready to bring the member back into the server.

2. Moderators will use their best discretion to enforce all applicable Community Standards (see section I.) and to maintain an orderly and safe place for all members to organize.  
3. At any point a member may discuss with the moderation team about why they received any moderation actions (deleted posts, account banned or muted)  against them. Questions regarding a moderation appeal or action must be asked privately and directly to a moderator or HGO. Members may appeal moderation actions through the Procedure: Moderation Appeal Process. 
4. In the event that a conversation is generally heated and may escalate, a moderator may temporarily put a channel or thread into “slow mode” to allow all parties time to cool down. Moderators should consult other moderators and/or HGO(s) if they chose to put a channel in “slow mode”  

Choosing moderators

1. Chapter Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs) will manage the moderation team under the purview of the Executive Committee; they will not personally moderate membership posts except in the case of inappropriate moderator behavior or when immediate emergency action is needed.
2. There must be at minimum 2 moderators (not including HGOs). The Executive Committee may appoint additional moderators as recommended by the moderation team. Appointed moderators will be subject to a confirmation vote by membership at a General Meeting.
3. Moderators must be members in good standing
4. A Moderator’s term shall be no longer than 1 year following their confirmation vote, unless reappointed by the Executive Committee. All moderators are subject to appointment or reappointment by the Executive Committee in June each year.

Purpose

A primary goal of DSA is to be welcoming and inclusive to our members and others who share DSA’s core values of liberty, equality, solidarity, as well as our commitment to restructuring gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable and not oppressive within the context of building a diverse working class movement. As such, we are committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all.

This code of conduct outlines DSA’s expectations for all those who participate in DSA meetings, conferences, and other public-facing events, as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. That includes DSA members, allies, vendors, donors, supporters, and others. We invite all DSA members and allies to help us create welcoming and positive experiences for everyone

1 Expected Behavior

The following behaviors are expected and requested of all persons – including members – who participate in Milwaukee DSA meetings, conferences and other events:

1. Abide by DSA Guidelines for Respectful Discussions and with all applicable Community Codes of Conduct;
2. Refrain from demeaning, discriminatory, or harassing behavior and speech;
3. Participate in an authentic and active way. In doing so, you contribute to the health and longevity of DSA;
4. Exercise consideration in your speech and actions;
5. Share analysis and opinions rather than accusations;
6. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. 
7. Alert a DSA chapter officer if you notice a dangerous situation, someone in distress, or violations of this Code of Conduct, even if they seem inconsequential;
8. Trust your gut if you notice someone who might be an infiltrator, and let a DSA chapter officer know. For DSA resources as to what infiltrators historically do, please read this and this.

2 Unacceptable Behavior

The following behaviors are unacceptable within our community and may lead to the person being subject to our harassment policy or code of conduct and expulsion process:

1. Violence, threats of violence or violent language directed against another person, as well as language which could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging or threatening violence;
2. Concealing, carrying, or brandishing weapons;
3. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language;
4. Posting or displaying sexually explicit or violent material;
5. Posting or threatening to post other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”);
6. Personal insults, particularly those related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability;
7. Inappropriate photography or recording. You should have someone’s consent before taking their photograph and/or recording their voice;
8. Inappropriate physical contact. You should have someone’s consent before touching them;
9. Unwelcome sexual attention. This includes: sexualized comments or jokes; inappropriate touching, groping, and unwelcome sexual advances;
10. Deliberate intimidation, stalking or following (online or in person);
11. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior; Disruption of community events, including meetings, talks and presentations; including by anyone who is in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization, as provided by the DSA Constitution.

3 Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior

3. Unacceptable behavior from any person who attends a Milwaukee DSA meeting, conference, or event will not be tolerated. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately.
4. Infiltrators will be removed from meetings, conferences, and all other events immediately. An infiltrator is defined any of the following: (a) anyone who is advocating for principles or actions which are in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization, as provided by the DSA Constitution (b) anyone who is engaging in systematic/planned disruption of DSA meetings/events/etc. regardless of their stated principles, (c) anyone who misuses DSA data. For example: tracking/compiling/using/disseminating DSA data (lists, minutes, etc.) for the purpose of surveillance, for use by an outside organization, or for other unapproved uses.  
5. If a person engages in unacceptable behavior, Milwaukee DSA leaders/organizers may take any immediate action they deem appropriate, including expulsion from the meeting, conference or event, and without refund in the case of a paid event. Until the chapter can investigate whether the unacceptable behavior violated DSA’s harassment policy and/or any applicable code of conduct, the person may be prohibited from further participation in the organization.

4 Reporting Guidelines

1. If you are subject to or witness unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify a meeting marshal, HGO, or DSA officer (including the elected chapter leadership and/or meeting or committee chair). 
2. Solely as an option of critical need, depending on the nature of the conduct, DSA officers may help community members engage with local law enforcement or to otherwise help those experiencing unacceptable behavior feel safe. At in-person events, organizers will also provide escorts as desired by the person experiencing distress.
3. Chapter HGOs (harassment grievance officers) can assist with filing a grievance for a potential violation of DSA’s harassment policy, Resolution 33, and/or chapter codes of conduct. If an HGO is not present at the meeting, please contact a chapter officer or look on the chapter website to obtain the confidential email address to submit a grievance.

5 Scope

3. We expect all community participants (DSA staff, members, allies, vendors, donors, supporters and others) to abide by this Code of Conduct in all community venues–online and in-person–as well as in all one-on-one communications pertaining to DSA business.
4. This code of conduct and its related procedures also applies to unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members.
5. The Executive Committee may pre-approve appropriate security for any meeting or event if needed. Nothing in this code shall be interpreted as prohibiting security steps deemed necessary by the EC.

More than 300,000 people in Maine are renters who live in one of Maine’s 155,000 units. And almost half of those people are paying much more rent than they can afford. 

In the past decade, many have seen rent increases in the double digits, well above inflation and raises in pay. On top of that, tenants can be evicted for no reason, have their rent gouged regularly, and have very little recourse when a landlord violates the rules.

And yet, most housing affordability solutions in Maine have focused on property tax relief, or some form of homeowner assistance. In reality, on average, property taxes amount to less than 4% of a homeowner’s income, compared to almost 50% of a renter’s income. 

To that problem, I offer the “Tenant Bill of Rights.” This is an action plan pulled from all the best ideas I have seen or based on personal experience as a renter in Maine. While it should be enacted statewide, municipalities can take up many of its tenets as well.

1. Prohibit no-cause evictions. No tenant should be kicked out of their home for no reason, yet the practice is legal and frequent in Maine. Half a dozen states have laws requiring landlords to show “just cause” to terminate/not renew someone’s lease (even New Hampshire, for heaven’s sake). Maine should do the same.
2. Cap all rent increases to the rate of inflation. Right now, as every renter knows, landlords can and do raise the rent hundreds of dollars a month. A freeze tied to inflation, preferably permanent, but for five years would work, will protect hundreds of thousands of Mainers from rent gouging, as we look to longer term solutions.
3. Create a statewide rental registry including rent levels. In order to fully understand the rental housing crisis, and to track the rent gouging which has made thousands homeless, we need a statewide registry of the rent charged for every unit and all increases imposed. This is also essential to administer number two (rent increase cap).
4. Require landlords to negotiate with organized tenant unions. Unions for workers have basic protections. If a majority of employees vote to form a union, ownership must negotiate with them as a unit. While landlords can’t evict tenants for forming a union, landlords are not required to negotiate with them. They should be.
5. Require 90-day notice for all rent increases. When a landlord raises the rent, it is only humane to ensure that they give a tenant a full 90 days to prepare. That creates an opportunity for the tenant to seek a new place, ask for a raise at work, or, most likely, squeeze some other part of their budget to stay housed.
6. Limit security deposits to one month’s rent. One of the biggest detriments to tenants getting an apartment is that under current law, a landlord can ask for two months’ deposit plus the first month’s rent. For a unit renting at $1,500-$2,500 a month, that can be entirely prohibitive. Limiting up-front costs to a one month deposit and the first month’s rent will free up many tenants. And while we’re at it, landlords should be required to pay the tenant back the interest they earn holding that deposit for years.
7. Ban broker/application fees to apply for an apartment. Currently, a landlord can require a tenant to go through a broker to rent an apartment, who, in turn, can charge a tenant thousands to secure the unit. Also, a landlord can pass on the costs of doing a background check. Both should be banned.
8. Allow tenants to recover legal fees/damages for illegal evictions. Current law does not allow for tenants to recover legal fees or damages, even if your landlord does something illegal to you. When mine tried to evict me for organizing a union, we had to raise tens of thousands of dollars, including thousands of dollars of my own money, to fight back. Very few tenants have access to those kinds of resources.
9. Require significant civil penalties against landlords for violations. Right now, landlords in Maine face almost no consequences for breaking the law. The repercussions for health hazards, illegal fees, confiscating deposits, violating lease terms, etc, are basically fix it/pay it back. If the penalty for getting caught stealing was just to return the money, we’d all be bank robbers.
10. Create a cabinet level office to protect tenants. New York City has the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. The office advocates for tenants by enforcing rent laws, reversing housing discrimination, stopping landlord harassment, and preventing illegal evictions right in their tracks. Maine needs the same.

While implementing the above will not end our housing crisis overnight, it will quickly begin to alleviate the economic straightjacket currently burdening renters across Maine. I hope elected officials, candidates, and activists alike take up the torch. 

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post A Tenant Bill of Rights appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Las Vegas DSA’s Electoral Working Group (EWG) has prepared a process-driven voter guide targeting Southern Nevada. EWG developed a list of candidates that had the potential to be aligned with our positions, and invited candidates on the list to fill out the questionnaire. Based on the questionnaire responses, EWG made recommendations to the General Body, which approved the following voter guide for publication.

Please note: Las Vegas DSA treats recommendations differently than endorsements. When we endorse a candidate, we commit a significant portion of our chapter resources to fight to get that candidate elected and they are expected to act as representatives of LVDSA. Although multiple candidates sought our endorsement in 2026, only two were endorsed – Val Thomason and Shaun Navarro. The additional recommendations in this guide are intended to help voters with their choices, but they do not imply endorsement.

View the full guide

A friendly boss and a healthy wage are increasingly rare, but do workers lucky enough to have both need a union?

The post I have a good boss. Do I still need a union? appeared first on EWOC.

A recent forensic evaluation has revealed widespread financial mismanagement at KCRHA. This is unacceptable. As socialists, we stand for effective, well-resourced institutions with strong accountability mechanisms to ensure the responsible stewardship of public funds. Failures like these erode people’s trust in the public sector and its ability to meaningfully improve their lives. 

However, instead of trying to restore that trust, many politicians, media figures, and conservative voices are using this moment as an opportunity to advocate for rolling back social services entirely. They are proposing a rapid dismantlement of KCRHA with no regard for the impact it will have on the people relying on these services, the workers providing services, and the region at large. DSA wholeheartedly rejects leveraging this financial mismanagement to advance austerity politics. 

In fact, with homelessness increasing year over year in King County, it’s clear that this problem requires more resources, not less. Cutting funding for services will not make homelessness disappear; it will only push more people into crisis while making it harder for service providers to respond effectively. Any decisions about the future of KCRHA must prioritize these principles:

Continuity of Care

A hasty dismantling of KCHRA without consideration for continuity of care will be disastrous for all involved. Any restructuring of this organization must include uninterrupted support for our homeless neighbors and stability for service providers. If KCRHA is dissolved without an immediate county-level successor, the City of Seattle will have a responsibility to see that the homeless are not punished for the failures of the politicians.

A Responsible Regional Approach

The original idea behind KCRHA – that homelessness is a regional crisis requiring a coordinated regional response – remains correct. However, this shouldn’t have meant allowing the city and county to offload their responsibility to an agency with no accountability to the public. The responsibility for tackling a regional problem rested with King County itself. A County Department would not have had the cash flow issues that plagued KCRHA and would have had clear lines of responsibility in the case of mismanagement. This is the approach that has been used by Multnomah County. Going forward, rather than abandoning the regional model, we should reform and strengthen it by creating a county-level department that is transparent, effective, and democratically accountable.

Meaningful Regional Funding

KCRHA’s current funding model places a disproportionate burden on Seattle. Seattleites pay for KCRHA twice—directly through the Seattle of Seattle (53%) and indirectly through King County (26%). We clearly need a more equitable funding structure, but the rich will never simply opt-in to paying their fair share – we must raise new progressive taxes at the county level. DSA’s first representative in the state legislature, Shaun Scott, authored a bill in the last session that would have allowed King County to do just that.

Stop the Sweeps

Beyond KCRHA, King County cities continue to waste money on punitive solutions like sweeps that only succeed at shuffling homeless people around. Seattle alone spends over $30 million per year on the Unified Care Team, the city’s sweep crew. This is money that could be used to fund permanent supportive housing, outreach, and wraparound services, which are vital for creating a path out of homelessness. 

Housing For All

It’s time for us to come to terms with the fact that the City and County’s halfhearted approaches to homelessness are not working. We must ask ourselves why this problem seems so intractable.

Homelessness is not an accident or a personal failing. When working people are forced to bid for a limited supply of housing, some of us will inevitably be left without. As long as housing is treated as a commodity to speculate on rather than as a fundamental human right, our shelter will remain subjected to the whims of market manipulation. Rather than catering to the landlords that make their fortune by keeping housing expensive and holding homelessness as a threat over our heads, we need to guarantee housing for all. 

by Marckus T

So I didn’t vote in last Tuesday’s primary. For someone deeply invested in political change, staying home wasn’t just me being apathetic. It was a conscious choice because looking at the Ohio ballot, there was absolutely no revolutionary opposition to the status quo. The results across the state aren’t just disappointing. They basically show how the Democratic Party establishment keeps a stranglehold on politics by limiting who is even “viable” to run.

For us socialists, it really highlights the massive gap between having radical rhetoric and actually having the organized material power to challenge the system. We talk a lot about material dialectics, and this primary is a perfect social experiment playing out in real time. The establishment applied their pressure, the progressive wing failed to organize a material counter-pressure, and the resulting synthesis is just more of the exact same stagnant politics that have been failing working-class Ohioans for decades.

The Uncontested Gubernatorial Illusion

Take the race for Governor. Amy Acton ran completely unopposed. We basically had no choice on state leadership. This lack of competition is just classic managed democracy, where the establishment handpicks candidates so a left-wing insurgency can’t even get off the ground.

When the party only gives you one path, voting is just a formality and not actual working-class agency. The Ohio Democratic Party would rather run a completely safe, uncontested moderate and lose to a Republican than risk a primary where a socialist or true progressive might actually agitate the working class and shift the conversation. They make the barrier to entry so high with signature requirements and fundraising expectations that grassroots campaigns are starved out before they even file their paperwork. This isn’t an accident. It is a calculated structural bottleneck designed to keep working people choosing between two flavors of capitalism.

Forhan and the Failure of Individualist Insurgency

Then there’s the Attorney General race, which was the only real clash between a self-described radical and the party machine. Elliot Forhan getting crushed by over 20 points is a huge lesson for our movement. It proves that rhetoric is not organization. Forhan ran a really lackluster campaign that was totally isolated from work unions and socialist infrastructure.

There’s a huge difference between shallow individualist advocacy and deep structural organizing. Forhan’s campaign was flawed by design because he substituted radical aesthetics for actual base-building. In the age of social media, it is really easy to fall into the trap of thinking that going viral or having edgy talking points translates to actual votes. But political power doesn’t come from a Twitter following. It comes from knocking on doors, having hundreds of one-on-one conversations, and building trust in working-class neighborhoods.

Because he couldn’t unify the left in Ohio or build a dedicated mass base, his insurgency just got flattened by the party’s money and institutional weight. Doing true organizing for a candidacy means doing the rigorous and unglamorous work of building collective power before the election, not just making a bunch of noise during it. You cannot substitute ego for an organized mass base.

The Sherrod Paradox

Sherrod Brown’s dominance is still a thing because he remains the only prominent figure using a pro-worker “Dignity of Work” narrative. He is obviously not a socialist, but the vacuum to his left exists because we haven’t built a competing power base capable of offering a materialist alternative for the working class. Him winning by 90% isn’t a total endorsement of his politics, it’s just the complete absence of a radical challenge from within the Democratic Party.

While Greg Levy is providing an alternative by running as an independent, this primary proves the Democratic establishment faces zero internal threat from the left. And frankly, we have to be honest about the material reality of third-party runs right now. The current political atmosphere is so hostile and unstable that running outside the two-party system just isn’t a realistic tactic for us yet. It is a sad reality, but the structural barriers are simply too high. Until we build up our own massive and disciplined electoral infrastructure, those independent campaigns will continue to be starved of resources and media oxygen before they can even get off the ground.

“Dignity of Work” is a great slogan, but as socialists, we know that true dignity doesn’t come from just having a slightly nicer boss or a slightly better wage under capitalism. It comes from the working class actually owning the value of what they produce. But because we haven’t stepped up to provide that alternative on a massive scale, working-class Ohioans are left clinging to the best available option the Democrats will allow them to have.

Ceding the Battlefield: The Danger of Anti-Electoralism

I know there are comrades in our movement who think electoral politics is a complete waste of time, just a bourgeois trap that feeds the establishment instead of building revolution. And theoretically, yeah, that skepticism makes sense. The capitalist state isn’t built to dismantle itself.

But looking at our material conditions, this total lack of opposition is exactly why Ohio politics are so stagnant. Unopposed elections are why Republicans keep dragging the state further red without even trying. If we refuse to field candidates, we aren’t starving the establishment. We are literally handing them the keys to the state.

Look at the material victories we’ve already won though. With Cleveland DSA’s trans rights priority project, we fought for and passed protective legislation in Lakewood that is in effect right now. In Cleveland, we are deep in the fight pushing a ballot initiative to force that same legislation onto the city council’s agenda. We treated that project like socialist science. We formed a strategy, we tested it by organizing in the real world, and we secured a material victory. We are proving that organizing in good faith with the community forces tangible changes to protect the working class and marginalized folks.

We’re flexing our power in local issue-based campaigns, but we are completely ignoring electoralism, which is half the political battlefield. Why build up all that structural power just to surrender the ballot box? If we can run a complex, city-wide ballot initiative, we have the skills to run our own class-conscious candidates.

The Call to Action: Building Accountable Leaders and the Campaign Megaphone

The reality of these primaries shouldn’t just alienate us, it should be fuel for the fire. If there are no revolutionary candidates on the ballot, we have to put them there.

This means people taking the initiative themselves. Don’t wait for the establishment to tap you on the shoulder. We need politically motivated comrades stepping up right now, asking the hard questions, and figuring out what it takes to get a campaign off the ground.

But to be absolutely clear, this isn’t just a call to run candidates just to oppose the status quo without a real strategy. We can’t recreate the exact conditions we’re fighting against by launching unaccountable, candidate-centric campaigns that just copy the establishment’s playbook. We have to do things fundamentally differently.

What makes our electoral strategy structurally different is absolute democratic accountability and deep political alignment. We aren’t just looking for casual allies, we are building a core of deeply dedicated organizers. A socialist candidate isn’t a free agent. They are a delegate of the organization. Doing things in a new way means ensuring that a candidate is in such deep agreement with the democratic values of the chapter that going rogue wouldn’t even cross their mind. It has to be a core value of the candidate themselves that it is imperative to stand true, dedicated, and strictly disciplined to what the organization as a whole values. We don’t just endorse a candidate and hope for the best. We lift up a comrade who is already deeply embedded in our collective struggle.

When we have that level of structural discipline, the campaign turns into something way bigger than a single politician. It becomes a massive megaphone. Using that megaphone does two crucial things. First, it popularizes our politics on a massive scale, putting our platform in front of thousands of voters and making the organization a recognized, household name for working-class power.

Second, and most importantly, it intrinsically ties into the organizing work we are already doing. A disciplined electoral campaign doesn’t exist in a silo. When our candidates and volunteers are knocking doors or speaking on a debate stage, they are directly uplifting projects like the trans rights ballot initiative. The campaign acts as an amplifier. It builds the soft power of public narrative and popularity, which we then convert into the hard power needed to actually pass our initiatives and force the state’s hand.

By fusing our electoral campaigns with our pre-existing issue campaigns, we stop playing defense. We start building a comprehensive political machine. We can’t wait for the establishment to offer us a seat at the table, we have to build our own apparatus from the ground up. The DSA is the vehicle to do that. By committing to this organized project, building accountable leaders, and launching strategic campaigns, we can transform this alienation into the material power we need to break the status quo and finally secure tangible changes for the working class of Ohio.

The post The Ohio Primary: The Electoral Trap and the Call for a Revolutionary Alternative appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.