PART ONE OF TWO [Reprinted from Geese]

Too often, mutual aid, direct action, and electoralism are treated as exclusive contrasts. Reflecting on his work in the San Diego chapter of DSA, Aldo B. argues that each tactic is part of a necessary whole and that any of them, taken individually, are ineffective as a revolutionary strategy.

A colleague of mine once said that his revolutionary cocktail for the systemic change we needed as a movement entailed three key elements; direct action, mutual aid, and electoralism. This concoction has stuck with me and rolled around in my head since he said it over a year ago in his millennial-style car vlog that he posted on Instagram. I've since expanded these three components into conceptualized processes:

• Direct Action is the means by which existing conditions are confronted head on to the point of rupture in the mode of production.

• Mutual-Aid is the logistical metric for satisfying the consumption of a community by an organized grassroots network of distribution and production. 

• Electoralism is the competition between politically organized factions over the attention economy of the electorate, aka, the 30-60% of the population that is allowed to vote.

With the recent primaries across the country, my own personal hajj to NYC, and of course the lovely DSA discourse on X the Everything App, this revolutionary cocktail has only come to sit evermore in the front and center of my thinking about how to organize internally around a variety of issues my comrades feel passionately about—especially in light of those issues seemingly being at odds with one another. 

I’ll state explicitly now that I fundamentally disagree with the framing of these three tactics as being antagonistic towards each other. In fact I would go as far to state that the distilled critiques which a proponent of direct action or mutual aid might level against electoralism and a staunch electoralist against the proponents of mutual aid or direct action, are all the same. None of these tactics are an end in and of themselves. 

Standing alone, Mutual-Aid is mere charity at best, or bandaids for bullet holes at its worst; Direct Action is frankly adventurism at best, or in the worst case acts as a revolutionary release valve; and Electoralism may demonstrate a shift in the Overton Window, but at the expense of cooptation and complacency with a tepid reformism. It is only together, united by a coherent and democratically decided strategy, that its potency for revolutionary change can be actualized. 

That's enough theory for now, but I want this conceptual engine to be humming in the background as you read this piece. 

Personally, since I was a young man, I have always strived to be a well-rounded organizer, a Jack of All Trades if you will. My mother would call me a metiche (nosey?), but that's neither here nor there. The way that manifests in my organizing today is that I have a tendency to stick my fingers in every pie within arm’s reach. I run the political education committee as an elected leader in my chapter, founded and am an active participant of our migrant rights subcommittee, am the former mentor for the electoral working group and current campaign manager of a chapter cadre campaign, a proud member of the Springs of Revolution network championing our national priority Labor for an Arms Embargo locally in conjunction with our Palestine Solidarity and Labor working groups; and last, but certainly not least, my day job is as an organizer for a statewide non-profit that leans towards tenant organizing. All that to say is, six years into my organizing journey, I have yet to pigeonhole myself into just one avenue of organizing. I may not have done it consciously initially, but I try to embody the concoction of this revolutionary formula in my day-to-day organizing projects. 

Through my experience, I believe there is something to be abstracted from the overlaps in these tactically diverse projects and campaigns.Allow me to explain.

I will start with direct action as it is probably the most contentious and certainly the most volatile element of the cocktail. I want to clarify now that I am not necessarily talking about the high-risk civil disobedience operations of a Palestine Action or of a civil uprising nature; though assuredly those too have their place in the cocktail. The primary methods of direct action organized by DSA San Diego are pro-Palestine banner drops, anti-ICE community defense, and strike line support. 

In my opinion, banner drops are a sort of guerrilla political education and agitation. Of the near dozen banner drops we have organized or supported in the last year, they have proven to be opportunities for some of the most frank organizing conversations amongst the membership and with the general public. I recall one instance during a banner drop in the South Bay, a predominantly Latine working class community, where a woman began to lightly criticize us; not for being pro-Palestine, but genuinely interrogating us as to how hanging a piece of painted cloth over a bridge helps the Palestinian people. The working group cochair and I explained to her that our intentions were to keep Palestine in the public’s mind. Nearly three years into the genocide and almost a year into Trump’s regime, it almost feels as though, with the onslaught of tragedy after tragedy domestically, people might forget or deprioritize Palestinian liberation in order to deal with the struggles we have to overcome at home. What we were really trying to do was emphasize that the struggle in Palestine was the same struggle we faced here.

In the same vein, our anti-ICE community patrols are another form of direct action. Just as in Palestine the genocide was result of a century of development by the Zionist entity, experimenting with different methods of occupation and disenfranchisement, Trump and the Department of Homeland Security are fomenting the early stages of an ethnic cleansing of working class black and brown people from our communities. When I motivated to prioritize community self-defense in the chapter, I was met with some well-intentioned pushback. The main worry was the high-risk nature of the work and associating with organizations like Union del Barrio (which had just been the target of a congressional investigation for their role in the LA resistance to ICE occupation). Ultimately, enough members of the working group reasoned that, if DSA defending migrant communities was unlawful, then that long arm would eventually come for us anyway. 

We spent the first three months investigating how radical projects like this had been executed in the past. We examined the Black Panthers and engaged with the plethora of resources that organizations like CrimeThinc, SiempraNC, and Front Line Defenders had compiled on ICE tactics and strategy. We read historical and contemporary pieces of theory on how a ragtag group of socialists could even stand a chance at hampering in any way an imperial terror machine like the US government. As we grew and developed, we realized that patrolling the community was beginning to inspire discourse on the notion and structures of public safety. This consciousness was spreading not just among patrollers, but within the communities themselves. The patrols became prefigurative for how a community protects itself from an entity that wishes to do it harm, and our chapter was a driving force in that.

Direct action also takes the form of labor work. We are lucky enough locally to have a talented and knowledgeable labor working group chair that keeps tabs on every union in contract negotiations, prepping for a strike, or already on the strike line. By the time they have begun, we are already actively organizing in support of it. We are turning out members to the strike line, donating to strike funds, and even anchoring strike kitchens. My experience walking strike lines has displayed (and tested) the vast spectrum of revolutionary optimism that can emerge out of solidarity with militant workers fighting against unfair labor practices. It is almost a form of political education similar to what occurs during a banner drop, except no one is wondering what exactly the picketers are trying to accomplish—it’s right there on the signs! 

Most recently, on a 24-hour Teamsters picket line, I got to talk to workers about everything from the world cup to the Iran war. But the most consistent topic the workers brought up was that, in spite of the risk they were taking, they felt deeply convinced that they could win this fight. It was deeply inspirational and to my mind demonstrated the potency of direct action as not just a tactic for fighting the good fight, but as a method for motivating workers that a better world was in fact possible. All they needed was to take the risk to fight for it.

[Stay tuned for Part Two in the October California Red]

“…people believe, 'Well this is a really affordable premium experience.' Because they're saying like, 'Well it's less than $10 and I get a really premium experience'." 

—Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol, Wall Street Journal interview, April 2026.

Being ordered by your boss to do the impossible is nothing new. Nearly everyone has multiple stories of a boss holding them to an unreasonable standard. But those managers may not just be one-off cranks whose demands of their employees don't ultimately affect the overall business model and instead are a symptom of a much deeper problem. My argument is that this phenomenon has not only become more common in lower management; these unrealistic and often contradictory expectations are increasingly common in the corporate upper management of the monopolies that dominate our daily lives.

I've been working at Starbucks for nearly a year. Under the tenure of Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol, I have become well-versed in the corporate double talk Starbucks deploys. Starbucks corporate waxes poetic about creating a cozy, calm, local-feeling cafe atmosphere. The reality is we are a fast-food restaurant, and we are designed to operate like one. During peak hours we are expected to send a car in the drive-thru on its way, on average, every 45 seconds. This is an impossible standard to reliably maintain. Barring miraculous circumstances, with everyone working as efficiently as possible, we can expect to hit 55-65 seconds, and that’s still without writing on cups.

As you may know, we baristas are supposed to write a personalized message on the drinks we make. We’re not even supposed to write messages on cups ahead of time based on the logic that they couldn’t have been written with personalized intent. Baristas generally forgo the cup writing altogether, only pulling out their sharpies when the district manager drops by. Needless to say, this mass-produced personalized experience Starbucks ostensibly pursues is not possible, let alone while keeping drive times under 45 seconds. This is what Starbucks corporate thinks can be pawned off as a “really affordable premium experience”. They sincerely believe customers will read the words “pumpkin vibes” hastily scrawled on their pumpkin spice latte and forget Starbucks raised prices again. It betrays a frighteningly low opinion of their consumer base’s intelligence. Customers are smart enough to understand that the message on their cup wasn’t written for them personally—it was written to meet a quota.

The greatest example of Starbucks’ anti-reality obtuseness is its refusal to bargain in good faith with Starbucks Workers United. After years of fighting, Starbucks has racked up mountains of labor law violations. For now, they write the fines they have to pay off as the cost of doing business. This is not a sustainable strategy. The Starbucks unionization effort spreads further and faster each year, as does the DSA takeover of the Democratic party. Eventually, one of two things will happen: Starbucks union density will reach critical mass and force Starbucks to settle a contract, or an insurgent socialist administration will prosecute Starbucks’ labor violations so vigorously that continuing to incur fines becomes completely untenable. 

If Starbucks is serious about saving its flailing company, they will have to start with meeting the demands of their employees. The unionization movement will drag Starbucks and companies like it kicking and screaming into a world where “good business” means treating workers and customers fairly, not maximizing shareholder value at the expense of the entire planet.

Every so often we have an opportunity to do something transformative. I’m not talking about “changing the narrative”, although that’s important and part of the picture. I’m talking about changing the world. 

Easy to say, hard to do. But on October 10 we will have that opportunity by countering right wing billionaire lies with a simple truth: education and health care are rights, not privileges reserved for the wealthy few.

What’s at stake

On the November 3 state ballot there are two initiatives—Prop 3 and Prop 40—that together give us the chance to help the richest Californians part with a significant amount of money, unneeded by them, and absolutely necessary to bettering the lives of millions of the rest of us.

Prop 3 makes a temporary state income tax on the top two percent of income earners permanent. It supports public education. Prop 40 taxes California billionaires on their enormous wealth, five percent to backfill cuts Trump made to Medi-Cal. If it doesn’t pass three million Californians will lose access to health care.

Currently there are phone banks and door to door canvassing happening, and you can join these to help. Sign up here for Prop 3, and here for Prop 40. But there’s one other thing you can do that potentially can make the biggest difference: come out on October 10 for both measures.

On that day

On that day people across the state will hold signs on streets, banners on freeway overpasses, leaflet in public places, and demonstrate. Perhaps we might pay a visit to a billionaire or two and say hello. We often hear that while the rich have the money, we have the people. That equation only works when the people are organized enough to counter the money power.

What does the money power look like? A handful of sociopathic billionaires, claiming without justification to speak on behalf of all 250 members of that group in California, have spent more than $150 million so far against Prop 40. That spending has bought confusion and fear on the basis of lies (California will lose investments, taxes and jobs; first they tax billionaires, then they come for you; this is a tax on all of us, etc.). Even relatively well-informed people are perplexed, as I found in talking with voters in the first East Bay Tax the Rich canvass on September 19.

This is unsurprising. We know that if a lie is repeated enough times at least some people will be persuaded, or at least confused. And at this point the lying commercials and digital ads are everywhere. But the good news is that the lies are easy to address in one-on-one conversations. The deep anger in the electorate toward Trump-supporting billionaires is waiting there ready to tap. Through the phone banks, and at the doors.

So we organize. By coming out on October 10 with a high public profile we can provide the truthful alternative view. We may not have the money for the advertising, but we can earn a spot on the news, in social media, and turn around the confusion in neighborhood conversations. 

California DSA is working with the labor movement and other coalition organizations to make October 10 California Tax the Rich Day. This is how we organize the day of action: we do it ourselves. No one is coming to the rescue except us: Workers over Billionaires. 

To get involved, contact your local DSA chapter, your union, your local central labor council. Plan to come out. Put together an art build. Make signs. Make banners and set them up where the public can see them. Find a place to stand, and stand there together on October 10. It will make a difference in this campaign, and in this world.

Join the California DSA Tax the Rich Working Group.

For more info, contact Working Group co-chair Mark G.

Events & Actions

Tuesday, September 22 (6:30 PM – 8:00 PM) Ecosocialist Bi-Weekly Meeting (in person at 1916 McAllister St and zoom)

Wednesday, September 23 (6:00 PM – 7:30 PM)  What Is DSA? (in person at Latino Community Room A of the San Francisco Main Public Library, 100 Larkin)

Thursday, September 24 (5:30 PM – 8:00 PM)  Phonebank for Prop I  (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, September 24 (7:00 PM – 8:30 PM)  Organizing Mindset Training Series (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, September 25 (5:30 PM – 8:00 PM)  Movie night: The Battle of Chile Part Two (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, September 26 (11:00 AM – 2:00 PM) Yes on I Lit Drop (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, September 26 (11:00 AM – 12:00 PM) No on Prop D Lit Drop (in person at McCoppin Square Park, 1200 Taraval)

Saturday, September 26 (2:00 PM – 5:00 PM) HWG Outreach and Outreach Training (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, September 26 (3:00 PM – 4:30 PM) Decolonization Studies (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Sunday, September 27 (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM)  Canvass Workers with SF EWOC! (in person, meet at William McKinley Monument)

Sunday, September 27 (5:00 PM – 6:00 PM) Tenderloin Healing Circle Working Group (zoom)

Monday, September 28 (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM)  Tenderloin Healing Circle (in person at Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Monday, September 28 (6:30 PM – 8:00 PM) Homelessness Working Group Regular Meeting (in person at 1916 McAllister and zoom)

Tuesday, September 29 (5:30 PM – 7:00 PM) Social Housing Working Group  (in person at 1916 McAllister and zoom)

Thursday, October 1 (5:30 PM – 8:00 PM)  Phonebank for Prop I (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, October 1 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM)  Education Board Open Meeting  (in person at 1916 McAllister and zoom)

Thursday, October 1 (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM)  Organizing Mindset Training Series (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, October 2 (5:30 PM – 8:00 PM)  Movie night: The Battle of Chile Part Three (in person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, October 3 (6:00 PM – 9:30 PM)  International Solidarity Potluck (in person at 1916 McAllister) 

Monday, October 5 (5:30 PM – 8:00 PM) Yes On I – Social Housing Working Group Lit Drop (3100 26th St)

Monday, October 5 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Labor Working Group Meeting (in person at 1916 McAllister and zoom)

---

Organizing Mindset Training: Basebuilding 101, How to Have an Effective Organizing Conversation

Every Thursday at 7:00 PM from September 17 through October 8 at DSA SF Office, 1916 McAllister St

Talking to people is central to effective organizing, but how do you embark on an organizing conversation? Organizing Mindset Training is a four-part event series that goes in depth into every aspect of the organizing conversation so that it’s a sharpened and ready-to-use tool for any campaign. After this training, participants will:

• Learn about the differences between organizing, advocacy, and direct services/mutual aid
• Understand of the role of an Organizing Committee and carrying out an organizing strategy
• Overview the Organizing Conversation and get in-depth practice for each step
• Develop the ability to have multiple successive organizing conversations with a person, with the goal of getting them more involved in your organizing

Attendance of all four sessions isn’t required, but it is encouraged! 

RSVP HERE

---

Rally to Save TPS!

Join us this Thursday, September 24, 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM at the Ferry Building as we stand with Haiti Action Committee, AROC, PYM, Bay Resistance, PRISO, and many others organizations calling for the extension of TPS (temporary protected status) for refugees and other vulnerable members of our community.

---

Decolonization Studies: Session 2

Come join your friendly neighborhood socialists for the second session of Decolonization Studies! On Saturday, September 26th 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM at 1916 McAllister we’re discussing a collection of texts chosen to elevate our understanding of decolonization and socialism, reading is done beforehand and participants are invited to the DSA office for an in person facilitated discussion. Please feel free to come to the session even if you’ve only partially completed the readings or you missed the first one! Masks are required and provided!

RSVP HERE

---

Yes on Prop B Mobilizations

We have two exciting mobilizations this upcoming week to support a public bank in SF! On Saturday, September 26th at 11:00 AM we’re meeting at the SEIU 1021 office (350 Rhode Island St. #100) for a progressive unity mobilization with Yes on I and No on D!  Note that non-endorsed campaigns (DJ Brookter, Reina Tello, Virginia Cheung, and Ryan Hazelton) will also be present, so please use your judgment for lit drop participation with those campaigns. RSVP here. 

On Sunday, September 27 at 11:00 AM we’re mobilizing in Park Merced at Juan Bautista Circle. Note that non-endorsed campaigns (Reina Tello, Virginia Cheung, and Ryan Hazelton) will also be present, so please use your judgment for lit drop participation with those campaigns. RSVP here.

See you this weekend!

---

Canvass Workers with SF EWOC!

The SF local of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) wants more workers to be aware of their power and potential for collective organizing! Join us as we do some direct canvassing with workers on Sunday, September 27th at11:00 AM. We’ll be meeting at the William McKinley Monument in the Panhandle, walking down Haight St, and ending with a beer at Zeitgeist.
No experience with direct canvassing is necessary! We’ll start with a training for everyone, then split into groups and make our way through the Haight. We will (discretely) inquire if workers are unionized, what their issues are, and try to make contacts in order to start union campaigns.

EWOC is one inspiration for Zohran Mamdani’s new Office of Worker Power in New York, and the local there has reached many workers through events like this one. If you’re interested in bringing that sort of movement to SF, come out on Sunday the 27th! Sign up here

---

International Solidarity Potluck

The immigrant justice group is hosting an international themed potluck! You are encouraged to bring a main dish, appetizer, drink or dessert from a country of your choice to share! Come hang out and eat delicious food! All are welcome!

Please RSVP and sign up to bring food!

---

REPORTBACK: Organizing Mindset Session #1

We held the first of the four sessions comprising the Organizing Mindset training on 9/17, from 7-9PM. Caitlin and Julien co-facilitated, and the session’s goals were to have attendees come away with an idea of the differences between organizing, advocacy and direct services/mutual aid, and to understand the role of an Organizing Committee and carrying out an organizing strategy.
It terms of what went well:

• We had 20 attendees of various organizing experiences and seniority/experience in DSA.
• There was good attendance from IJWG, whose charter includes a goal for all members to go through organizing trainings.
• The Raining Rocks scenario (used to differentiate between organizing, advocacy, and mutual aid strategies) seemed to be well liked by people.
• It was good to have examples of campaigns with different stages of OC development.
• There was good engagement from the attendees, and we didn’t have the issue of only a few louder people doing more of the talking.
• We feel like the attendees left having an understanding different strategies and what is an OC, so we achieved our goals for session #1.
• Though we ran 30 minutes over the scheduled calendar event, not too many people seemed antsy to go or left early.

In terms of what could be improved:

• There’s opportunity to improve in the engagement of IJWG, especially those who were involved earlier on in the working group but not so much recently.
• We went over our scheduled time by 30 minutes.
• When we had a few examples of different types of OCs, providing more structure/guiding questions/talking points would’ve been useful to more clearly illustrate each campaign, how OCs played a role, how the OC formation went, etc.
• We need a better check in process with Solidarity Tech QR code, perhaps with a greeter at the door to direct people to check in.
• We ran out of name tags.
• We had a higher attendance than expected, so we shouldn’t use the tables so that we can have more chairs and room for people to spread out and/or group up.

We have three more sessions to go, so we’ll be incorporating this feedback into the next three Thursdays. If you want to attend the Organizing Mindset, come to the office (1916 McAllister) from 7:00 PM – 9:00 PMon 9/24, 10/1, and 10/8! 

---

REPORTBACK: Prop B and Prop I Lit Drops!

On Saturday and Sunday, Prop B and Prop I held two join mobilizations in the Richmond. Our comrades turned out to drop lit and support the affordable housing vision of these two ballot measures. We’ll have mobilizations every weekend for these campaigns, show up so we can win big in November!

---

REPORTBACK: Haight Ashbury Street Fair

DSA SF was out in the community on Sunday for the Haight Ashbury Street Fair! It was great to talk to neighbors about our two endorsed ballot measure campaigns that we are helping to lead for the November 3 ballot: Yes on B & Yes on I!

That’s “B” as in a Bank for the People! A SF Public Bank will keep money flowing on Haight St instead of towards Wall Street.

And “I” as in I want affordable housing, social housing, and rent relief with no new taxes!

DSA members gathered in Chicago this summer for organizer training and discussion of urgent issues facing the organization. Event organizers spoke with the Class podcast about their vision for the event.

The post DSA’s Socialist Summit Laid the Foundations of a Democratic Culture appeared first on Democratic Left.

This is a guest episode from Fran Quigley's podcast, "We Can Do Better." He discusses the way the arms industry has captured our political and economic life with Stephen Semler. If you like the episode, please consider subscribing to the We Can Do Better podcast, and sign up for the Substack newsletter: https://endpovertynow.substack.com/ Check out Fran's book, "Religious Socialism" along with several other recommended readings on our website: https://religioussocialism.org/recommended-reading/

by Douglas Dollinger

I thought my friends in ROC DSA might appreciate a bit of an update on your northern neighbour. What follows deals with the astounding rise of militarism in Canada under the Liberal prime minister Mark Carney. My American friends – I am myself half-American – will doubtless note some similarities between the rhetorical approaches of the Canadian and American governments, despite recent disagreements between the two countries and a flurry of ill-tempered threats by the American president against Canada. 

Mark Carney would have Canadians believe military spending is good for the economy. He is on track to move military spending from $70B this year (2026) to $150B in 2035, an astronomical increase. This, he has argued, will create all sorts of economic benefits for the Canadian people – a high rate of investment, good jobs, etc. He is dreaming. It has been amply documented by the Costs of War Project at Brown University, among others, that military spending creates fewer jobs per dollar spent than spending on education or health. But Trump whispered 5% and Carney and the Liberal Party jumped. Not out of sheer sycophancy, although sometimes I do wonder; no, Carney jumped because he is a neoliberal: Health care and education are costs; military spending is an investment. The distinction is a subtle one, granted. In other words, like most conservatives, he believes big government is bad, unless it comes in the form of policing, national security, business subsidies, financial bail-outs, and war-making.

Like most conservatives, too, he committed the money without either campaigning on the increase or consulting Parliament. Of course, given that the opposition in Canada is the Conservative Party, which has never stopped whining about the cash-strapped military, Carney has faced almost no criticism from opposition leader Pierre Poilievre and his happy troupe of militarists. Interestingly, Carney recently announced the purchase of 12 submarines from Germany. These will be used, Canadian military analysts affirm, to “contain China” and protect the Canadian Arctic from Russians. Needless to say, however, it is the Americans who have actively challenged Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage for decades, as the Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies has documented. This however can simply be forgotten.

With fresh water becoming a highly endangered resource in many parts of the United States, it is a safe bet that American politicians will not sit on their hands and watch the Southwest become uninhabitable. Who has a lot of fresh water? Canada. If Canadian defence planners are aware of this looming danger, they seldom mention it; indeed, given the close integration of the Canadian and American military, it might be a bit much to expect the Department of National Defence even to consider the possibility. In all, Mark Carney has made no bones about building a war industry in Canada, taking up a proposal from his well-heeled friends at the Business Council of Canada, longstanding advocates of bolstering military spending in Canada. And so military Keynesianism is in full march. 

Carney’s record on Gaza, to address a related matter, would suggest he is only too happy to stand in the shadow of the American colossus, and so it is probable that the Canadian military will continue to serve as a kind of branch plant to the American military under the guise of NATO. Gaza is important here. If Canada cannot establish an independent stance on Gaza, it is difficult to conceive of its developing an independent stance on any critical geopolitical issue. Carney made the bold statement that Netanyahu would be arrested if he entered Canada, but just a few weeks back Netanyahu graced Canadian airspace and thus its territory with his august presence and Ottawa went dark. So much for the bold talk. It does not even seem clear that the Canadian government issued an objection, never mind scrambling the jets to force the Wing of Zion to alter its course.

Meanwhile, as NATO moves east, Canada will have little choice but to jump on the ”contain China” bandwagon – indeed it was the American president who called for the 5% increase in the Canadian defence budget. Ever the Canadian stalwart, Carney obliged without hesitation. Note the refusal here to dignify the frequent threats to Canadian sovereignty by the American president. These can be dismissed for the most part for what they are, the deranged ejaculations of a political distemper called the Republican Party, but the American threat to Canada is nevertheless real. Those who believe the United States will respectfully acquiesce to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic need to study American history. A country that can steal almost half of Mexico can certainly steal portions of the Arctic. Nor should anyone be surprised if this theft comes with the usual rhetorical embroidery about national security, which has become for all practical purposes the modern American substitute for Manifest Destiny. Carney talks big but carries a tiny stick, more twig than stick. Israel, again, provides a pertinent illustration.

Despite the fact that just about all of the Jewish Holocaust experts in Israel have declared what is happening in Gaza a genocide, the Canadian government under Carney has not found its way to using the G-word, the best explanation for which is that it would ruffle American feathers, since it is the American government that has been cheerleading the genocide and otherwise supporting it without reserve. None of this can be mentioned: Canada must be a good partner and this means not stepping on the toes of the global hegemon. So much for Canadian independence and sovereignty. As the United States invades country after country – those foreign wars just keep happening for some inexplicable reason – Canada, hewing as always to the American line, courageously asserts that it is Iran that represents the source of international terrorism. Canadian officials utter such nonsense with a straight face. If knowledge is recollection, as Plato taught, then it becomes very hard not to see these individuals as heralds of an astonishing historical ignorance. Has Iraq been forgotten? What about Afghanistan? Vietnam? Nicaragua? Guatemala? Dominican Republic? Grenada? Panama? Libya? Laos? Cambodia? El Salvador? Yemen? Cuba? Haiti? Somalia? And now Iran. But no, you will not find a Canadian official in the government of Mark Carney with the courage to suggest, much less declare, that the United States has endorsed terror as a political instrument. The facts do not matter; they can be forgotten.

Only a particularly deep form of ideological blindness can fail to see the terror standing behind what some Americans call “endless wars”. It is also this form of blindness that leads someone like Madeleine Albright, former American Secretary of State, to say that 500,000 dead Iraqi children – the documented result of Western sanctions on Iraq – was a price worth paying to bring down Saddam Hussein, a dictator whom the American government was only too happy to support when he was killing Iranians with American-supplied munitions, including chemical weapons. Canada voiced no objection. It is of course simply too impolite to point out that the American government supported Saddam Hussein for years. It crosses the ideological line and violates the bounds of what is considered serious and responsible political discourse. Power does many things: One thing it does quite well is to establish the limits of permissible discussion. Its most effective weapons in this respect are the words “terror”, “terrorists”, and “terrorism”. 

Three points should be noted here. First, the terrorist is always out there somewhere – in Iran, say, or Cuba, or China. Western nations, by contrast, never commit acts of terror. For instance, leveling Gaza, a small strip of land full of unarmed civilians, is not an act of terror, nor is Israel a terror state. The United States has been bombing Iran in what all acknowledge to be an illegal war, but no, it is simply the height of indecency to so much as suggest that the United States is practicing terror. Canada understands this and has not raised an eyebrow. Second, once a government has been dubbed a terrorist state, Western political leaders free themselves of any obligation to exercise diplomacy, since it is axiomatic that one cannot negotiate with terrorists. War becomes the one option left, which goes a long way toward explaining what otherwise remains a mystery to millions of Americans, the reality of endless wars. Third, once the label is attached to an official enemy, the military machinery of the West, and there is no greater in the world as Trump never tires of reminding us, can be brought to bear without moral scruples of any kind, and whatever horrors this produces – take a look at Gaza or Iraq for current examples – will be dismissed as a legitimate response to terror. Israel, remember, is only defending itself. In this regard, the West is always responding to terror but never committing it. 

The West, after stripping much of the globe of its valuable resources, enslaving millions of its inhabitants, and otherwise subjugating foreign peoples to regimes of terrible violence, has never suffered, so our leaders would have us believe, from an obsession with terror, with terror more specifically as a means of domination and control. Colonialism was an act benevolence, of kindness towards our darker brothers and sisters. For instance, the death of millions in India under the British Empire was either simply a mistake – a kind of huge clerical error – or it was an act of legitimate self-defence against restless, petulant, and ungrateful natives. The ideological mainstream in which people like Trump and Carney excogitate has little or no room for such reflections on Western terror. Nor is any thought given to what such pervasive violence might say about what we call Western values, meaning here not our espoused but our actual values, the ones that motivate our behaviour. 

Mark Carney wrote a book on values, so one might be tempted to think that he would be able to provide some useful guidance on what all of this might say about the values we hold dear; however, because he thinks inside the principal assumptions of the Washington consensus, he is as blind as a bat when it comes to identifying our actual values. There is thus little reason to expect any enlightenment from Mark Carney and the Liberal government of Canada. Canada once had a reputation – not altogether underserved – for its role as a peace keeper. Canada is now effectively Americanizing its approach to defence. Militarism has become the order of the day.

The post On Canadian Militarism first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By filling city council meetings, educating the public on mass surveillance, and cooperating with like-minded allies, DSA members in Westland shot down a Flock contract renewal.

By Dave N. and Kathy E.

In July 2024 the city of Westland signed up for a trial run with Flock Safety that would last until August 2026. Flock’s cameras are Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) that mark the date, time, and location where a vehicle passes.

Flock claims that its technology does not scan human faces, but its cameras are able to fingerprint cars based on minute details like rust or bumper stickers. The technology is similar to that used in facial recognition software. These services are sold to law enforcement and advertised to cities as a tool for safety (e.g. tracking stolen vehicles or resolving car accidents). In reality, police officers have used this technology to stalk ex-spouses, target women seeking abortions, and aid ICE raids.

Given privacy concerns, civil rights, and the actual safety of citizens, it was in the interest of any resident of Westland to shoot Flock down. We learned, however, through hearing from citizens at Westland city council meetings and by talking with council members, that Westland is a very pro-police city. Even with a DSA-endorsed socialist, Mike McDermott, as council president, the majority of the council were convinced by the police department’s arguments for Flock. Upon approval in 2024, ten new Flock poles were placed in the city.

In 2025 Metro Detroit DSA began organizing in western Wayne County by forming a geographic working group that became known as Socialists Organizing Western Wayne (SOWW). In the beginning, we were learning about one another, how to organize, and even what socialism meant. After six months, we had grown to over 20 members with 15–20 consistently attending meetings. Organizing around the Flock contract turned into our first real project.

The group’s main goal was to find a way to guarantee four council votes (a simple majority) against renewing the Flock contract. Elijah Nemr led the anti-Flock campaign. He was a relatively new DSA member who leveraged his technical background to facilitate meetings, organize members, research, and speak at Westland city council meetings and other civic events.

Most of the city council members are openly pro-police. Mike was able to guarantee one vote besides his own, from the only Republican, Emily Bauman. Mike’s ability to gather two more votes was hampered by a law prohibiting four or more council members to meet in private. SOWW’s Flock sub-group saw that public pressure was the main way to gather two more votes.

Mike proposed two approaches to achieve this pressure, and we executed both: the inside and the outside. The inside approach was to have SOWW members attend city council meetings and speak publicly to council members. We also spoke to the other residents attending the meetings to create public anger and gain more support.

The outside approach was for SOWW members to canvass in neighborhoods and distribute petitions to pressure Westland not to renew the contract. While canvassing we learned that most people didn’t understand the difference between Flock cameras and CCTV cameras. CCTV cameras require a warrant or a subpoena to access the footage, while Flock cameras upload information to an unaccountable database that law enforcement can access at any moment. Once we showed examples of police who misused the technology and explained how Flock cameras didn’t require warrants, residents immediately became disturbed and supported our efforts.

One of the strongest tactics we used was to leverage a wide array of talking points when addressing city council. We got help on our petitions from our sibling group in Ferndale, the Ferndale Area Organizing Committee (FAOC), which had successfully pressured Ferndale not to renew its Flock contract. FAOC gave us many resources, literature, and debate strategies that had been effective there.

We began forming speeches personal to each Westland resident about why they opposed Flock. For example, we have several mothers in our group and one of them, Liz, decided to highlight the predatory threats Flock cameras posed to children. At a council meeting, she stated:

As a parent, I’m deeply concerned about the ever-increasing levels of surveillance our children are being raised to believe is normal. There are many stories emerging of Flock’s inability to keep the sensitive information they collect safe, further raising concerns about this kind of surveillance technology and how it impacts our youth.

Liz’s story, along with framing that focused on the safety concern that Flock cameras pose, immediately garnered public support. This video of one public comment session shows Liz and others who spoke about why they oppose surveillance.

We allied with the president of the Westland Democratic Club to put more pressure and speak out against Flock to the council. We consulted with independent journalists and collaborated with other organizations such as The People’s Assembly. Peoples’ Assembly and DeFlock (a national open-source project that maps Flock cameras) sent speakers to our council meetings. The first meeting of July showed the fruits of these efforts — instead of SOWW members being the main public commenters on Flock, multiple constituents who had not spoken before on the topic rose to voice their concerns about the cameras.

That meeting was the boiling point — within a few days, councilwoman Melissa Sampey posted to Facebook the council’s decision not to renew the contract and to let it expire. Sampey’s post revealed the force behind this decision: “Community Engagement Matters.”

Mike McDermott is our only SIO on city council, and SOWW demonstrated that a DSA geographic group can multiply the efforts of our SIOs. We built an issue campaign to create public pressure on elected officials, through a unified group that devoted time to forming relationships with constituents. Attending Westland Democratic Club meetings and Westland cultural events allowed us to create allies, and those allies came out and spoke against Flock.

SOWW also cultivated organizing skills, and new members gained memorable organizing experience that they can take beyond the Flock campaign. SOWW trained new organizers to speak publicly, compile literature, and canvas.

Growing as an organizer also requires personal development. One of our new members, Kate, said she was “inherently a socially anxious person, but working with such a supportive and motivated group really helped me feel comfortable speaking up.” People are motivated to try things they struggle with when it’s for a greater cause and for others; that’s a core tenet of organizing. The support and camaraderie in SOWW made a space to develop future organizers.

And there’s a need for those organizers: our work on ending mass surveillance is far from finished. Inkster, Livonia, Garden City, and Romulus all have Flock contracts. Our group needs to carry this momentum to one of these cities, but we need to decide soon.

SOWW was created to organize locally alongside our Socialists in Office (SIOs) — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, State Representative Dylan Wegela, and Westland City Council President Mike McDermott — where their districts overlap in Westland, Romulus, Inkster, and Garden City.

If you are interested in the work we do, please contact Jill Rossiter, Elijah Nemr (Elijah S), or Kathy Elrick on Slack or fill out our interest form.

David N. has been an active member of DSA since July 2025. He is not a part of any caucus. In SOWW he has contributed to power mapping Westland, town hall organizing, and mutual aid.

Kathy E. has been an active member of the chapter since 2023 and is co-chair of SOWW. She started hosting DSA coffee socials in western Wayne County in 2024. She is uncaucused and active in starting a local DSA, community garden collaboration in Norwayne, and Mutual Aid 101 and 102 events.

---

Flock Off: How Westland DSA Members Pushed Flock Cameras Out of Their City was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

By: Julia Z & Jake S

WORCESTER – Students have returned to Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Freshmen are being shuttled through new student orientation, professors are dusting off their syllabi, and returning students have long soaked in their remaining days of freedom. Many new students were no doubt won over by WPI’s aggressive promotion of its cutting-edge Robotics Engineering, Computer Science, and AI undergraduate programs along with its highly-celebrated R1 Research University status. Many are surely excited for the “project-based learning” described by eager campus tour guides, ready to sell them a vision of high-tech projects on a charming New England campus.

But a university campus is much more than its students,  teachers, and overpaid administrators. WPI may claim non-profit status on its tax filings, but in order to compete in a cutthroat higher education industry, it still carries all the fixtures of a corporate enterprise — in many ways, becoming more a landlord/buffet/hedge fund/private police department conglomerate that offers college degrees on the side — including a massive staff force to keep the lights on, the students learning, and the tuition dollars rolling in.

So who are the faces that keep those lights on? Who does everything from preparing curriculum, to the research that won WPI its R1 status, to taking out the trash and setting the tables for big donor wine-and-dine sessions? And, more importantly, why are they increasingly becoming self-organized into trade unions to represent them against the interests of WPI’s endowment managers?

Working Mass sat down with representatives of three organized labor unions at WPI, plus the campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), to talk about the importance of their work, their organizations, and their conflicts with the bosses on campus.

Trades, Groundskeeping, and Custodial Staff

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 32BJ

SEIU 32BJ is the international union representing facilities workers at WPI. Without their labor, repairs and maintenance on buildings would go unaddressed, trash would pile up in every classroom and office, and the grass on the Quad wouldn’t get cut — in other words, the campus itself would probably become an overgrown ruin. Every few years, by being organized in their union, facilities staff negotiate a contract with WPI to lay out fair wages, decent benefits, and dignified working conditions. Between every contract cycle, the contract needs to be enforced; the staff, through their union, sometimes find themselves continuing to battle with WPI’s administration to follow the terms of the agreement that both parties have already signed. Mark, a union steward elected by fellow custodians to address such problems on the job, told us about a recent fight, and how the union united his coworkers to push WPI toward a fair resolution that protected their jobs and made their lives easier.

About a year ago, the administration brought in consultants from Core America to evaluate the campus practices, supposedly as a checkup to make sure everything was properly staffed and maintained. Core America went to work to cut good union jobs and clamp down on upkeep costs. Part of what they developed was a proposal for communal trash bins in office buildings: rather than entering individual offices to pick up trash and recycling, office staff themselves would take on the work of custodians and deposit their trash in a larger, central bin. Less time spent gathering trash meant WPI could try to get away with paying fewer custodians to do it. The plan would cut five jobs and open the door to more “reorganizations” (i.e., more cuts).

As Mark said, nobody thought to talk to custodians themselves about the change. Not only was WPI trying to skip past a contractual obligation to negotiate over these changes with the people who do the work, it wouldn’t even have worked out the way they wanted.

“They don’t know anything about our jobs,” Mark said, of the administration and their outside consultants. “If you had office staff doing this, I’d be spending more time getting everything into the right bin than I would have spent just walking through their offices anyway. President Wang used to work at a school that tried this idea out, and that’s exactly what happened.”

Union representatives called a meeting with management and were quick to demand the plan be reversed. Union members took collective action by delivering a petition to back up what their reps were saying, and WPI backed down. Core America’s recommendation wouldn’t go through. Mark reflected on the outcome:

We got them to open those five positions back up. Did you know they don’t approve purchases in May until the fiscal year ends? At certain points in the year, we have to be really careful with the supplies we have left. Students pay tens of thousands a year to go here, and management has tens of thousands to spend on these consultants, but they want to cut our jobs and make us ration toilet paper?

WPI estimates the annual cost of attendance while living on campus — which is required of first- and second-years — to be just shy of $85,000. The total evaluation of its endowment sits at well over half a billion dollars.

According to Propublica, in the fiscal year ending June 2025, WPI’s Chief Finance Officer — who reportedly interfaced with Core America consultants — was paid roughly $600,000, while the school’s President took home just over $1 million total.

Resident Advisors

United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2322

Resident Advisors (RAs), Residential Mentors (RMs), Community Support Assistants (CSAs), and Community Development Mentors (CDMs) come together to form a union affiliated with United Auto Workers Local 2322. Student workers in any of these four positions perform key roles in keeping students safe, submitting requests for maintenance and repairs, and building community amongst undergraduate students. Without their labor, the dorms would be less safe, less maintained, and much more lonely places to live.

We met with Zoey and Dom, two union stewards for this group of workers, which voted to unionize in 2024 and won its first contract with WPI the following year.

One core reason the Res Advisor Union (RAU) formed was to challenge constant changes to job descriptions imposed by  WPI. In fact, WPI only had a single Res Advisor role, but very soon after RAs won their union election, the administration proposed breaking the job into its current roles, removing most RAs from on-campus housing. Admin claimed this would lighten the workloads of RAs, but Zoey and Dom know it was another cost-cutting measure. Most of the new roles would receive no meal plans, no housing, and less pay. Moreover, RMs would be charged with developing a meaningful relationship with 75 or even 85 students at a time, where in their old role, RAs were only expected to handle around 35.

“This seemed to be the personal project of the Dean of Undergraduate Students,” Zoey told us, “but nobody wanted to actually engage with us to figure out a solution that would actually work.”

During intense contract negotiations, RAs went on strike from October 31 to December 15, 2025, after which the RAU won a decent contract with WPI that includes just-cause firing, increased pay, housing vouchers, meal plans, and workload caps. And while many of the job description changes were ultimately accepted, they’ll be implemented gradually over a 2 to 3 year phase-in period with a joint Union-Management Committee to oversee the transition. If the new roles aren’t working for Res Advisors themselves, the union will return to the negotiating table in 2028 with an opening to fight again for a better system.

Graduate Student Workers

United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2322

Several hundred graduate student workers are organized under the WPI Graduate Workers Union, WPI-GWU, a UAW Local 2322 affiliate. Most doctoral students, and many master’s students, often work as Research Assistants (RAs) or Teaching Assistants (TAs), with others working as administrative staff while pursuing their graduate degree. As a teaching and research institution, the value of this work is obvious. Without TAs, grades wouldn’t be submitted; without RAs, WPI would attract no grant funding; without administrative staffers, very little work could get done at all. Although faculty generally direct teaching and research, graduate workers perform an enormous share of the day-to-day work: office hours; proctoring exams;  grading student work; running experiments; and applying for research funds.

Stephen is a doctoral student in Biomedical Engineering, a co-chair of WPI-GWU, and an officer in Local 2322, which not only represents grads and res advisors at WPI, but thousands of academic and non-academic workers across New England, including similar workers at UMass Amherst and the University of Vermont.

The GWU won its first contract in 2023 after several months of tough negotiations. Prior to the contract, grad workers could barely afford to live in Worcester, and a litany of safety problems plagued their research labs. Stephen told us that some of his colleagues were forced to live on food stamps and simply couldn’t make rent. The ambiguity of their student-worker status even led to delays and complications in receiving worker’s compensation for lab injuries.

Their first contract changed everything. Stipend and hourly pay increased as much as 20%; graduate workers were guaranteed paid time off for the first time; WPI now covers the cost of many grad workers’ health insurance, and they now enjoy clear definitions of what’s expected of them at work. Workload caps, just-cause firings, and even new protections and benefits for international students were enshrined in the agreement.

Teaching and Research Faculty

American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Professor Dan DiMassa is Vice President of WPI’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). At WPI, the AAUP doesn’t function like a traditional labor union, but still represents the organized interests of full- and part-time faculty. Despite the reality of a totally unequal power imbalance between faculty and the university administration that holds hiring and firing authority over them, labor law treats faculty as “managers,” and restricts their rights to organize unions at private institutions like WPI.

According to Professor DiMassa, the AAUP chapter at WPI formed in 2018 to deal with the administration’s attempt to rewrite parts of the faculty handbook. Their changes would have undermined academic freedom, putting the right to adjudicate disputes over academic integrity into the hands of trustees and administrators. Since then, the AAUP has also been forced to confront management  over COVID-era cuts to faculty retirement  benefits, which have only been partially reversed.

At WPI, the AAUP chapter often works through the faculty governance system, which is the main mechanism through which faculty can have a say in the development of university policies. Through this channel, despite lacking legal rights to negotiate a union contract, faculty organized under the AAUP have won new tenure-track jobs and enfranchised a new category of teaching faculty. Faculty governance isn’t a perfect way for professors to get what they need, but because they’re organized and can unite in collective action, their conditions stand a chance at improving.

Dan told us that the AAUP truly sees the interests of faculty and students as aligned. Both share a common investment in the core educational functions of a university: teaching and research. For the whole system to work, students and faculty alike need to build and maintain an environment of academic freedom where their thoughts can be tested and challenged. Robust faculty governance — capable of  struggling against the power of professional university administrators charged with driving up revenue while cutting down on costs — plays an important role in that process.

Without its workforce of wage labor, WPI would cease to function, just like any other private enterprise under capitalism. And just like at any other workplace, it’s when workers organize for collective action in their own interests that they can challenge the boss to improve their lives, their workplace, and the world around them. Workers keep the world running, and the working class deserves to run the world!

If you want to hear more from Resident Advisors and graduate student workers about their work, their lives, and their labor unions, head to working-mass.com and type “WPI” in the search box!

On Wednesday, November 11 at 5:00pm, WPI YDSA — the campus section of Central Mass and Worcester DSA — will facilitate a town hall featuring members of each of the worker organizations we interviewed in this article!

Come hear about upcoming contract negotiations of the graduate student workers and facilities staff, and learn more about what it means to be in a union as a part of the working class!

Julia Z and Jake S are members of Central Massachusetts & Worcester DSA and contributing writers for Working Mass.

The post Stiffing Workers, Rationing Toilet Paper: Who Really Makes WPI Run? appeared first on Working Mass.

By Asanti M.

The conversation surrounding healthcare access is more than an abstraction of cost and risk, it’s life and death, and people are dying. I know because I’ve pronounced them. I know because I’ve cleaned their lifeless bodies. The burdens of the ailing are only compounded by the general disservice of our institutional frameworks. The nebulous jargon tossed around boardrooms and between pundits materializes in the financial reality that confronts the humanity of the unfortunate and the ailing. I’ve seen eyes full of pain, the walls of life crumbling around them, forced to discuss the finances of death, because let me be clear, dying is a very expensive endeavor here in the States, and God forbid you attempt to hold on to life!

The junction of societal divides is never so transparent as the time spent dying in Intensive Care. How perverse a world we’ve been forced into when the sick and dying are seen as another avenue for profit. When the burden of ailment and disease ceases to be a collective human struggle and becomes the burden of one. Oh what a beautiful freedom we have here in the States to accumulate our wealth from wherever we please, the opportunities are endless; no rite, no life stands too sacred as to not fall at the altar of Capital. Oh what freedom we’re blessed with! Blessed are those whose conscious is freed from the suffering of their brothers and sisters; blessed are those whose life is freed from the collective struggle against ailment. There’s a pity as lifeless as my patients, offered to those unfortunate enough to be poor. As if their lack of wealth taints their souls and damns them not in the next life, but right here in this one. How many hours should they have to work to pay off the death of their father, of their daughter, of their son? Fret not, those numbers are meticulously calculated by the profiteers who mandate we exist in such a carnivorous system.

We’re told by those with the wealth of a small nation that there’s no money to alleviate this collective suffering within the bounds of the current structure. If that’s truly the case, then it’s time we rid ourselves of the current structure. Any system that allows for such obscene levels of wealth to congeal into individual hands while the multitude counts pennies on their death beds must go. What principle do you cling to, to justify the needless death and stress of the sick? What sort of perverse freedom precludes the Preservation of Life! Blessed are the stars and stripes! If only the poor had sacrificed more to accumulate Capital, maybe their death wouldn’t be so distasteful; maybe their death wouldn’t be burdened by bills, and they could focus on their grief. What a sordid freedom the nation takes pride in. Our government cries, “how much”, “at what cost”, as they calculate the expense of expanding Healthcare. Look in this bed, there lies your cost! There, lifeless and grey! Can the nation not see the cost! Is it the grey? Maybe if we cast them green and stamped “e pluribus unum” on their forehead they would see. What a beautiful freedom we have here. Six Hail Marys, Lord let it be known that my brother has died at the altar of Capital in the sordid name of our perverse Freedom!

The post Six Hail Marys: Thoughts of an ICU RN first appeared on Red Fault.