Mai Vang joins a growing group of progressive candidates rising in popularity to challenge the Democratic Party establishment. Running for the House of Representatives, District CA-07, she has generated excitement not only through her advocacy on Sacramento City Council but also through her populist message and refusal to accept corporate PAC money. Her policy platform aligns strongly with DSA which helped her receive a unanimous recommendation for endorsement from our Electoral Committee.

Mai has a history of organizing and advocacy within the immigrant and refugee communities. Her advocacy shows her stance is more than a play for votes. As a daughter of Hmong refugees, the immigrant community is more than just political, it is personal. While she was on the Sacramento City Unified School District Board, she passed a safe haven resolution, making schools a safe space for students, regardless of their immigration status. As a city councilwoman, Mai worked to designate Sacramento as a sanctuary city and has a strong stance against ICE, not only to abolish ICE but prosecute ICE for their actions against our immigrant communities.

Motivated to support a candidate actually aligning with progressive values rather than picking the "lesser of two evils", Sacramento DSA had some of the highest turnout to canvasses out of any other organizations in the area, and we members took on roles as field canvass leads for her campaign. In addition to the campaign specific canvasses, our Electoral Committee held DSA specific canvasses leading up to the primary.

As the polls showed Mai gaining ground in this race, the Democrat incumbent, Doris Matsui, started to boost the Republican candidate knowing she would have an easier time against a conservative rather than a progressive. The week of the primary election was a rollercoaster for most of us. Election night results favored Doris with Mai Vang and the Republican frontrunner fighting for the number two spot. After a few days and the mail in vote count, Mai jumped ahead of Doris and sealed her spot in the general election.

Mai's surge in popularity has rattled Doris Matsui and pushed Doris Matsui into showing up to more public events, holding town halls for the first time in years, and voting in a more "progressive" manner. (She was one of the 104 House members who recently voted to cut aid to Israel, going against her previous votes to continue aiding the genocide.) Unfortunately for Doris Matsui, we believe this is too little too late. While canvassing for Mai, people have expressed support for her because of refusal to take corporate PAC money, her advocacy for the immigrant community, and a desire for change within the Democratic Party. Even previous Doris Matsui supporters I've spoken with have expressed a desire for change. Mai's strong performance along with Sacramento DSA's endorsement has increased DSA's name recognition locally, and new members have joined DSA in part because of our endorsement and seeing the success of DSA backed candidates in recent primaries.

If elected, Mai would be the first Hmong elected to Congress and would add to the growing number of progressive elected officials. We will continue to work to make that a reality.

If you would like to donate to Mai Vang’s campaign, please do so here.

June was a great month for socialists and progressives across the country. Congratulations to all the candidates who won their elections and to all the people who worked to build support for them. The victory of the socialist candidates further demonstrates that the word “socialism” is no longer as politically unacceptable as it once was, as people are continually worried about their economic future.

People are frustrated with the Democrats. Why are people frustrated? Because Democrats have not been able to enact more progressive policies and defend the things, like Obamacare, they have won. And why have they not been able to win more? Because the Republican Party has too much power and they prevent more significant wins. 

Would we blame the socialists for not winning more? Democrats and Republicans have power and prevent us from winning more. Should we be frustrated with socialists? Should we give up on socialism because it has not been more successful?

In most circumstances across the United States, establishment Democrats are the best option for the people to choose. The Republican Party is the main enemy of progress toward freedom and equality and is a dangerous threat to socialism. So in those cases where an establishment Democrat is the best option, we should support them. 

We—socialists, Marxists, leaders of the working class—must be able to determine the main enemy at any particular time. Now, that enemy is the fascist movement within the right wing and the lackey Republican Party that enables it. The fascists threaten the progressive movement's existence and ability to make people's lives better and gain political influence. We should be part of a popular front that is in the process of forming, opposing the fascist movement.

Being part of a popular front means that we unite with forces to our right against our primary and shared enemy, the far-right. Participating in a popular front demonstrates our commitment to working on winning what's realistically possible and best for the people.

By participating in a popular front against the Republican Party we can make gains for socialism. We will meet people and explain socialist ideas and policies and hear what will win them over to our ideas. They will get to know us and talk to us and hear us out because we are working with them and doing what's best for the people.

I've written before about the critical importance of defeating Republicans in the competitive districts in California. Since then, the primaries were held. Here are the Democratic Party candidates that won and who we should support:

- CA-13 (Lean-Dem): Adam Gray

- CA-22 (Toss-Up): Randy Villegas

- CA-45 (Lean-Dem): Derek Tran

- CA-48 (Toss-Up): Marni von Wilpert

Some of these candidates may be more or less progressive, none of them call themselves socialists, but they are our allies in the struggle against our main enemy and that is why we should support them. And just like when our preferred candidates win primaries and we want the whole Democratic Party to unite behind them, the same goes for when our not preferred candidates win, we should still lend our support. That's what it means to be part of a popular front to fight the far-right. 

We live in a very conservative country, and the more successful socialism is, the more it will face dangerous and violent backlash. We have a long road ahead of us and we should not rush. Let's not be naive about the political conditions. 

It will be some time before socialists are one of the major political forces in the United States and that will depend on the expansion of the socialist movement's ability to communicate clear ideas and win people over to these ideas. And as we develop those ideas the Republican Party will continue to be the main political force opposed to us. So let's be honest and humble and join forces with our allies against the dangerous far-right. 

Finally, a poem, for what we want to avoid.

A Poem for the Year 2026

(A few years before the Democratic Socialists of America was declared a Domestic Terrorist Organization)

The anarchist asked the left-socialist

how can you participate in electoral politics?

The government is fascist

just a tool of the bourgeoisie to oppress the people.

The left-socialist asked the socialists of the popular front

how can you support the establishment Democrats?

They are fascists

nearly as bad as the Republicans.

Not many years later the fascist wing

of the Republican Party consolidated power.

The anarchist, left-socialist and popular front socialist

(if they were foolish enough to raise their voices)

were picked up from their homes

and brought to a detention center

where finally they all sat

organized, side-by-side

------

Fortunately for us,

We haven't reached this yet.

We can set down our dogmas

We can work together.

We can make wise decisions

And apply them with our hearts.

The fascist movement

will be stopped

by the left

united.

I want to hear what you all think. Please reach out to me at lealfaro@protonmail.com with any comments and if you want to work together.

This spring, DSA San Diego engaged in its largest electoral mobilization to date in an effort to pass Measure A, a tax on the over 5,000 vacant second homes in the City of San Diego, that the City Council placed on the ballot. The measure, which would have levied an $8,000 tax in the first year and $10,000 per year thereafter (plus a surcharge for corporate-owned vacant homes of $4,000 the first year and $5,000 per year thereafter), was proposed by City Councilman (and recently joined DSA comrade) Sean Elo-Rivera, and was inspired in part by the pied-à-terre tax on high-value non-primary residences in New York City that Mayor Zohran Mamdani championed and New York enacted, effective July 1, 2026.

Uphill climb

From the outset, Measure A faced an uphill climb. Initially, it was intended as an “Empty Homes and Short-Term Rentals tax,” but after Airbnb literally paid busloads of protesters from Los Angeles to flood a City Council committee hearing in January, the effort died in committee, despite vocal support for the measure from organized labor and community groups. The idea was subsequently resuscitated as simply an “Empty Homes Tax” (letting Airbnb and VRBO off the hook) and the Council placed it on the June primary ballot at the last possible date in March. However, making the ballot at such a late date and after a false start meant that there was no campaign already up and running to get Measure A passed, and time was fleeting to stand up such an effort. Enter DSA San Diego.

First, though, a detour is in order to review the recent growth in DSA San Diego’s electoral capacity. Over the years, our chapter had on multiple occasions chartered an Electoral Working Group, only to see it collapse or go dormant without engaging in much, if any, actual electoral activity. Starting in 2024, however, this began to change. That year, our chapter participated in California DSA’s “Affordable Rent-Controlled Housing (ARCH)” campaign, with 16 comrades filling 38 canvassing shifts and knocking on 1,112 doors in support of Propositions 5 and 33 on the November 2024 ballot. 

The following year, our chapter made a deliberate choice to lean into California DSA’s campaign for Prop 50 as a vehicle to channel the visceral hatred of MAGA rule into effective electoral activism. We organized 69 canvassing shifts across eight different canvasses over four weeks, knocking on 1,906 doors with California DSA’s “Fight Fascism! Yes on 50!” doorhangers – representing a nearly 100% increase in our electoral strength from the year before. 

Subsequently, at our chapter’s 2026 convention in February, our members voted to make electoral activity one of two chapter-wide priorities in 2026. We then voted to launch a “Tax the Rich” campaign centered around the Billionaire Tax and the measure to permanently extend Prop. 55, and our chapter once more mobilized to fill 66 signature-gathering shifts which collected 520 signatures to place the Billionaire Tax on the ballot. A modest contribution to the overall effort, but an important step forward for our electoral capacity.

Measure A endorsement and mobilization

It was in this context that, in April, DSA San Diego voted to endorse Measure A and mobilize for its passage. Partnering with the Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund (ASDMF), which ran the Yes on A campaign, we organized 100 canvassing shifts across three separate canvasses and knocked on 2,831 doors (nearly tripling our electoral capacity from the ARCH campaign in 2024). Our chapter, by itself, was responsible for 15% of the doors knocked for Measure A, and 17% of the Yes IDs.

Unfortunately, though, Measure A did not pass. Once all the votes were counted, it narrowly failed, receiving 47% of the vote. Why did Measure A fail? There are a number of factors. First and foremost: capitalism. Real estate interests spent over $1.5 million dollars to scare voters against Measure A, whereas the Yes on A campaign was able to raise $300,000 in the ten weeks available to run a campaign.

The second factor was clearly timing. Not only did the truncated campaign period make it hard to build a sufficient head of steam to win this measure and counter the effects of capital arrayed against us, but placing a tax measure on a primary ballot of a midterm election, during a time of economic uncertainty, created too many headwinds to overcome. Despite that, the closeness of the election demonstrates that, even in the least favorable terrain possible, there was a mass audience for this message. In addition, the fact that the late votes broke so heavily in favor of Measure A (every batch of votes released after election date had Measure A either tied or passing, with the eighth batch of votes counted on June 10 favoring Measure A 64%-36%) shows that, with a longer period in which to campaign, Measure A might well have passed.

Unfortunately, there was also clearly a third factor at play – too few organizations prioritized campaigning for (not just endorsing) Measure A. DSA may have accounted for 15% of the doors knocked for Measure A, but we accounted for a full 96% of the doors knocked by volunteers (the remainder were knocked as part of a paid field program by ASDMF). Had there been more left-of-center organizations committed to knocking doors for Measure A, it could have passed, despite all the odds.

Credibility among allies

Despite these obstacles, we in DSA San Diego threw ourselves into the breach. In the process, we gained considerable credibility among community allies and grew our chapter’s membership and electoral capacity. Our campaign in support of Measure A demonstrated to the community the value of having DSA on your side, and it demonstrated to us the urgency of building our electoral capacity so that we may effectively contend for power, because this moment demands it.

As DSA San Diego said in a statement on election night:

Moneyed interests spent over a million dollars fighting against us, spreading lies and fear before Measure A even made it on the ballot. As we wait for every vote to be counted, it is clear that Measure A’s performance is proof of a seismic shift in San Diego. Working people are tired of a status quo that offers austerity instead of bold solutions while the wealthy hoard resources. Win or lose tonight, San Diegans have shown that they’re ready to fight for an economy that works for all of us, to ensure that all of our neighbors can live in dignity in housing they can afford, and to make the rich pay their fair share.

Measure A is just the beginning. Across the country, from New York City to San Diego, DSA is proving that not only are democratic socialist policies popular, but democratic socialists should govern. Join us in the fight, we have a world to win!

On April 19th, Lyle Prijoles, a long-time Bay Area organizer and SFSU alum, was killed by the Armed Force of the Philippines (AFP), in Toboso, Negros Occidental, Philippines. The AFP displaced hundreds in Negros and massacred eighteen others, including a fellow Filipino American organizer from Washington, Kai Sorem, and Filipino journalists, students, organizers and youth, many of whom were in Negros to report on state repression and the plight of peasants in the area. DSA SF is heartbroken and enraged by these murders, by the loss of a dedicated comrade and member of our community, by the continued exploitation of and violence against the indigenous people of Negros, and by all of the horrors that imperialism continues to inflict on workers across the globe.

DSA SF recognizes that Lyle’s work selflessly organizing for the oppressed in the Philippines and for the restriction of US funding for the AFP exemplifies our positions advocating for the end of imperialism and for the rights of the working class to build a better world. We recommend reading more about his work and life in this statement by the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP). 

The United States has not only been a major source of funding for the AFP across multiple administrations, but also regularly performs military exercises with them. The largest of these, the annual Balikatan, took place from April 20th until May 8th this year, immediately after the AFP murdered Lyle. While the US has an endless supply of tax dollars for foreign militaries like the AFP or IDF, even as these forces kill Americans and terrorize poor, innocent people without any recourse, our government has little to offer those of us here at home needing housing, food, healthcare, or education. This is not a mistake; we exist in a system of capitalist exploitation that depends on the continuation and escalation of this existing arrangement, reliant on the ability of the US and its allies to kill whomever they so desire. Without this ability, the US would be unable to continue its project of imperialist resource extraction in the Philippines and elsewhere, and the benefits for the corporate class – lower costs, higher growth, and increased profit – would cease.

DSA SF echos ICHRP’s demands to:

1. Hold an immediate and independent investigation into the AFP’s massacre on April 19th in Negros Occidental;
2. End U.S. support and funding for the Marcos Jr. administration, as well as U.S. military aid to the Philippines.

You can sign a petition to amplify these demands to the U.S. State Dept. & U.S. Embassy in the Philippines at https://tinyurl.com/negros19-petition.

We stand in solidarity with our kasama from the Bay Area to the Philippines in the continuation of this 400-year struggle of the oppressed against the land-owner and slaver class. We also call on those interested to attend upcoming actions in solidarity with Lyle, the Negros 19, and everyone continuing to suffer under this imperialist regime. You can find more information here:

https://www.instagram.com/defendnegros.norcal

We often say that a better world is possible. Lyle lived this ethos through his actions, through his tireless resistance, organization, and dedication to the most oppressed. May his memory and the memories of all those who stand against oppression be a reminder and inspiration for us all. 

[[{“value”:”

By: Timothy Scalona

This was originally published in The Boston Globe on July 21, 2026.

I had just finished middle school in 2012 when a sheriff came to my front door carrying an eviction notice — an enveloped piece of paper that threatened to force us out and trash the decades worth of memories that filled our home. Facing an unaffordable housing market and few resources, my six younger siblings, my parents, and I were thrown into hotels, motels, and shelters, turning one moment of hardship into years of homelessness.

So, in between track meets and Spanish classes, I was stuck studying for AP exams from the bathroom floor of our hotel room and wondering if the future had space in it for me, too.

Since then, 14 years have passed, and I have changed — but Massachusetts has not.

I am now a lawyer at Greater Boston Legal Services, defending tenants facing eviction in the courthouse, largely from nonpayment of rent or from rent increases imposed by private equity-backed real estate investors. I also do volunteer work to organize tenants to fight for a world where housing is codified through policy as a human right.

Massachusetts is one of the most unaffordable places in the country. We are in the throes of a housing and eviction crisis that is placing countless individuals and families at risk of displacement. And for many young people like myself who spend huge swaths of our income on rent, homeownership is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Last year, the Keep Massachusetts Home coalition, which is supported by nonprofits, unions, and community organizations, kickstarted a campaign to change this broken system. It sought to put a measure on the November 2026 ballot to reverse the statewide ban on rent control and limit annual rent increases to 5 percent or to the consumer price index, whichever was lower. Rent control has been banned in Massachusetts since a 1994 referendum that narrowly passed, 51-49, in an election that was dominated heavily by real estate industry spending.

Amid skyrocketing rent prices, the ballot question’s restoration of rent control would have served as one tool of many to begin addressing the affordability crisis. After having collected more than 157,000 signatures, the Homes for All coalitionwas ready to send the question of rent control to the voters. That was until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the ballot question on constitutional grounds, handing a victory to corporate landlords and out-of-state private equity real estate corporations. This decision was a significant blow to the voices of the 157,000 voters who signed in support of the ballot question, and for the organizers and advocates who spent months collecting signatures.

Yet, while the ballot question is dead this year, rent control should not be. The Legislature should pass some form of rent control, an initiative that is popular with almost 70 percent of voters, according to recent polling.

The reason that the ballot initiative was necessary in the first place was because the Legislature has failed year after year to restore rent control, despite pressure from advocates and tenants. And the 1994 referendum prohibits cities and towns from acting on their own.

Before the end of the legislative session on July 31, the Legislature should pass a rent stabilization measure before them. This bill would end the statewide ban on rent control and allow localities to choose whether to enact rent stabilization and just-cause eviction protections. While not as strong as the proposed ballot question, the bill would start to stem the bleeding from a ravaging housing crisis — and offer renters relief from no-fault evictions.

While other high schoolers dreamt of college or adulthood, I was dreaming of having a home. Some of my oldest memories are the cramped walls of motel rooms and the gut-wrenching fear that we would have nowhere to go.

I have seen this same terror in the faces of tenants in court. I have heard these same stories from folks whom I speak to on the street or at their doors. The housing crisis is brutalizing our communities, and the Legislature must act now to stop it.

Timothy Scalona is a staff attorney in the housing unit at Greater Boston Legal Services.

The post This year’s ballot question is dead. Rent control should not be. appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

The post Statement on State Department report “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism” appeared first on Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.

We’ve asked our readers of all faiths to send us brief meditations on what brought them to democratic socialism and/or religion. Some examples can be found here, here and here. In what follows, Jon Hochschartner describes his understanding of Marx and religion.—Eds.

When I first started to form an independent political identity, as a high-school senior in the mid-2000s, New Atheism was ascendant. Politicized spirituality was almost wholly associated with the right wing. Dogmatic atheism seemed to be the price of admission to the socialist Left, and so, with some struggle, I paid it.

However, in recent years, as I’ve faced various personal challenges and the increasingly chaotic world we’ve all experienced, I’ve sought to reconcile a spiritual perspective with my political commitments. Religious tradition and historical materialism are two schools of thought that seem contradictory on a surface level. Historical-materialist analysis divides society into categories of base and superstructure, arguing that the former, which represents the economic foundation, primarily determines the latter, which represents the ideological system. Thus, the classic Marxist view of religion is that, as part of the superstructure, it will wither away as the base changes and no longer serves an ideological purpose.

Friedrich Engels expressed this consensus perspective in his 1877 text Anti-Dühring. “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life,” he wrote. “When society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage… only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.”

Following the totalitarian experience of the Soviet Union and the way in which state atheism was so often used in Red Scare propaganda, modern-day democratic socialists are still burdened by outmoded beliefs about socialism and religion. U.S. socialist pioneer Eugene Debs has long been an inspiration to me, and I think his example in this respect is a better model for our time. Although he was suspicious of organized religion, he peppered his political commentary with biblical references and had a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth hanging in his cell during his imprisonment for opposing the First World War.

Emma Goldman’s most famous apocryphal quote  goes, “If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution.” In a similar vein, I would argue, “If I can’t pray, it’s not my revolution.” This is not only because I feel a genuine pull to spirituality, which I think anyone should be free to pursue, but also because I think government crackdowns on religion of the kind seen in the Soviet Union are indicative of a wider authoritarianism that will ultimately move beyond spiritual communities and affect the whole of society.

I’m not an academic, but  reconciling religious tradition and historical materialism doesn’t seem too difficult theoretically. If we concede that specific forms of religious expression are influenced by a society’s base, then the historical materialist view must acknowledge that at least some people have an innate drive toward spiritual life. It may not be possible for “hardliners” in each school of thought to admit these suppositions, but others should find them easy to adopt. 

For instance, these days, I think of myself as a Christian perennialist, by which I mean I feel most at home in the Christian tradition but interpret it through the lens of perennialism, the belief that all religious traditions are describing a single, universal truth; differences between faiths can be ascribed to different cultural filters through which seekers perceive that truth. Mapping historical materialism over this outlook appears fairly easy. I would argue that these cultural filters, which might be called the superstructure, are largely determined by the base.

Jon Hochschartner lives in Connecticut. He is the author of a number of books, including The Animals’ Freedom Fighter: A Biography of Ronnie Lee, Founder of the Animal Liberation Front. He blogs at SlaughterFreeAmerica.Substack.com.

The post Base, Superstructure, and Perennialism: How I Reconcile Religious Tradition and Historical Materialism  appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

DSA is on a winning streak. We must be open to the change that comes with rapid growth and new political power.

The post Catching the Car appeared first on Democratic Left.