Introduction / Background

So far, 2026 has been a huge year for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We have reached over 100,000 DSA members, the highest ever, and have seen heightened electoral success, most prominently with the election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City. As organizers within DSA grapple with the contradictions of this success, Eric Blanc and Steven R have made comparisons to the municipal socialism of the early 20th century Socialist Party of America (SPA), with a specific focus on Milwaukee’s sewer socialists which occupied their city hall for decades.

While DSA has not reached the SPA’s peak of 112,000 dues-paying socialists (or anywhere close when adjusted for population), Mamdani’s victory and our membership growth shows that we may be approaching similar political relevance. As argued by longtime DSA member David Duhalde in a piece comparing DSA to the SPA: “The U.S. socialist movement has returned, in some ways via a long reroute, to its original structures and impact.” As we continue to grow this movement, we have and will continue to face similar challenges to those of the 1910s SPA. For this reason, it is important to continue our study of socialism’s history.  

As many DSA members acknowledge this, the focus on Milwaukee, a city with many years of socialist governance, is understandable. However, as a member of Cleveland DSA, I am particularly interested in examining the vibrant socialist history in this part of the country, which saw its own share of socialist victories. As a result of the SPA’s electoral success in various municipalities early in the 1910s, this state was dubbed “Red Ohio”. By the end of the decade, Ohioan mass socialist organizing had arguably reached its all-time peak, as Cleveland’s SPA local led 30,000+ workers into the streets in the 1919 May Day demonstration.

This growth was predicated on the historical context of the early 20th century, when Cleveland had taken its place as the heart of an industrial empire, represented quintessentially in the monopolistic trusts of Clevelander John D. Rockefeller. As industrialization pushed more workers into the mines, steel mills and garment factories, Cleveland would also become the site of increased working class organizing. This would only escalate as economic conditions worsened and the United States would enter World War One, sending workers to their deaths as the ruling class grew even more wealthy. These changing material conditions, alongside the organizing of the SPA detailed throughout this piece, led to unprecedented support for socialism. This strength was met with violent repression from the state, which, alongside internal party conflict and purges, led to a sharp downfall in SPA membership and activity nationwide. 

The widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo was also channeled by more mainstream political organizations. The late 1800s and early 1900s saw the Progressive and Populist movements gain heightened support in national elections. This included repeat Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who would later found a third party (the Progressive Party a.k.a. the Bull Moose Party). Some figures of the Progressive movement, like Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld, were praised by socialists, but many of them strongly opposed socialism. Ultimately, the two largest political parties, despite flirtations with Progressivism and Populism, were largely beholden to the capitalist class, and no sizable third party would emerge. Additionally, the largest union confederation, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), was led by anti-socialist Samuel Gompers and avoided political advocacy until aligning with the Democratic Party in the late 1910s. At the turn of the century, the largest socialist organization in the country was the Socialist Labor Party (SLP), which remained marginal in size and had little engagement with mainstream politics.

Please return tomorrow for Part Two, “Electoral Politics”

The post The Past is Prologue: The History of the Cleveland Socialist Party of America (Pt 1) appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

We’re living in interesting times, comrade.

As I write, we are witnessing the opening salvos of what will likely develop into a major war of aggression by the US and Israel against Iran. The imperialist order is in decline across the globe. But, that also means the capitalist class that benefits from that order has never been more desperate — or more dangerous.

It’s clearer than ever that we have two choices: socialism or barbarism. We can have a world defined by peace, justice, and a dignified life for all people, or we can have a world defined by endless war, oppression, and suffering for all but an ever-shrinking circle of elites. It can feel hopeless sometimes, but that’s when we need to remember: there’s a power at the core of this monstrous machine. The force that keeps the wheels of this machine turning is our labor.

Our hands are on the switch, and we can turn off the war machine any time we choose. We just need to have enough hands pulling in unison.

The DSA is now more than 100,000 members strong, spread across all 50 states. We’re the largest socialist organization in US history by membership. And, our ranks are still growing fast.

Read on to see what we’ve been up to… and learn what’s coming next!

February Highlights

We started off the month with members braving the cold to kickoff the canvassing efforts to re-elect PDSA member Richie Floyd to St. Pete City Council. This is a critical project of our Electoral Committee, and although it’s only been a couple of weeks, we’re already well on the way to collecting enough petition signatures to secure Richie’s spot on the ballot (rather than buying ballot access, as most candidates do).

The Ecosocialist Working Group continued to advance our ongoing Dump Duke campaign, with organizers facing off against a representative from Duke Energy’s dark-money front group, to argue the merits of public power.

Our Education-Social Working Group hosted Capitalism vs. Socialism, the latest installment of our core training on the basics of organizing with DSA. In the session, which attracted nearly three dozen attendees (pretty good for a Friday night!), organizers explained why we believe that socialism is a superior system to capitalism, and how a socialist society compares to our existing capitalist one. And, our International Solidarity Working Group stayed busy, too, hosting a demonstration at the Chevron station on Sunset Point Road in Clearwater to protest Chevron’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza as part of the ongoing #StopFuelingGenocide campaign.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Re-Elect Richie Floyd

Our campaign to re-elect Richie Floyd to the St. Petersburg City Council is shifting into high gear!

Since launching the campaign last month, DSA members have doggedly showed up, weekend after weekend, braving both the cold and the heat to knock doors in District 8. While the campaign could simply buy ballot access, as most elected officials do, the members of our chapter agreed to take the same approach as we did with Richie’s first election campaign, doing it the grassroots way and collecting petition signatures to gain a spot on the ballot instead.

After just one month, we’ve already collected more than half of the 500 signatures needed! As of right now, the campaign is in good shape. But, we need to keep up the energy and get those signatures. This is a people-powered campaign, so let’s show the members of the capitalist class here in St. Pete what the people can do!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: End 287(g)

Pinellas DSA, as a member organization of the Tampa Bay Immigrant Solidarity Network, hosted a public volunteer meeting on Saturday, February 21 at WonderWorks in Gulfport. Much like neighboring St. Petersburg, the Gulfport Police Department has signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE, volunteering their officers to work as deputized enforcers for the spear of the US regime’s fascist immigration policy. Our ongoing campaign aims to pressure local police departments in Pinellas County to end these agreements and to refuse to collaborate with ICE.

Following a presentation on local 287(g) agreements — including how they undermine public trust in law enforcement, drain public resources, fuel racial profiling, and erode due process — attendees went out to canvass neighborhoods across Gulfport, raise awareness about 287(g), and invite community members to sign petitions calling for an end to the city’s collaboration with ICE.

Our demand of local government officials is simple: No collaboration with fascism! No ICE in our streets!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Dump Duke

DSA members spearheading the Dump Duke campaign continue to pressure St. Pete officials to explore the feasibility of creating a publicly owned power utility in the city. We’re up against mounting resistance from dark-money groups funded by Duke Energy, including the Clearwater Energy Alliance and the St. Pete Energy Alliance. But, even with all the money Duke is throwing against us, we’ve got the people on our side!

Organizers with Dump Duke faced off against a representative from the Clearwater Energy Alliance as part the “Opposites Attract” debate series at Bayboro Brewing on February 9. We laid out a clear, practical case for public power — a publicly-owned municipal utility that puts reliability, affordability, and accountability ahead of corporate profit.

Dump Duke organizers also hit the streets at the Mezzo Market, speaking to St. Pete residents, asking their feelings about Duke Energy, and getting the word out that an alternative option is a real possibility!

If you haven’t already, make sure you sign the petition calling on city officials to fund a feasibility study on public power, and to begin negotiations with Duke Energy to end St. Pete’s relationship with the company. Also, if you’re interested in helping build support for public power, go to dumpdukefl.com to learn how you can get involved!

Upcoming Events

We have more than two dozen political events, working group meetings, and social outings scheduled in March. You can always view our full calendar of upcoming events, along with the most up-to-date times and locations, on our website: https://www.pinellasdsa.org/home.

Health Justice Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 2 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Meeting will be hosted in Wesley Room & virtually via Zoom.

Housing Working Group & St. Pete Tenants Joint Meeting

Tuesday, March 3 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Discuss and take action on the housing crisis in St. Pete at this joint meeting between the St. Pete Tenants Union and Pinellas DSA.

Socialists in Office Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, March 4 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC.

Run DSA: Glow in the Park 5k

Thursday, March 5 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC. Join us in the Hybrid room for a basic training on protest marshalling.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 7 from 10:30am–1:30pm at Gladden Park Recreation Center (3901 30th Ave N. in St. Petersburg). RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Self-Managed Abortion Canvass

Saturday, March 7 from 2:30–4:00pm at the President Barack Obama Main Library (3745 9th Ave N. in St. Petersburg).

General Meeting & Social

Sunday, March 8 from 2:00–3:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). To be followed immediately after by the Socialist Social Hour, with food and (non-alcoholic) drinks provided!

International Solidary Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 9·from 6:30–8:00pm. This will be a virtual-only meeting. Zoom Link.

Book Study: Health Justice Now!

Tuesday, March 10 from 6:15–8:00pm at Allendale UMC. Join us to read and discuss Timothy Faust’s Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next. We will be meet in-person in the Hybrid Room and via Zoom.

Bylaws Meeting

Wednesday, March 11 from 6:30–8:00pm. At Allendale UMC, in the Teresa Room.

Cuba: An American History Reading Group

Thursday, March 12 from 6:30–7:30pm at Allendale UMC. Meet us in the Wesley Room for our final discussion of Cuba: An American History.

North County Meeting & Social

Friday, March 13 from 6:30–9:30pm. Location TBD.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 14 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD. RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Safe Self-Managed Abortion Info Session

Sunday, March 15 from 11:00am-12:00pm at the President Barack Obama Main Library in St. Pete.

Boca Ciega Apartments Canvassing

Sunday, March 15 from 1:00–2:00pm. Canvass the Boca Ciega Apartments (3401 37th St S. in St. Petersburg) to inform and encourage tenants to attend a tenants meeting, where they can tackle the issues facing their property together!

Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, March 15 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale UMC.

Fundraising Committee Meeting

Monday, March 16 from 6:30–8:00pm. Our chapter’s monthly fundraising check-in and brainstorming session at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Will be hosted in the Hybrid Room, as well as virtually. Zoom link.

Electoral Committee Meeting

Wednesday, March 18 from 6:30–8:30pm. To be hosted at Allendale UMC in the Wesley Room.

Ecosocialist Working Group Meeting

Thursday, March 19 from 6:30–8:00pm. Hosted at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

Labor Committee Meeting

Friday, March 20 from 6:30–8:00pm at the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association offices (650 Seminole Blvd. in Largo).

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 21 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD. RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Dump Duke Social & Canvass

Sunday, March 22 from 10:30am-2:00pm at Dell Holmes Park (2741 22nd St S. in St. Petersburg).

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 23 from 6:30–8:00pm. Meeting at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 28 21 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD, but RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Pinellas DSA Orientation

Saturday, March 28 from 2:30–4:00pm. New member orientation hosted at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

DSA Nature Walk

Sunday, March 29 from 10:30am-12:00pm. All this organizing can wear you out — refresh and recharge with comrades on a nature walk at Sawgrass Lake Park (7400 25th St N. in St. Petersburg)!

NOTE: All dates and times are subject to change, so check the website regularly for updates!

This past Saturday, a bill was passed by the Kansas Legislature, Kansas Senate Bill 244. This bill expands on SB 180 and hundreds of other anti-trans bills passed in state legislatures in recent years, explicitly targeting transgender people with the end goal of removing them from existence.

Overnight, Kansans were banned from participating in public life under threat of severe penalties. This is only the most recent egregious attack in a history of other laws excluding transgender people from school sports, depriving trans adolescents of healthcare, barring incarcerated trans people from gender-affirming care, and on and on. Depriving Kansans of drivers licenses that align with their gender identity forcibly outs these people as transgender. Using the bathroom associated with their sex assigned at birth would do the same, and put them at risk of being harassed or targeted for violence.

These laws put transgender people at immense risk any time they try to rent an apartment, get a job, open a bank account, access basic services and enjoy fundamental rights, as well as any time they are forced to interact with law enforcement.

The current administration has been remarkably clear about its stance on the existence of trans people in this country and has explicitly announced its intent to remove trans individuals from all facets of public life, and even the concept of gender non-conformity from existence.

These attacks are taking place at a time when ICE is actively spending billions of dollars in recruitment and to ramp up their detention capabilities, to intense push-back all across the nation. The number of transgender people detained by ICE has been increasing leading up to 2025, when ICE ceased recording data on transgender people in immigration detention and began practicing conversion “therapy”. All of this leads to a clear distinction that must be made, that the current administration is, and has been for over a year, engaging in genocide of trans Americans.

Being transgender is not a condition, to be cured or ruled illegal. Rochester DSA is horrified by these ongoing attacks on our trans comrades, neighbors, and siblings. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

Rochester DSA continues to be proud to stand with the trans community, to welcome trans comrades into our ranks, and to recognize in the trans experience a universal struggle against the patriarchal gender binary, and for human freedom.

The post Steering Committee Statement on Kansas SB244 first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

The right reforms can help the working class win transformational changes. These non-reformist reforms are a necessary step in the democratic road to socialism. 

The post How Labor Can Win appeared first on Democratic Left.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA —  Last week, Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood proposed legislation (the BUILD Act) that would gut City funding for affordable housing and exacerbate the budget crisis while putting hundreds of millions of dollars back into the pockets of real estate developers, speculators, and other wealthy beneficiaries of Trump’s federal tax breaks – including Donald Trump himself.  

DSA San Francisco and our allies stand in resolute opposition to this proposal, and we will fight to protect the interests of San Francisco’s working class and the clear mandate San Francisco voters delivered in 2020 by approving Proposition I, which the Mayor’s legislation would overturn. We urge the Board of Supervisors to honor the will of their constituents and reject this undemocratic transfer of wealth to the rich. 

“San Franciscans came together to impose taxes on those who make fortunes speculating on the properties where we live and work. We will do so again and again, if we have to, so that the rest of us can afford to live here,” said Raya Steier, Proposition I campaign manager and DSA SF member.

By passing Proposition I, San Franciscans voted to increase the tax on the sale of commercial and residential units exceeding $10 million in order to fund permanently affordable housing. Prop I has raised over $500 million to date by taxing real estate speculation, a primary driver of San Francisco’s housing affordability crisis. This revenue has provided:

• $42m for the strongest COVID-19 rent relief program in the country, saving more than 20,000 San Franciscans from eviction.
• $40m for land banking which has been used for more than 550 affordable homes, including over 300 currently under construction today.
• $64m for housing acquisition that has taken hundreds of homes off the private speculative market.

Proposition I was supported by 57% of voters despite $5 million spent by real estate interests and billionaires to oppose it. It’s no surprise that billionaires like Mayor Lurie prefer not to pay taxes. But the claims that this billionaire tax cut will “spur housing development” and “create thousands of good union jobs” are outrageous and deserve intense scrutiny. 

The vast majority of Prop I revenue is derived from the sale of rent-controlled apartment buildings and large commercial properties built decades ago. Hundreds of affordable units are under construction in San Francisco directly because of the funds raised by Prop I. Liquidating this revenue stream will not “spur housing development” because the construction of new market-rate housing faces a confluence of economic factors that the Mayor’s bill will do nothing to improve. 

Cutting taxes to spur housing development is a failed policy that has been tried time and again without success. In this case, the cut would redistribute money away from the production and protection of affordable housing directly into the pockets of the wealthy. San Franciscans can’t afford to be fooled again by the rhetoric of trickle-down economics.

“San Francisco real estate and rent prices are out of control and have been for some time. The transfer tax on high-end real estate — selling for over $10 million — captures some of the seller’s profit and gives it back to everyday San Franciscans. The Mayor should be ashamed, trying to take away crucial funds intended for housing just to give a tax break to billionaires,” said Dean Preston, former District 5 Supervisor and author of Proposition I.

Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmood’s anti-democratic bill would redistribute money away from affordable housing directly into the pockets of their ultra-wealthy constituents. Everyday residents struggling to stay housed in the nation’s most expensive market would suffer in order to further enrich the very people who benefit from the city’s affordability crisis, including Lurie’s extended family and donors. And President Trump, who owns 30% of one of the biggest properties currently on the market in San Francisco at 555 California St., would stand to rake in tens of millions of dollars off this tax cut when it’s sold.

“When it comes to enriching billionaires at the expense of working people, Daniel Lurie is giving Donald Trump a run for his money,” said Shanti Singh, statewide tenant advocate and DSA SF member. 

This is only the latest attack on the working class of San Francisco by Mayor Lurie and his allies. In the year since Mayor Lurie took office, median rents in San Francisco have soared by an additional 15%, becoming the highest in the nation. San Francisco’s working people deserve real solutions from their government, San Francisco’s voters have given our government the funds to provide them, and DSA SF will continue our fight to ensure this Mayor can’t give away those resources to his rich friends.

###

A coalition of tech industry workers, labor organizers, community organizers, and friends cultivating solidarity among all workers in tech.

The post Corporate targets for tech worker activism against ICE appeared first on EWOC.

February 2/24/26, 7pm, Centilia Culture Center, Seattle WA

Introduction

Each month the SDSA holds General Membership Meetings. These meetings serve as a democratic vehicle for members, educational vehicles for those looking to get more involved, and informational vehicles to learn about upcoming events and votes.

Each GMM follows the same basic schedule: We begin with a call to order, during which we acknowledge the fact we’re operating on stolen land. After the call to order, we vote to approve or amend the proposed agenda, and then we move through the agenda once approved.

Robert’s Rules of Order is our chapter’s parliamentary authority, which sets rules on decorum, debate, resolutions, and voting for making democratic decisions.

Business Summary

Consent Agenda

No objections, approved. 

• Extension of the Chapter Structure and Democracy Commission (CSDC) charter for six (6) months, to present their work in September. 
• Reopening the electoral endorsement process to consider candidates for the 37th Legislative District, to be decided at March Convention
• Appointment of Chris W as Facilitator for the remainder of the current LC term

First Readings

2/2026 Seattle Local Organizational Bulletin to be voted on at the convention in March 2026.

1. Bylaws Amendment to Change Endorsement Threshold to 60%

Introduction

Livey introduced a change to raise the endorsement threshold from a simple majority (50%+1) to a supermajority (60%), aligning with NYC DSA practice. The change aims to ensure that any endorsed candidate has enough active member support to successfully mobilize canvassers, which is essential for building power. Members were encouraged to evaluate potential endorsements by asking themselves if they would personally be willing to canvas for the candidate.

Arguments For
A 60% threshold is common across DSA chapters, preventing last-minute campaigns from vote-whipping for an endorsement sticker without doing the party building work. It ensures enough excited members will canvas, avoiding unproductive close votes (like Katie Wilson). It also safeguards against entryism and holds candidates more accountable.

Arguments Against
Requiring 60% lets a minority override majority-supported candidates, contradicting labor movement tradition (e.g. Teamsters honoring a 54% rejection of contract). A 50% threshold forces campaigns to sharpen political arguments and persuade members. Raising the threshold adds bureaucracy without addressing core political divisions. The real fight should be over political standards, not numerical thresholds.

2. Resolution for Establishing a Seattle DSA Voter Guide

Introduction

Pete introduced the proposed guide that would allow SDSA to signal support for potential allies who don’t meet endorsement criteria, while still critiquing them, maintaining influence without granting official endorsement. Recent endorsements of non-socialists have blurred DSA politics. A clear guide distinguishes between endorsed candidates and those simply worth noting, resolving this ambiguity. When candidates don’t meet the threshold, the guide provides a way to analyze the electoral landscape and channel member energy into future organizing, rather than losing momentum entirely.

Arguments For
A voter guide would educate the public on what DSA candidacy means, countering media narratives (e.g. being called “sectarian” for voting down endorsement of Katie Wilson). It fills a left-wing void beyond outlets like The Stranger, covering socialist analysis of propositions other guides ignore. Building this platform creates name recognition to eventually promote our own cadre candidates.

Arguments Against
A recommendation for an electoral candidate/proposition functions as an endorsement to voters, blurring our strategy and diluting what a socialist candidate/program looks like. Resources are better spent on developing cadre candidates and material organizing, not “bourgeois electoralism.” Without clear criteria for the guide, a committee could signal support for unvetted candidates (including Democrats) without membership approval.

3. Resolution for A Party-Like Endorsement Questionnaire

Introduction

Livey from the EWG is introducing a new candidate questionnaire focused on a candidate’s theory of change and relationship to socialism, rather than just lengthy policy questions. The updated version asks whether candidates agree with the membership-voted program, while still requiring explanations. The new questionnaire is shorter and more politically sharp than the previous version. The new questionnaire aims to encourage members to think critically about what they want in a DSA-endorsed candidate.

Arguments For
The questionnaire asks direct political questions (e.g., independence from Democrats) that elected officials should be able to answer, ensuring socialist alignment. It promotes campaign accountability by requiring engagement with membership-voted programs. It can be amended as the chapter program develops, remaining a living document.

Arguments Against
The questionnaire is premature. It asks candidates to align with a chapter program not yet finalized. It should wait until the program is completed and membership-voted.

2026 Chapter Budget

Introduction

Fernando introduced the proposed yearly chapter budget. The chapter maintains 11 months of reserves, meeting the NGO best practice of 6–12 months. Full budget details are available on Discord and will be emailed before the convention. Members can submit amendments specifying funding sources, and are encouraged to contribute monthly directly to Seattle DSA.

Discussion/Questions

Information on actual spending and donations will be sent out before the budget is passed. Working groups maintain their own records. The fiscal year aligns with the calendar year (January start). National member dues total approximately $4,000/month, while local monthly donations (separate from dues) bring in around $14,000/month.

Final Readings

None

Education and Development

Announcements

• The Seattle DSA chapter convention is March 21 at 11 AM. RSVP here!
  • LC nominations are open! Please reach out to interested members. 
  • Resolutions can still be submitted, but bylaws amendments are past the deadline.
  • Chapter program committee’s draft program is available on Discord. Please provide feedback!
• Palestine Solidarity WG elections are in March 2026. 
• The Protests, Actions, and Coordinated Events (PACE) committee meets Thursday 3/5 on Signal. RSVP to the event for a link to the Signal chat. You can also send a message in #pace-general on Discord to get in contact!
• May Day is Friday 5/1, save the date for DSA action!
• Pride planning underway. Get involved via the Member Engagement Committee.
• New labor publication Labor Herald launched by National Labor Commission! 

Adjourned at 8:51 PM 

By: Frederick Reiber

BOSTON, MA – Dining hall workers at Emmanuel College voted to unionize with UNITE HERE Local 26 and signed their first collectively-bargained contract in November 2025, joining a union that has recently grown its membership to 14,000 workers in hospitality & food service.

The workers, employed by the food service contract Bon Appétit Management Company, had originally begun organizing four or five years ago. That original push fizzled out. However, as one of the employees, Cesar Salazar, highlighted – workers had really begun to notice the union difference. They lacked union insurance and a pension plan, and held significant grievances around handling worker seniority. 

At the center of the campaign was what organizers describe as a worker-driven approach to building power inside the workplace. Rather than relying on outside messaging alone, workers focused on identifying trusted colleagues and strengthening relationships across shifts and roles.

Cesar Salazar, a 14-year employee involved in the effort, highlighted how the campaign drew on the Organizing for Power playbook — a method centered on mapping workplace relationships and working through respected leaders. Workers met to identify who others turned to for advice, who influenced conversations in the kitchen or serving lines, and how support could spread person to person. That process meant thinking carefully about who to approach and when. It required workers to assess not just formal job titles, but informal networks of trust.

The work was intensive. Salazar described “meeting after meeting” as employees gathered before shifts, after work and on days off to build majority support. At the same time, they had to remain discreet, keeping organizing conversations away from management while building confidence among co-workers.

The University as a Multi-Employer Arena

Organizing inside a university setting brought both challenges and advantages. The dining workers are employed by Bon Appétit Management Company, a national food service contractor. However, many aspects of their daily working conditions are shaped by the standards and expectations of Emmanuel College itself.

In some workplaces, that kind of “fissured” employment structure — where a contractor technically employs workers while another institution sets conditions — can complicate organizing drives. The same case applies in many workplaces, such as in the structure of Fenway Park, which impacted the 2025 strike of concessions workers. In the case of Emmanuel College, workers indicated that fissuring was not a significant barrier. They moved forward with a clear understanding of how the workplace functioned and focused on building unity among themselves, internally.

One of the campaign’s strengths, organizers said, was the presence of an already established worker community on campus. Workers across Emmanuel College showed support during the drive. The support from other unionized workers helped normalize the effort and underscored what organizers described as “the union difference.”

First Contract Negotiations

After winning union recognition, workers entered negotiations for a first contract and won in November 2025.

The contract includes significant economic gains. Workers secured a total wage increase of over $9 per hour, a substantial boost that addressed long-standing concerns about pay. The agreement also provides increased vacation time and new parental protections, expanding benefits beyond wages alone. In addition to these financial and leave-related improvements, workers won changes to the scheduling system and formal recognition of employees’ commitment to their jobs. As workers explained, their employer had often failed to acknowledge seniority or properly compensate long-time staff for their service. The new agreement helps to rectify this by providing four weeks of vacation for senior members and a fair scheduling system based on seniority.

The scheduling victory is especially meaningful because it shows that union campaigns can secure more than traditional “bread and butter” issues like pay and benefits. By reshaping how schedules are structured and communicated, the contract reaches into the everyday rhythms of work life, giving workers greater predictability, stability, and respect on the job.

For these workers, the first contract is not just a list of new benefits—it is a framework for a more secure, dignified workplace, and a signal that organizing can deliver tangible changes that are felt long after the picket signs come down.

Frederick Reiber is a contributing writer to Working Mass.

The post Emmanuel College Dining Hall Workers Win First Contract with UNITE HERE Local 26 appeared first on Working Mass.

By: Shane Levett & Stefan Neumayer

This article was originally published by Cosmonaut Magazine in January 2026. These positions are the authors’ own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.

Central Mass & Worcester DSA recently considered and ratified two documents, a resolution on “Principles for Socialist Electoral Work” and a chapter bylaws amendment establishing an Electoral Policy. Together these will govern the chapter’s engagement with electoral work, both campaigning and parliamentary practice.

Our DSA chapter covers Central Massachusetts and is centered on the city of Worcester. The chapter is bordered to the east by Boston DSA, to the west by River Valley, to the south by Connecticut and Rhode Island, and to the north by Southern New Hampshire DSA. We organize in a particularly proletarian part of New England with a history of a vibrant and varied industry built around manufacturing, in particular the metal trades in Worcester, paper in Fitchburg, furniture in Gardner, plastics in Leominster, and optics in Southbridge. Economic restructuring and the decline in industrial production in the Northeast has made education, healthcare, and local government the largest employers in Worcester County in recent years, followed by finance, biotechnology, and transportation and logistics. The eastern part of our chapter, centered around Marlborough, is part of the MetroWest area’s economy and focused on technology. While Worcester was historically a hostile environment for unions, the union density is currently above the national average, at around 12.6%. Politically, the state and region are dominated by the Democratic Party, which, while at times paying lip service to demands for progressive reforms, serves only the capitalist class. Of the seventeen state house districts entirely within our chapter’s area, eleven are held by Democrats and six by Republicans, who are sidelined and irrelevant in state politics.

Our chapter has a long-standing commitment to labor work, in particular salting and strike support. Over the last year, we took initial steps into tenant organizing by focusing on a large local building complex, where we are organizing tenants to struggle against the landlord with the goal of forming a tenants union. Our political education work has also deepened, in particular with a six-part Foundational Marxist Curriculum that was very well attended by our chapter members.

The chapter emphasizes collective decision-making by the entire membership, combining active deliberative democracy with a centralized approach that favors steering committee-led committees over autonomous working groups. While very few of our chapter’s members are caucused, most of the active membership and chapter leadership consider themselves revolutionary Marxists of various stripes. Many are members of Red Line, a broad left-wing coalition that includes caucused and uncaucused members across several DSA chapters in New England. Red Line’s points of unity are principled electoral work, socialist organizing in the labor movement, and a strong commitment to member democracy in a multi-tendency DSA. After increasing our membership roughly 20% in the six months prior to election day in 2024 and by another roughly 80% in the year since, we have begun to transition out of being a small chapter. Now, while not neglecting other organizing, we are preparing to enter into electoral work and hope our perspective may be of interest to other chapters developing their own approach to this work.

Our Proposal

The Principles orient our electoral work, by developing a vision and a common understanding of the entire chapter. They describe in brief our understanding of the nature and limits of democracy under capitalism, the specific purpose of socialist electoral work, and the opportunity it presents. They lay out our intent to run agitational campaigns for seats in legislative bodies at the state and municipal levels. Our candidates—nominated to run, not endorsed after the fact—will stand for election on socialist platforms that build on the chapter’s political program and that are developed and democratically approved by our membership.

Where the Principles provide the guiding philosophy, the Electoral Policy provides the minutiae of the necessary processes. It lays out how we will put our Principles into practice, combining our general understanding of socialist electoral work with strategic and tactical conclusions derived for the specifics of our chapter. It codifies:

• criteria for district and target research, such as class composition and other demographic information and opportunities to run a slate of candidates together;
• a process for member ratification of our nominated candidates and drafting socialist platforms for each body we contest that build on the chapter’s political program;
• considerations for suitable potential candidates, that they be active and experienced members, politically educated, in agreement with our theory of change, and committed to building and promoting DSA as their political home, and will not unilaterally make endorsements of other candidates or receive contributions to a candidate’s committee;
• expectations of elected officials, including not keeping more than a median workers’ income, not caucusing with non-socialists, and not taking a “position or vote for funding of or support for US militarism or imperialism, the Zionist apartheid regime, policing or the US criminal-legal system generally, any associated lobbying or interest groups, or rollback of the rights of oppressed peoples and workers, including any restriction of workers’ self-organization, strikes, boycotts, or other workers’ collective action”; and
• a process for independently organizing around ballot questions, provided it is with a socialist message that advances our political work, program, and organization;
• structures to implement the above, including a Program Committee that houses platform committees for each body on which we have elected officials and that coordinates with them, as well as a firewalled Electoral Committee that houses a related independent expenditure political action committee (IE PAC) that will raise funds, hire staff, order print literature, and run all canvasses and other campaign activities in support of the election of our nominated candidates, while avoiding when reasonably possible the use of services, including VoteBuilder and ActBlue, effectively controlled by another political party or whose use benefits another party, in favor of alternatives.

We did not develop a general position on ballot lines and contented ourselves to clarify what they mean for the electoral work, municipal and state legislative, that is possible exclusively within the geographic jurisdiction of our chapter. Debate, however, showed that most of us reject an overly narrow approach. Having their own ballot line did not insulate the Socialist Party of America (SPA) from the pressures of opportunism, and use of another party’s ballot line does not take all agency from candidates and doom them to opportunism and instant failure. But nor is running in another party’s primary a victimless crime—it hinders our ability to build an independent profile and present ourselves as the alternative to the capitalist two-party system. It might also foster misunderstandings or illusions outside our organization—or even within it—namely that our political project is to remake one of the capitalist parties into a socialist party by and for the working class.

Ultimately, with nonpartisan municipal elections in our state, we see no reason to run municipal candidates registered with another party. Likewise, state legislative primaries here offer nothing comparable to the widely broadcast debates or other early media coverage of primaries for higher offices. Thus, we see no great benefit to limiting the reach of our state legislative campaigns to those workers who turn out for (or who we can motivate to turn out for) another party’s primaries.

We see our stance on ballot lines as being distinct from that adopted by much of the rest of DSA. Resolution 7, which passed with roughly 54% support at 2025 DSA National Convention, says that formally “DSA’s approach is the party surrogate, acting as a party but without a dedicated ballot line.” Reflecting the popular fixation, since Seth Ackerman’s 2016 article, on legal obstacles to a party of our own with its own ballot line, R7 dedicates two of its five whereas clauses and three of its ten namesake “Principles for Party-Building” to justifying this claimed agnostic stance on ballot lines. For many years now, of course, DSA chapters engaged in electoral work have actually dedicated themselves in their practical activity almost exclusively to supporting candidates who have decided to run in Democratic Party primaries or registered Democrats running their campaigns with Democratic Party tech tools in nonpartisan races. We break from this “dirty stay” approach of “using existing [Democratic Party] apparatus without necessarily seeking to transform [realign] the Democratic Party… [and simultaneously] avoiding or at least not taking necessary steps to build a new socialist party.” Instead we put forward a different electoral approach set by our members that focuses on an electoral strategy and organization defined by the chapter itself rather than by candidates and their campaigns. It is therefore our intention to run our municipal and state legislative candidates in general elections as independents (or what is called “unenrolled” in Massachusetts).

Our Strategy

There are four main ways in which we believe our approach is unique within DSA:

(1) We focus our campaigns on promoting socialism, DSA, and our chapter, rather than on winning seats

Tactics must be subservient to guiding principles and not the other way around. We stress that electoral work is a tool for political aims: our primary goal is not to win offices but to spread socialism and further the political independence of the working class. DSA should not be listed as one of many endorsements or buried in the small print of a “Paid for by” line; our candidates must run as proud socialists and DSA members first, nominated by our chapter, running under a common brand, focused on organizing the working class, and distinct from left liberals who campaign only on reforms.

We aim to use agitation and political indictments not only to stir indignation but to promote a socialist understanding by connecting capitalism to the concrete, everyday abuses, outrages, and concerns of workers; exposing misdirection and deception by bourgeois parties and the ways legislation and the state serve particular economic interests; and highlighting and broadening local conflicts, struggles, strikes, and protests. We aim not only to draw attention to these issues or provide theoretical insights but to earn workers’ support by providing the most energetic and effective political leadership as the most determined fighters for the class.

(2) We choose candidates as representatives of the program we put forward as a chapter, rather than endorsing candidates who have already decided to run

Starting from the idea that Worcester DSA should recruit candidates rather than candidates recruiting Worcester DSA, we dispense with questionnaires on candidates’ individual views and the whole customary chapter endorsement process. This process often not only tails candidates who have already made up their minds on running and fosters an individualistic philosophy of elections but leads to a consecutive lowering of standards, toward embracing those who are more or less radical liberals as somehow “better” than (i.e., not yet so corrupted as) the establishment Democratic Party candidates, which may initially be true to an extent but is not sufficient for socialist electoral work.

Instead of attempting to patch over this problem through the common formulation of “running more cadre candidates” (in fact, changing essentially nothing other than endorsed candidates’ level of involvement in DSA), we democratically develop a socialist platform for each elected body we intend to contest and then democratically select experienced members of our chapter to stand as representatives of that platform. Collective decision-making on collective action is a core part of our project as organized socialists in DSA. We make clear that to decide to run for public elected office without the nomination of the chapter is a rejection of what makes us a socialist organization instead of a federation of well-meaning individual activists.

(3) We run our own campaigns under the effective control of the chapter, rather than acting as a volunteer pool or donor list for candidates

We overcome some constraints of state laws that frustrate the efforts of organized groups to hold politicians accountable through a related IE PAC, which will almost entirely take the place of the fundraising and spending that candidates themselves would normally control. By establishing an IE PAC under a chapter Electoral Committee that is firewalled from the rest of the chapter, especially the Program Committee that actually interacts with candidates and electeds, we aim to keep campaign funds and decisions under chapter, not candidate, control—during and after campaigns and even if a politician breaks from us or our members decide to break from them.

(4) We develop our priorities and plans as part of the chapter, rather than commending or denouncing candidates’ votes after the fact

We understand that for our democratic decision-making to mean something, to have real stakes, all members must make a good-faith effort to carry out collective decisions on collective action, and we expect an even higher standard of our candidates and elected officials. To that end, we established a Program Committee, which implements the chapter political program and the platform on which candidates run. Under the Program Committee, we also created a framework for platform committees for each body we contest that will include our elected officials. Working bodies in the spirit of the Paris Commune, these committees will be accountable to the membership and will perform delegated daily work in relation to legislation and other political activities.

Theoretical and Historical Investigation

When considering our electoral work, we did not immediately jump to seeking candidates to endorse but started with a discussion of our goals and how best to achieve them. In the plainest terms, our goals are socialism and building a socialist movement capable of contesting for working-class power. Our approach is driven by these overarching goals, and we see participation in electoral work as providing valuable opportunities that must not be surrendered. Electoral strategies are not ends in themselves or tools for temporary electoral or policy gains. They are subordinate to higher, political aims. For this reason, we intend to run working class representatives from and of DSA to:

• reach large numbers of working class people with our socialist message;
• combat ruling class narratives and make the case against capitalism and for socialism;
• advance and lead struggles to raise class consciousness and challenge the existing system;
• recruit to our organization, grow our capacity, and develop cadre; and
• organize a mass base in the working class for socialism, as well as a mass party that fights for it.

We studied past writings and classic works on the foundations of the bourgeois state, politics, and socialist engagement with elections, relying on texts such as:

• Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “Address of the Central Authority to the League, March 1850.” In Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 10, 277-287. Lawrence & Wishart, 1978.
• Varlin, Eugène, et al. “Appel du comité central de la garde nationale le 25 mars 1871” [Appeal of the Central Committee of the National Guard of March 25, 1871]. Gallica. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112793c/f109.item. Facsimile of the appeal as published in Élections Des 26 Mars Et 16 Avril 1871: Affiches, Professions De Foi, Documents Officiels, Clubs Et Comités Pendant La Commune, 107-108 (1871).
• Engels, Friedrich. “Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850 (1895).” In Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 27, 506-524. Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.
• Luxemburg, Rosa. “Reform or Revolution.” In The Essential Rosa Luxemburg, pp. 41-104. Haymarket Books, 2008.
• Lenin, V.I. “Preface to the Russian Translation of W. Liebknecht’s Pamphlet: No Compromises, No Electoral Agreements.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 11, 401-407. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1962.
• Debs, Eugene V. “Danger Ahead.” In Writings and Speeches of Eugene V. Debs, pp. 333-336. Hermitage Press, 1948. Transcription of the article as originally published in International Socialist Review (1911).
• Lenin, V.I. “The Election Campaign and the Election Platform.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 17, pp. 278-286. Progress Publishers, 1968.
• Lippmann, Walter. “On Municipal Socialism, 1913: An Analysis of Problems and Strategies.” In Socialism and the Cities, edited by Bruce Stave, 184-96. Kennikat Press, 1975.
• Lenin, V.I. “The State and Revolution.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 25, 381-492. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.
• Lenin, V.I. “Several Conclusions” in “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder.” In Lenin Collected Works, vol. 31, 90-104. Progress Publishers, 1966.
• Badayev, A. The Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma. Martin Lawrence, 1929.

We believe it is important too to review the history of past socialist electoral work, including, in this country, the swift rise and fall of the Social Democratic Party in Haverhill in our own state, the presidential runs of Eugene Debs, the nearly 40 years of Socialist Party mayors in Milwaukee, and the pressures to liquidate politically into a left wing of the campaigns of William Jennings Bryan, Robert M. La Follette, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What is the scoreboard here for socialism? With hindsight and thought toward our own future efforts, we arrive at a sober assessment of the inherent limits of elections as a means to transform society in general and of certain electoral tactics in particular. We believe socialists are at their best when they connect electoral campaigns and legislative activity to organizing and mobilization outside the halls of government. Socialists should engage in struggles for reforms to build toward a socialist party and workers’ movement that can seize political power for the working class and carry out the democratic socialization of ownership of the means of production.

Unfortunately, however, tactics have often seemingly been driven by a singular focus on seeking reforms within capitalism as an end in itself, often under the influence of middle-class professionals or in systematic class collaboration with petty bourgeois elements. This vulgar electoralism that sees seats as synonymous with political power, reforms as the purpose of it, and electoral maneuvering as the key to achieving both is rooted in the failure to accept that reforms are a product of class forces and class struggle. Historically, instances of this seem to have eventually led non-socialist reform-minded voters, and then socialists themselves, away from an earlier, admittedly quite narrow, interest in socialists winning elections and toward merely working to support and sway capitalist politicians and parties. After enough electoral victories subsequently give way to the absorption of popular reform planks into capitalist reform politics, this is a path that can only culminate in the disintegration of the organized socialist movement into reform-minded pressure groups.

We drew historical information of value on these challenges and on the electoral project of the Socialist Party and early Communist Party from books such as:

• Bedford, Henry F. Socialism and the Workers in Massachusetts, 1886-1912. The University of Massachusetts Press, 1966.
• Kipnis, Ira. American Socialist Movement, 1897-1912. Haymarket Books, (1952) 2005.
• Zumoff, Jacob A. The Communist International and US Communism, 1919-1929. Haymarket Books, (2014) 2015.
• Stave, Bruce M. Socialism and the Cities. Kennikat Press, 1975.

To engage the chapter’s members in the process of deciding our electoral strategy and to provide them with a broad theoretical and historical understanding of this topic, our Political Education Committee in turn ran:

• a five-part reading group in advance of 2025 DSA National Convention that extensively covered electoral debates leading up to and during the first decade of the SPA;
• a 30-minute political education session at our chapter’s September General Meeting on the early U.S. socialist movement and debates over the value of political action;
• a 90-minute stand-alone presentation and discussion in November on the Marxist theory of the state, focused on the modern state as a product of capitalism and its role as an instrument of the bourgeoisie and making central the point that the bourgeois state apparatus cannot just be captured by the working class but has to be smashed; and
• another 90-minute stand-alone presentation and discussion in early December on political struggle and party-building, focused especially on understanding the phrase from the Communist Manifesto that “every class struggle is a political struggle.”

These political education events were each attended by roughly 10-15% of our membership.

Practical investigation

We also investigated and evaluated the electoral work of other DSA chapters, not only through theoretical engagement but actual participation. Besides North Jersey DSA, who we joined remotely for some virtual phone banks in Jersey City, NJ, we appreciate members from the following chapters who hosted or met with us when we sent out travel contingents to join canvasses, mostly for candidates but also a ballot-question campaign endorsed by other chapters in the Northeast:

• Boston DSA in Somerville, MA
• Connecticut DSA in Hamden, CT
• Maine DSA in Portland, ME
• NYC-DSA in New York, NY
• Rhode Island DSA in Providence, RI
• River Valley DSA in Agawam and Amherst, MA

Making an effort to seriously reflect and have our takeaways inform our approach, these electoral treks were followed by extensive debriefs, reports, and further discussion at meetings of our chapter’s Political Committee, an already existing committee which was charged with organizing members for general political action outside of tenant and labor work. We focused on how chapters were interacting with candidates’ campaigns and how the campaign literature presented candidates, as well as DSA and socialism (if at all). We asked what purpose DSA members saw in their chapters’ electoral work and in their engagement with each particular campaign, where we were being sent to knock doors in, and which voter strata were reached or (if shared with us) targeted. We learned where volunteers came from, their background, and what volunteers were told before launching each canvass. In short, while the treks offered a chance to train more of our members and expose them to the logistics of campaign operations, we took greatest interest in the political character of the technical aspects of each campaign and the decisions made by candidates and chapters about how to run them. Nearly 10% of our membership signed up for an electoral trek in the course of our investigation.

We also benefited from and are grateful to Austin, Cleveland, Green Mountain, New Orleans, River Valley, Tacoma, Twin Cities, and many other DSA chapters, from which either current or past candidates or chapter leaders dedicated significant time talking with members of our chapter about their electoral work or who hosted observers from our chapter at electoral or general meetings that considered endorsements or report backs on electoral work. We especially appreciated opportunities to learn about Boston DSA’s endorsement process and socialists in office committees, Buffalo DSA’s difficulties after India Walton’s defeat, Chicago DSA’s Socialists in Office Committee, Bob Murrell’s independent campaign for New Orleans City Council, NYC-DSA’s endorsement process and electoral working group structure, Pittsburgh DSA’s political action committee and challenges to their ballot question work, Seattle DSA’s ballot question work and electoral strategy reading group, and Zev Cook’s campaign for Tacoma City Council.

Drafting, Ratification, and Beyond

Based on our investigation and starting from broad agreement on purpose but with real deliberation about the best ways to achieve it, a mix of both new and long-standing members spent a total of nearly twenty hours in regular meetings over the past several months debating and drafting our “Principles for Socialist Electoral Work” and Electoral Policy. Our members ratified the Principles overwhelmingly—50 to 2—in a live vote at our October General Meeting, and the Electoral Policy was ratified unanimously at our October and November General Meetings. Both General Meetings had the participation of nearly 20% of our chapter membership.

More than simply offering critiques of the work of others, our goal has been to integrate lessons from elsewhere and the past to actively contribute our own efforts toward building an alternative model of socialist electoral work here and in the present. We believe this Worcester model—principled, programmatic, and partyist—builds on classical approaches to electoral work and meaningfully breaks from the current orthodoxy in DSA.

Starting from our Principles and Electoral Policy, the same members who drafted these proposals compiled a wide selection of other socialist party programs, past and present, as well as relevant information and statistics on all districts our chapter touches. The information gathered includes the poverty rate, median household income, owner-occupancy rate, educational attainment, age and racial demographics, population density, and the DSA member density of each legislative district and each municipality with representative forms of elected local government.

We then prepared an initial draft of an electoral work plan and a program, collaboratively editing and developing them through line-by-line review and discussions across five meetings in the span of an intensive period of two and a half weeks. Our minutes show that these meetings totaled just over ten hours. Both drafts were finalized in time for the submission deadline for our Local Convention in December, with the draft program submitted through a standalone resolution and the draft electoral work plan incorporated by our chapter’s Steering Committee into their consensus draft of the proposed Tasks for 2026. The Tasks are part of the Reflections, Analysis, and Tasks (RAT) document, which is the result of an existing annual process by which our membership collectively debates and decides on chapter work for the year ahead. This was followed by two weeks of member review and amendment drafting, during which time one amendment to the draft electoral work plan and three amendments to the draft program’s demands were submitted, as well as further amendments to these amendments. At the Convention itself, we debated and unanimously approved our chapter’s first plans for electoral work and our first chapter political program as amended.

There was some debate over whether we should seek to run candidates in 2026, but we decided to ease into this by first further developing our members’ campaign skills and our own apparatus for electoral campaign work. Our plans for 2026 are therefore to critically support an expected statewide ballot question that would cap, with quite generous exceptions, rent increases at the inflation rate. We will complement this with our own public policy question, put forward in a handful of targeted working-class state house districts in which we hope to grow our membership and organization. The language, as amended at our local convention, would instruct state representatives to support a universal right to publicly-owned housing, to be met by new construction and renovations funded by taxes on vacant properties, short-term rentals, mansions, and wealth and inheritances exceeding $5 million. Though legally non-binding, we believe simultaneously offering our question will better allow us to put forward our own alternative, socialist vision for housing and polarize on class lines.

We, of course, have no expectation of easy victories in any of our electoral endeavors and are cognizant that our work is very much in its beginnings. Our approach is slow and deliberate, and we know it will take years until the actual implementation will show its practical strengths and weaknesses. On the basis of what is set out in our Principles and Electoral Policy, we hope our work will eventually be able to stand on its own feet and speak for itself. But in the spirit of comradely discussion and as part of a culture of healthy strategic debate in the country’s largest socialist organization, we share now this perspective and invite feedback.

Shane Levett previously managed a nationally endorsed campaign and served on Boston’s EWG OC and four terms on Worcester’s Steering Committee. He also previously served on the board of Working Mass.

Stefan Neumayer is a member of Worcester DSA. Before moving to the US, he was active in socialist organizations in Austria and Germany.

The post Principled, Programmatic, and Partyist: Introducing Worcester DSA’s Approach to Electoral Work appeared first on Working Mass.