This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization, on January 21, 2026. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

***

Last week, my editor and I talked about what to write for this week’s column – and decided on a piece about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, whose birthday was observed on Monday. 

I wrote this piece, and as we worked on it, reports began to come in that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (i.e., ICE, or Pres. Donald Trump’s shock troops) were showing up in Maine to violently harass people in our community, disrupt Mainers’ lives to make us feel unsafe, and clamp down dissent. (Here’s what you can do to help our community members!) 

Right now, the world seems very scary in a lot of ways. And while it’s sometimes hard to keep perspective in these moments, I wanted to remember how King kept his eyes on the prize even in moments that would have made most of us freeze in terror.  In 1964, the Nobel committee awarded its Peace prize to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At 35, he was its youngest recipient. In making their choice, the committee made clear which side of history they were on–those fighting to sustain white supremacy vs those fighting for racial equity. 

Which side, as Alfred Nobel charged the committee, was conferring “the greatest benefit to humanity.” And which side was not.

Unsurprisingly, there’s much to be inspired by in King’s speech, which I read for the first time this weekend, including a moving description of nonviolence and a throughline of hope in the face of overwhelming odds. 

But it also made me sad to think about how much has been lost in the past decade in regard to racial equity. How hopeful a time that was, with a decade of Supreme Court rulings that had  America’s embrace of equality and with the 1963 March on Washington having inspired a nation. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act having just been signed into law and the 1965 Voting Rights Act on the verge. 

And, perhaps most revealing, with Lyndon Johnson’s victory over Barry Goldwater, a person Dr King described as having become, “identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression.” How times have changed. In our courts. In our Congress. And especially with our nation’s voters’ choice, this time, not to reject the racist running for President.

King is less well known for his work on income inequality, often the focus of these columns. I had always thought of his criticism of capitalism’s shortcomings as coming closer to his assassination, but even in 1964 he understood how our economic system fed the widening income gap.

“… the poor in America know that they live in the richest nation in the world, and that even though they are perishing on a lonely island of poverty they are surrounded by a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

There was great hope, and action, here too. Johnson’s war on poverty had just begun. A slate of ambitious and proven methods helped the poor and middle class build economic stability. Programs like Medicare, Headstart, Food Stamps, and Job Corps, all still here today, cut American poverty in half, from 22% in the early 1960’s to 11% by the early 70’s.

But the poverty rate has basically remained flat, or fluctuated up to 15% when recessions kick in and the government fails to respond. A permanent expansion of Build Back Better, which brought poverty to its lowest level in American history, would have helped greatly.

But economic inequality, sadly, has just gotten worse because taxation has become so regressive. Today, the top 1% earn 21% of the income in America, the same as the worst period of income inequality in American history, the late 1920’s, just prior to the great depression. At the time of Dr. King’s speech, this was actually trending in the right direction. But once Reagan became President, he implemented his massive tax cuts for the wealthy (enhanced by Pres. Bush, and then twice again by Pres. Trump), that wealth simply started flowing back up.

King ended the part of his speech on economic inequality by reminding us that failing the poor is a choice.

“There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it.”

Today, as I’ve been hearing about ICE harassing people on the streets of my city, I feel furious and unclear about what exactly to do. But at the same time I’m moved by King’s belief in all of us, both individually and collectively to do right by our neighbors; to rise up in unity and tear down the systems that oppress and cage us.

“I have the personal faith that mankind will somehow rise up to the occasion and give new directions to an age drifting rapidly to its doom … Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away, and out of the womb of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born.”

The post At a dark moment, remembering Martin Luther King’s fight for equity appeared first on Pine & Roses.

The Milwaukee Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are working to support a statewide race for governor after both that chapter and Madison DSA voted to endorse DSA member Francesca Hong in her bid for that office.

“Working people have seen that the system doesn’t work for them,” Milwaukee DSA Co-Chair Autumn Pickett said. “Time and again, the establishment has failed us so as not to upset their billionaire donors. As ICE threatens to terrorize our communities and kidnap our neighbors, Francesca Hong stands committed to fight back as the only candidate calling for their abolition.”

Hong’s campaign comes at the heels of successful DSA campaigns across the country, from New York City’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Milwaukee District 3’s Alder Alex Brower, and U.S. polling has shown an increased interest in socialism, a clear reflection of the crumbling material conditions of the American working class amid ongoing crises at the hands of capitalism and its benefactors. 

“Francesca Hong has fought for Wisconsinites’ right to healthcare, paid family leave for all, a vibrant union movement, and public power owned by the people and not for the profit of billionaires—the same billionaires who are now forcing us to pay for their destructive data centers,” Pickett said. “She, thankfully, is not alone in this fight. As a movement of everyday people, DSA members are tired, fed up, and ready to win the better world we know is possible. Mayor Zohran Mamdani proved there is a better alternative to fascism than the same old tired establishment policies that brought Donald Trump into power to begin with. Socialism beats fascism, and now it’s our turn to prove it. Elect Francesca Hong for Governor.”

Those interested in joining DSA’s efforts to elect Hong can fill out a DSA campaign interest form to get plugged into the chapter’s work. More information on Hong’s candidacy is available on her campaign website.Milwaukee DSA is Milwaukee’s largest socialist organization fighting against imperialism for a democratic economy, a just society, and a sustainable environment. Join today at dsausa.org/join.

Littler Mendelson's latest labor survey report is full of insights straight from bosses about how unprepared they are against union efforts at work.

The post Secrets of a successful union-buster appeared first on EWOC.

Many hands make light work.

Please reference our Slack’s events channel, or general, for the Agenda.

Zoom Meeting link will appear upon RSVP.

Join DSA Ventura County’s Labor Working Group on zoom to discuss recent labor struggles in our communities, from Starbucks Workers United’s indefinite strike, to the new contract our County employees won by threatening to strike, to the movement for an arms embargo by Labor for Palestine, and the calls for a general strike by May Day 2028. Please, bring other ideas, campaigns, and your own workplace experiences. An agenda will be posted on slack soon. You will receive the zoom link shortly after completing RSVP.

Monday, February 9 at 6:30pm PST (Online)

Join DSA Ventura County’s Mutual Aid Working Group for a planning meeting focused on addressing unmet needs in Ventura County. Bring your big ideas, suggestions for coalition partners, and a desire to stand in solidarity with others. We are cookin’ up some ideas, and will post an agenda on our slack.

Sponsored by

HOSTED BY DSA NATIONAL POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE

In light of the political urgency we find ourselves in, we are holding a special edition of our Talking to Non-Socialists training, focusing on ICE and immigration. This training welcomes all DSA members, and anyone who wants to learn some basic techniques to challenge misinformation, move people closer to our side and further from the right, and expand the struggle for democracy and socialism — one neighbor, family member or workmate at a time.

Join us Monday, February 09, 5 PT/8 ET — RSVP for more details and zoom! See you soon.

[[{“value”:”

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Password:

The post Protected: OPINION: The Current Political Moment and the Case for Building Boston DSA with No Shortcuts appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

Robert Choflet's "Resisting the Seduction of Racial Liberalism" argues than Naomi Murakawa's The First Civil Right is a crucial resource for understanding contemporary immigration enforcement as an elaboration of postwar liberal racial politics. He shows how mid-century Democrats conditioned contemporary state violence by framing civil rights interventions in “law and order” terms, laying groundwork for mass incarceration and militarized borders while claiming race-neutrality.

By: Dan Albright

Editor’s Note: Working Mass has published two opposing viewpoints on Boston DSA’s current endorsement debate. Read the counterpoint,“The Current Political Moment and the Case for Building Boston DSA with No Shortcuts,” here.

As DSA chapters grow, members often ask whether we are taking on too much or not enough. This DSA capacity debate is unfolding in Boston right now as members are currently debating whether running multiple electoral campaigns would overextend us. This question comes up in chapters nationally. Campaigns require time, coordination, and energy, which are often in short supply for voluntary organizations like ours. But how we think about capacity might be leading us to the wrong answers.

A useful way to approach this is dialectically. That means examining both sides of an argument and asking how their tension can lead to growth rather than paralysis. Organizations don’t develop by avoiding contradictions — they develop by working through them.

The Case for Caution

People who urge caution have an argument. State-level campaigns cover large areas and require tremendous ongoing volunteer work. Running several races at once can pull people away from other important efforts, such as tenant organizing, community ICE defense, or international solidarity. Many believe the focus should be on building independent, working-class institutions outside of the electoral sphere.

Some people worry that a small group of elected socialists can’t effect real change in the bourgeois government, or that working in coalitions can make it harder to hold elected candidates accountable. Others think focusing too much on elections can reinforce the idea that we must outsource our power to politicians rather than build our own collective power. These are important considerations.

Sometimes people use the limited-capacity argument when they have deeper political disagreements as well. This isn’t because anyone is being dishonest, but because it can feel easier to talk about logistical issues than political ones. As socialists, we often discuss the limits of reform, the role of social democracy, and how openly socialist candidates can or should be. Some believe in gradually improving working people’s lives, while others — myself included — maintain that openly acknowledging a revolutionary socialist horizon is essential. Electoral campaigns can be a space to debate these differences openly, which in turn helps educate people on politics and, over time, helps improve electoral discipline.

But if we only see campaigns as a drain on resources and capacity, we might miss all they actually do for us.

Capacity Is Built, Not Allocated

Everyone wants DSA to be fully embedded in our electoral campaigns. This is already happening in many cases. Electoral working groups offer guidance, chapter leaders often take key roles, and DSA volunteers keep coming back as staff or leaders. From the outside, it can seem like the chapter and the campaign are the same thing.

But the reality is more complicated. Usually, the candidate’s campaign committee does most of the direct organizing, with its own budget, staff, and legal authority. The chapter acts more like an organizing ecosystem that campaigns tap into. Endorsing a campaign doesn’t mean the chapter will manage everything. It’s a political choice whether a campaign organizes openly within the chapter’s space.

Once we understand this difference, the question of capacity changes. Supporting another campaign does not always split up our efforts — in many cases, it actually increases them.

Enthusiasm Is a Resource

Most chapters have many inactive members, and even the most committed volunteers find it hard to keep everyone involved or offer regular ways for eager new members to participate. Campaigns, on the other hand, often have staff who organize phone banks and canvasses, train new volunteers, and knock on doors. When these efforts focus on DSA members and sympathizers, the campaign’s resources become extra capacity for the chapter, even if only temporarily.

This is especially true for new members. Electoral work is often the first thing that new members gravitate toward, since mainstream political culture ingrains in us the idea that elections are the arena for politics and making change. While DSA has many priorities besides elections, most people are already familiar with this kind of participation when they join.

In a volunteer group, people always spend more time on the work that they care about. The question is how to use that energy without ignoring other important tasks. In my experience, it usually works better to support people’s interests and bring in others for less popular work, rather than trying to force everyone to do everything.

Campaigns Can Generate Capacity

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t challenges. Campaign staff report to the candidate, not the chapter, and candidates are under enormous pressure during elections. This happens in every endorsed race. Still, taking on an additional campaign within reason often brings more new people than new problems. Members canvass for the first time, campaign supporters organize for the first time, and relationships are built that last beyond one election.

The same thing happens with money. Chapters rarely provide most of the funding for campaigns. Most donations come from the candidate’s district or from people the campaign reaches out to. Supporting another candidate doesn’t necessarily divide a limited pool of money. Instead, it often brings in more resources that would not otherwise be there.

This is even clearer in bigger chapters. In New York City, ongoing electoral work has helped elect at least eleven officials at different levels of government, and the chapter is now backing its largest slate of candidates yet. Contesting more elections makes it easier for new candidates to run together, and the chapter’s processes for vetting, developing, and holding people accountable continue to improve as the organization grows.

Success builds on itself. When a strong DSA candidate wins and does well in office, it makes it easier for future DSA candidates.

Meeting the Political Moment

This debate is happening in a larger context. Many people are unhappy with national leaders, the cost of living keeps going up, and there is anger about war, ICE violence, and growing authoritarianism. No matter how you look at it, most people feel the system is letting them down.

In that context, visibility matters. If DSA is not putting forward as many strong candidates as it reasonably can, it risks being seen as missing in action. Electoral politics is only one terrain of struggle, and labor organizing, tenant unions, and community campaigns remain essential.

But even within a capitalist democracy, elected officials can make meaningful improvements to people’s lives through legislation, and when they cannot pass laws, they can still use their platform to amplify struggles and support movements on the ground. 

Strength does not look identical in every candidate. Some are stronger communicators, others are stronger legislators or organizers. A clear set of principles is necessary to maintain accountability, but variation in skills can be an asset if the organization knows how to channel it.

On the DSA Capacity Debate: Capacity Grows When We Use It

Taken together, these dynamics point to a broader conclusion. The pressure of competing for the time of the most active members is real. But focusing only on already-activated volunteers misses the bigger picture. Campaigns don’t only consume capacity. They can also generate it — by training new organizers, activating inactive members, and creating political momentum that makes taking part feel meaningful rather than draining.

Capacity isn’t just about what we have today. It’s also about what we can build tomorrow. Whether a campaign helps us grow or stretches us too thin depends more on how well it brings in new people and sets clear goals than on how many campaigns we endorse.

Backing more candidates does not guarantee success, and there are always risks. But if we refuse to endorse because we think our capacity is fixed, we might end up making that true. If we want to run strong campaigns in the future, we need to focus on what helps us grow our collective capacity now. Despite their tension, campaigns are still one of the best ways to do that.

Dan Albright is chair and an editor of Working Mass and a member of Boston DSA.

The post OPINION: The Myth of Limited Capacity in DSA appeared first on Working Mass.