ISSUE #2

by Erica Curtis

The goal of the Political Education Committee is to further every comrade’s ability to thoroughly articulate both what we are doing to further socialism and exactly why we are doing it. To assist in this effort, we would like to introduce a new segment of The Pike Press, in which a different book on a socialist theme will be summarized for readers’ convenient consumption. We will start where so much of education begins, with the ABCs. Edited and published by Jacobin Magazine, The ABCs of Socialism teaches the bedrock concepts of socialism through a simple question-and-answer model. You’ll hear familiar questions, learn new information, and obtain surprising answers. Let’s get ready to learn. 

Question One: Isn’t America already kind of socialist?

People like to argue that America is a socialist country because its government uses tax dollars to execute collective projects to serve its citizens. Stop and consider that not all collective activity is socialist activity. The police department is a collective organization funded by taxpayer dollars, but is anyone under the delusion that the police department is there to uplift citizens and support striking comrades? The conflation of government activity with socialism is an unfortunate trend, especially when it comes to the (massive) amount of spending involved. When we consider state activity, we need to ask ourselves two basic questions: 

1. Does it reinforce or undermine the power of those who own capital?
2. Does it increase our subordination to market discipline or offer us more freedom from its demands?

Another unfortunate reality is that the rich and powerful intend to stay that way by investing heavily in political activity that promotes the status quo. In the interest of keeping things exactly as they are, the (already elected) politicians are perfectly happy to align their policy decisions to the benefit of themselves and their wealthy donors. So, winning government power and using it to disrupt the capitalist class is the necessary first step toward beginning the transition to socialism. We would do well to remember that pretenders to socialism have come to power in the past, and for true socialism to work, the administrative and political structures of government must be thoroughly democratized in order to further the cause of human freedom. This means mass popular support for the transition, direct participation in government affairs, and a dramatic overhaul of state agencies and administrative structures. We need to begin imagining and building new institutions that support this vision of a socialist democracy. 

• Answer One: No socialism isn’t just more government – it’s about democratic ownership and control.

Question 2: But at least capitalism is free and democratic, right? 

In the United States, many take for granted that freedom and democracy are inextricably connected with capitalism – even renowned economist Milton Friedman argued that capitalism was a necessary condition for both. There is historical evidence pointing to the rise of capitalism and the spread of individual freedoms and political organization. So why would socialists claim that capitalism fundamentally obstructs freedom and democracy? While capitalism has promoted the emergence of certain limited forms of freedom and democracy, it imposes a low ceiling on the further realization of both – you get a taste, but not a full serving. Freedom and democracy both lay pinned to the same core value of self-determination – the idea that people should have as much control as possible over the shape their lives will take. It is nearly impossible to take an action that will impact no one but yourself, so what we need is a set of rules to distinguish between questions of freedom and questions of democracy. Currently, this boundary is set by the distinction between public and private spheres, but this construct intentionally constrains the realization of freedom and reduces the scope of democracy. We can see this apparent reality when we consider that:

1. “Work or Starve” Isn’t Freedom
2. Capitalists Decide
3. Nine to Five is Tyranny
4. Governments Have to Serve the Interests of Private Capitalists
5. Elites Control the Political System

These consequences are endemic to capitalism as an economic system. While public constraints can be put in place to erode the boundary between private and public, thereby palliating these freedom-impeding features of capitalism, freedom and democracy cannot be fully realized until capitalism is not just tamed, but overcome.

• Answer Two: It might seem that way, but genuine freedom and democracy aren’t compatible with capitalism.

Question Three: Socialism sounds good in theory, but doesn’t human nature make it impossible to realize?

“Good in theory, bad in practice” is the dismissive reply we are often faced with when we try to discuss the possibility of a socialist reality. The follow up to this reply is often even darker: that capitalism is much more suited to human nature (with human nature being defined by competition and veniality). Humans are not simple creatures; we are capable of both unspeakable evils and remarkable kindnesses. As socialists we are committed to the view that we all strive for a freer and more fulfilling world because everyone, everywhere, cares about their freedom and fulfillment (this is part of human nature, too!). While resistance to exploitation and oppression are a consistent feature of our human history, mass collective action is a rarer event because of the inherent risks. However, sometimes, people do step up and take risks, and one of our principle tasks as socialists is to support these movements. To this end, we know that we will be helped, not hurt, by our shared nature.

• Answer Three: Our shared nature actually helps us build and define the values of a more just society.

Question Four: Don’t the rich deserve to keep most of their money?

When debating taxes, the conversation often leads to an argument about whether or not your iPhone would exist without the high income (and driving incentive) that goes to creators like Steve Jobs. If we tax innovators like this, won’t we all be worse off? First, we must understand what taxes are and what non-socialists think about them. Tax policy does two things in a capitalist society: resource control and allocation.

1. It determines what share of the total economic pie will be managed by the public, and how much will be left to the use of private actors ( = resource control).
2. It stipulates how that public share is divided up between the competing needs and wants of individuals, organizations, and corporations ( = allocation).

The socialist view of redistribution within a capitalist society must reject an important premise at play in nearly all tax policy debates: That pre-tax income is something earned solely by individual effort and possessed privately before the state intervenes to take part of it. We must realize and buy into the idea that wealth is a social product – that none of us would have any wages or resources without the work and contributions put forth by all of us. With this in mind, it makes sense that the socialist case for taxation and progressive redistribution is built from three basic factors of how capitalism works:

1. Personal incomes and corporate profits are not simply the result of individual work and business competition.
2. The class inequality that results from making this social product is relational.
3. Redistribution through taxation is a means of extending individual freedom: both negative freedom (“freedom from”) and positive freedom (“ability to”). 

Any tax policy that divides up the social product in a way that leaves some in luxury and some in destitution cannot be said to promote freedom. Progressive redistribution through taxation is both a means to redress structural inequalities and the primary way we can expand and extend freedom to as many people as possible.

• Answer Four: Wealth is socially created – redistribution just allows more people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Question Five: Will socialists take my Kenny Loggins records?

When asked to imagine a socialist reality, non-socialists often end up envisioning a global commune in which all objects are shared, we’re forced to wear the same (organic hemp?) outfit, and no one is allowed to keep anything to themselves – say, for example, their beloved Kenny Loggins records. In reality, the socialist vision is a world in which misery and oppression are overcome and every person can reach their full potential, all while keeping those Kenny Loggins records. The crucial distinction here? A misunderstanding of vocabulary. Personal property – things meant for individual consumption, like your private record collection – is perfectly welcome. Private property – things that give the people who own them power over those who don’t, like the apartment building you rent from your landlord – is immoral and should be done away with. The power of private property inevitably leads to grave inequalities between people. Private property gives the “owner” the right to hire and fire at will, to supply unfair working conditions that most of us would rather reject, and to control how much of the profit of a company goes to the workers who actually created the product that made that profit possible in the first place. This type of inequality can most neatly be described as exploitation: someone is directed to work under the direction of, and for the benefit of, someone else. Exploitation is the key source of profits and wealth in a capitalist society. So what’s to be done about this? Removing the existence of the private ownership of property is the radical but necessary leap to be made here. This would make room for democratic control over our workplaces and the institutions that shape and sustain our communities, and is the key to ending exploitation. Eliminating private property enables us to all retain our personal property: no need to go to pawn your Kenny Loggins records to make the rent.

• Answer Five: Socialists want a world without private property, not personal property. You can keep your terrible music. 

Question Six: Doesn’t socialism always end up in dictatorship?

If you attended an American public school, you learned that the Cold War was one fought between American freedom and Soviet tyranny, with democratic capitalism being the decisive winner. From this perspective, it was easy to conflate all the evils of the Soviet Union with socialism. If you look a little beyond the standard public school history curriculum, it becomes obvious that socialists the world over have been consistent opponents of authoritarianism (leftist and rightist) and ardent defenders of civil and political rights. The socialist and anticolonial movements of the twentieth century understood that the revolutionary democratic goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity (anyone remember their high school French?) could not be realized if unequal economic power can be transformed into political power (i.e.: State-owned means of production) and if workers are dominated by capital. Governments that prioritize state-led industrialization over democratic rights cannot call themselves socialist. Socialists must align themselves with independent and democratic movements, not with oligarchic States masquerading as such. The real question is not whether socialism leads to dictatorship, but whether socialist movements can overcome the anti-democratic regimes that already exist.

• Answer Six: Socialism is often conflated with authoritarianism. But historically, socialists have been among democracy’s staunchest advocates.

Question Seven: Is socialism a Western concept?

After a period of dormancy, socialism returned to the minds of many Americans during the 2008 economic crisis. It was such a hot topic that candidates for president felt comfortable discussing it on the national stage. This drew a lot of attention, and counterattack, to the socialist cause. A popular assumption among its critics is that socialism’s supposedly Western (read: white) can’t speak to the struggles of oppression and discrimination in the Global South (read: black and brown). This criticism falls apart when you consider three obvious realities:

1. Capitalists everywhere see workers as a source of profit.
2. The laws of the market are not fair or impartial.
3. Against all odds, workers invariably fight back.

If the logic of capital is universal, and the resistance against it is as well, then socialism cannot be a Eurocentric ideology. Diverse leaders from across the globe saw socialism as a theory and practice relevant to their experience. The reason for this is that socialism identifies and rejects the source of dehumanization – private ownership and exploitation – and instead chooses to fight for a better world. This is a genuinely universal and human truth. 

• Answer Seven: Socialism is not Eurocentric because the logic of capital is universal – and so is resistance against it.

Question Eight: What about racism? Don’t socialists only care about class?

In 2013 we heard the clarion cry of the black social justice movement: “Black Lives Matter.” It’s been ten years since this seemingly obvious statement first made headlines, but the racism that spawned it is far older. Understanding the roots of racism in America is critical for eradicating it. To understand why the United States seems so resistant to racial equality, we have to look at the way American society is organized under capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of the many by the few. The top ideological tool used in this effort is “divide and conquer.” Africans were first dehumanized in order to justify using them as a source of forced labor, then they were bequeathed second class citizenship after Emancipation, making them vulnerable to economic coercion and manipulation. This was the political economy of American racism that African Americans have long found themselves in. For socialists in the United States, recognizing the centrality of racism in dividing the class that has the actual power to undo capitalism has typically meant that socialists have been heavily involved in campaigns and social movements to end racism. Racial divisions destroy the bonds of solidarity necessary to collectively challenge employers, landlords, and elected officials. To build a genuine, unified mass movement capable of challenging capital, ordinary whites must be won over to an anti-racisit program – we ALL need to be on the same page. The challenge for socialists today is the same as it ever was: being centrally involved in struggles against racism while also fighting for a world based on human need, not profit.

• Answer Eight: We actually think that the struggle against racism is central to undoing the ruling class’s power.

Question Nine: Aren’t socialism and feminism sometimes in conflict?

Socialism and feminism have a long, and at times fraught, relationship. Feminists accuse socialists of overemphasizing class, and socialists accuse feminists of focusing on individual rights while ignoring the structural divides between women. Ultimately, the divide between socialism and feminism is an unnecessary one. Socialists should be feminists because women are doubly oppressed – exploited in the workplace and unrecognized as workers in the social reproduction of labor. Feminists should be socialists because, even if we root out sexism, the inherent contradictions of capitalism will persist. Ultimately, feminists and socialists will benefit the most by supporting an anti-capitalist strategy that challenges both the drives of capital and the ingrained norms of sexism. Supporting projects to increase collective, democratic control over institutions central to our home, school, and work lives would give all women and men more power, autonomy, and the possibility for a better life.

• Answer Nine: Ultimately the goals of radical feminism and socialism are the same – justice and equality for all people.

Question Ten: Wouldn’t a more democratic world just mean a bigger environmental crisis? 

Human activity has transformed the entire planet in ways that threaten all of us (though some more than others). Capitalism is wreaking havoc on the world we live in, and critics are right to argue that a socialist society would do harm, too. We know that capitalism will handle worsening environmental crises by protecting the rich at the cost of the poor, but what should socialism aspire to do instead? The goal of a socialist society is not to clamp down on popular consumption, but to create a society that emphasizes quality of life over quantity of things. Some activities that harm the environment will still be a feature of a socialist society (extractives, power plants, industrial factories) but the difference is that these decisions about producing and implementing new technologies will be based on democratically chosen aims, being conscious of the harms we’ll accept and paying the costs of minimizing this damage (rather than cutting corners to turn a profit). We will decide together how we use our collective resources – including the land, oceans, and atmosphere – and we will recognize that we share the planet with species other than humans. With our needs provided for, we can realize our human potential in the context of leisurely social relationships to other humans and other species, with enough for everyone and time for what we will.

• Answer Ten: Under socialism, we would make decisions about resource use democratically, with regard to human needs and values rather than maximizing profit.

Question Eleven: Are socialists pacifists? Aren’t some wars justified? 

Nothing highlights the brutality of the capitalist system quite like war. The subordination of human needs to the logic of profit and power is never so clear as it is at the end of a “successful” mission of plunder and conquest. Capitalists are happy to lean on their government’s militaries to enforce the “rules of the game” in the global economy and compete more effectively against other ruling classes. In the short term, socialists support mass movements fighting against wars waged by capitalist governments. In the long run, we must work to translate these movements into a broader struggle for the radical transformation of society along democratic lines. If socialists are opposed to the wars fought by their governments, that does not mean they are pacifists. The question is who is waging the war and on behalf of what interests or policies. Ultimately the socialist movement wants to eradicate war because it is brutal and irrational. But for now we must differentiate between the violence of those fighting to maintain injustice, and those fighting against injustice, but even these forces must be scrutinized with a critical eye. We know that racism and inequality at home, and war abroad, are interlinked. On this basis, we hope to forge an internationalist movement that can come to pose a threat to the very foundations of a system that breeds war and mass violence on a scale unprecedented in history. 

• Answer Eleven: Socialists want to eradicate war because it is brutal and irrational. But we think there’s a difference between the violence of the oppressed and that of the oppressors.

Question Twelve: Why do socialists talk so much about workers? 

Socialists are sometimes interpreted as sentimental at best, dogmatic at worst, about the plight of workers. They are the ones who suffer the most under capitalism, so doesn’t that make their suffering our top priority? Certainly there is truth to this moral argument, but there’s much more to it than that. Economic and political power is in the hands of capitalists, whose only goal is to maximize profits, which means that the condition of workers is, at best, a secondary concern to them. And that means that the system is, at its very core, unjust. The reason socialists believe that organizing the working class has to be at the center of a viable political strategy has to do with two other practical factors:

1. A diagnosis of what the sources of injustice are in modern society (i.e.: capitalist exploitation)
2. A prognosis of what are the best levers for change in a more progressive direction (i.e.: the workers being exploited by the capitalists)

Workers have the power to counter the exploitation of the capitalist class by simply refusing to play their game: just refusing to work. Capitalists rely on the great mass of workers to fulfill this role, so if the working class refuses (essentially pulling that lever of power) the capitalists will be forced to make concessions. Workers are therefore not only systematically oppressed, but are best positioned to enact real change. This combination of moral urgency and strategic force is why socialist politics is based on the working class. 

• Answer Twelve: Workers are at the heart of the capitalist system. And that’s why they are at the center of socialist politics. 

Question Thirteen: Will socialism be boring?

Socialism has often been portrayed in science fiction in gray, dystopian terms (think Kurt Vonnegut’s Herrison Bergeron or Ursula Laguine’s The Dispossessed), and it’s not hard to see why: most of the societies that have called themselves socialists have been grim and dreary. The most fanatic (committed?) among us may argue that this isn’t a question we should even consider, when weighed against the benefits of achieving democratic socialism on a grand scale. But in truth, it does matter, because you are not going to convince any great mass of people to live in a society without creativity and excitement. Capitalism lacks a lot of things, but excitement is not one of them. The biggest issue with this is that the excitement is coming from above – we either watch exciting things happen to the rich and famous, or we suffer under the brunt of the consequences for this fun. The first steps toward socialism (that we have been able to witness historically) offered both the promise of creation and the threat of destruction, but with the crucial difference that the people played an active role in determining how their world was changing. This is excitement coming from below. It is difficult to imagine how, in a society where everyone’s basic needs are met, freedom is a reality, and people’s creativity is unencumbered, this could possibly be a boring world. 

• Answer Thirteen: Socialism isn’t about inducing bland mediocrity. It’s about unleashing the creative potential of all.

~~

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in spring 2023 as part of an issue on local elections and the midterms (Issue #2) which was not able to be published at the time due to capacity constraints. It is now being released from the vault.

Issue #1 of The Pika Press was originally published in November 2022 and distributed to Denver DSA members via internal channels. Due to unforseen technical complications, it is not possible for it to be published on this webpage at this time. However, we at The Pika Press are working hard to resolve these issues and we guarantee that Issue #1 will be made avaliable on this webpage by the second Saturday of October.

In this episode, we interview activist Chuck Collins on his new novel, "Altar to an Erupting Sun." His book addresses the work of activism, the value of community, and the question of what tactics are on the table as we face the destruction of the planet. Find his book and more resources at chuckcollinswrites.com. Don't forget to join us for theologybeer.camp on October 19–21st. Use promo code HEARTGODPOD for a discounted ticket and to support this podcast. Hope to see you there!

Have you been thinking about joining DSA, but haven’t gotten around to it?
Is it time to renew your dues?

DSA is a member-based organization committed to increasing power for the working class and fighting capitalism. All members decide how much and how often to give, and dues-paying members democratically decide the direction of our chapter locally and DSA nationally. To be a truly democratically controlled and explicitly anti-capitalist organization, we can’t rely on big donors or grants, which can often push non-profits into running certain projects or campaigns as conditions of receiving money. Dues – especially monthly – go to running local campaigns, training organizers, and sustaining a nation-wide infrastructure.

Join today!

Today we submitted a petition to both the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County to establish a Housing Authority. This is the first step to building Social Housing and lowering the cost of housing in Bozeman.

With a Housing Authority, we can take an active role in increasing the supply of affordable housing. We cannot continue to look for remedies from the status quo. The reality is that when housing is tied to profits, it is more profitable for developers to maintain scarcity. Meanwhile, non-profit developers statewide fight over a small pot of LIHTC and Section 8 vouchers to serve a growing need. With a public housing authority, the city could use its tools – the same ones that build our schools and fire stations – to access bonds to start building Social Housing.

With Social Housing, we can have local control of development to meet the needs of our community in Bozeman – including deciding the cost of rent, developing in a way that meets crucial sustainability standards, and creating communities welcoming to workers, students, pets, and families. Social Housing is a sustainable model of publicly owned and publicly developed mixed-income housing that would remain permanently affordable. With our own housing authority, the city can set the rents for their own developments and the reasonably-priced rents can go back to maintaining the building, rather than being pocketed by for-profit developers.

The city cannot mandate requirements for private developers to have more low-income units, meaning that we continue to use public funds to subsidize landlords and developers to maintain their profits. The city cannot mandate that LIHTC units are kept affordable in perpetuity, meaning there is always a threat that we will lose affordable units each year. But the city CAN have local control on development if the city establishes a public housing authority and starts creating its own supply of Social Housing.

Want to learn more about the concept of Social Housing? Join our Topical Discussion on Sunday, August 20 to learn about how the model of social housing could work in Bozeman. https://www.facebook.com/events/214570914505353

Scholar, philosopher, and prolific author Dr. David Bentley Hart joins the podcast to discuss Bible translation as an act of resistance, the Christian sources and support for social democracy, and the moral demands of human and creaturely relations to care for one another. Don't forget to join us at Theology Beer Camp (www.theologybeer.camp) and use the promo code HEARTGODPOD for a discount! – Check out his New Testament translation (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300265705/the-new-testament/) – For essays on his theological and political ideas, check out "Theological Territories" (https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268107185/theological-territories/) – And per Hart's own request, check out his works of fiction like "Roland in Moonlight" (https://angelicopress.org/roland-in-moonlight-hart)

On Monday, July 24, 2023, Columbus City Council voted 6-1 to approve the American Campus Communities / Blackstone development proposed at 50 West Lane Avenue.

Blackstone is the largest corporate landlord in history. They own thousands upon thousands of properties across the United States and abroad. They have earned international condemnation for their aggressive rent hikes and use of eviction as a profit-making scheme.

Now, City Council has given them a piece of our city–and are poised to sweeten the deal even further by handing over the public’s money in the form of tax abatements.

Despite so many community members testifying about Blackstone’s horrific human rights record and business practices–including its having been lambasted by the United Nations for its role in the global housing crisis–Council rolled out the red carpet to welcome them into our housing market. Even worse, Blackstone indicated that they intend to seek tax abatements for their trouble.

This is yet another example of Council weighing the business interest of a developer over the wellbeing of its constituents. It confirms our fear that Council’s purported “Housing for All” policies are a sham, meant only to placate voters while they continue to line corporations’ pockets with money lifted from our neighborhoods and schools.
For months, constituents flooded Columbus’s democratic channels with their fears over Blackstone coming into our city, providing written and spoken testimony at the University District Area Commission, the Development Commission, and finally, City Council. Of these bodies, only the Area Commission rejected the proposal, though City Council neglected to listen even to them.

Columbus DSA’s Housing Priority Campaign made it our responsibility to inform the public about Blackstone’s abysmal history and organize opportunities to speak out against them. We are so proud of the energy and tenacity the community supplied to our campaign. Columbus DSA will continue to oppose tax handouts for the rich so long as the working people of our city struggle to find housing that is affordable, dignified, and secure. We are sick of watching the working class get cut out of the deal. We are tired of seeing our schools gutted, our public services plundered, and our neighbors left to rot on the sidewalk. We are finished with the housing crisis being used as an excuse to build playgrounds for the wealthy instead of seeing our people safe. A bed for every person. A meal in every stomach. A city for every one of us. That is our future, and we are the ones to build it. Not Blackstone.

By Emil McDonald

On Saturday, July 22, 2023, fifty workers and community members rallied at San Francisco City Hall in solidarity with 340,000 UPS Teamsters. Since UPS walked away from the bargaining table earlier in the month, UPS workers had been busy preparing for a potential August 1 national strike with the potential to shut down 7 percent of U.S. GDP.

The tide had turned a day earlier, when UPS relented and agreed to return to the bargaining table. Just a few days later, on July 25, the union announced a tentative agreement (TA) for a new five-year contract. Members will be voting on whether to ratify the TA through August 22, and the strike deadline has been postponed. 

At the July 22 rally, Emil McDonald, a five-year UPS worker and member of Teamsters Local 315 in Richmond, CA, spoke about the changes that he saw in the union’s rank and file, and beyond, as a result of strike preparations. – The Editors

A UPS Teamster at the Local 315 “practice picket” in Richmond, July 20. (Photo: R. Marcantonio)

As many of you may know, on July 5th negotiations between the Teamsters and UPS broke down. UPS told our negotiating committee they had “nothing more to give.”  This is a company that recently paid more than $5 billion dollars in dividends to Wall Street and bought back $3.5 billion of its own stock so that executives and major shareholders could fatten their wallets. 

Not only do we know that UPS has a LOT more to give —- we’re gonna make sure they give it.  We’ve made it perfectly clear to UPS that if they can’t find the money to give our essential workers a living wage and reward some of the hardest working people in the country for the tens of billions of dollars we made them during the pandemic,  UPS executives will be putting their own company on strike and that profit faucet is gonna get shut off. 

Thank you all so much for being here and for supporting UPS Teamsters as we fight for a contract that will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers and bring historic change to our union.

The kind of change I’m talking about isn’t just union leadership that is willing to build a credible strike threat and go to the mat for our lowest-paid members. It is the experience of rank-and-file Teamsters put into motion, united with the community to win a good contract for ourselves. 

For the last few weeks, all over the country UPS Teamsters have been holding practice pickets outside of our hubs joined by DSA, PSL, Jobs with Justice, our friends and families–even some of our customers. 

Drivers I work with are asking me about these signs they keep seeing up out on road. In store windows, taped to peoples’ front doors—some have even taped the signs up inside their trucks. 

Your efforts are not going unnoticed. It is one thing to feel cheated or unappreciated as an individual worker. Everyone here has felt that and it sucks. But when you see that you are not alone and that you have brothers and sisters who are willing to fight with you and that the community has your backs — it can be a very powerful thing. 

The experience of banding together and fighting for something that’s right changes you. It cuts through all of the noise and the cultural divides that keep us powerless and disillusioned.  

A couple of Teamsters in my local — who to my knowledge had never attended a picket line before — came out to San Francisco this week to join academic workers at a rally at the UC Regents meeting.  This is the kind of change I’m talking about. Seeing yourself as part of a broader labor movement.  United we fight, divided we beg. 

Emil McDonald celebrates a successful practice picket with a co-worker (Photo: R. Marcantonio.)

Whatever happens between now and when we have a new UPS contract, the contract campaign over the last year has created hundreds if not thousands of new shop floor leaders in our union and given us experience organizing against one of the largest corporations in the United States.  This is something we will continue to build on in the coming years. Militant stewards will be born out of this fight.  Solidarity will be born out of this fight. Five years from now, when it’s time to negotiate the 2028 contract, we will be many times stronger and many times wiser from the start. 

And guess what?  It turns out maybe UPS does have something more to give than poverty wages. They must have checked their couch cushions and went to Coinstar because this week they reached out to our union requesting to go back to the table in an effort to avoid a strike.  

But when Sean O’Brien and our NorCal negotiators go back to the table next week they will not be alone.  They will be backed by the tens of thousands of Teamsters who attended practice pickets, 80,000 supporters who signed petitions demanding a living wage for part-time workers and the knowledge that our members — backed by our brothers and sisters in the labor movement and our communities —- are ready to strike if we have to to win what we deserve. 

Emil McDonald is a UPS Teamster and a member of Local 315 in Richmond, CA.

The delegation of the Houston chapter of the Democratic Socialists ofAmerica stands with the BDS Working Group in support of their proposed amendment to NPC Recommendation #8, “Make DSA an […]

The post HDSA for an Anti-Zionist DSA appeared first on Houston DSA.

For over a year, UPS Teamsters have been prepping for the largest private-sector contract fight this country has seen in decades – saving money for personal strike funds, signing pledge cards, and in more recent weeks, organizing practice pickets in the early morning hours outside of UPS facilities. UPS, meanwhile, repeatedly delayed the bargaining process by failing to come to the table in good faith and presenting workers with an inadequate contract. Following broken down negotiations mid-July, thousands of Teamsters and community supporters flocked to practice picket lines and began to seriously accelerate preparations for a nationwide strike.

After weeks of coordinated practice pickets and the increasing fear of a work stoppage, UPS was convinced to return to the bargaining table. On Tuesday July 25th, the Teamsters national negotiating committee announced a tentative agreement with UPS, subject to a vote of its membership which will begin August 3 and last until August 22. DSA stands in unflinching solidarity with the 350,000 UPS Teamsters whose tireless militancy gave their negotiating committee strong leverage throughout this fight.

Despite the narrative pushed by corporate media that the deal is entirely sealed, approval of this tentative agreement is entirely up to the rank-and-file to vote on, and Atlanta DSA commits to stand with workers no matter the outcome of this vote. The gains made in this tentative deal were only possible because of years of hard work and rank-and-file organizing on the ground, and the credible threat of a strike that would cost the company billions. Contrary to UPS’s narrative, it was worker power – not corporate benevolence – that forced UPS’s hands in making significant concessions like ending the two-tier wage system, protecting against forced overtime, securing air conditioning in delivery trucks, making MLK day a paid holiday, and more. Workers bravely organized to withhold their labor, hold down picket lines, and build meaningful community support for their efforts. For this all UPS Teamsters should be extremely proud, and we are proud to stand in solidarity with them through the duration of this fight until the last vote is cast and beyond!

Under capitalism, major companies like UPS are incentivized to maximize profits at all costs, at the expense of human safety and dignity. Both part-time and full-time UPS workers bore the brunt of the pandemic – risking their own lives to deliver essential medication and other goods to working people and families around the country. These workers on the front lines are the reason UPS brought in record breaking profits of $10 billion in 2021, and still, because of corporate greed, UPS CEO Carol Tomé takes home a larger salary in one day than the average UPS worker earns an entire year. DSA will always stand with workers fighting back against injustice and demanding their fair share — no matter whether Teamsters vote to accept or reject their TA. The UPS Teamsters have run a militant, fighting campaign that left a major company shaking in its boots. Their organizing will inspire workers everywhere to continue building power and resistance through their leverage to withhold their labor. Solidarity forever – when workers fight, we win!