Remembering the 8-week Strike on its 113th Anniversary

By Ben Cabral

LAWRENCE – On January 11, 1912, women textile workers walked off their jobs in protest of a cut to their pay. The industrial action would quickly grow to include more than 20,000 textile workers, and last for 8 weeks, becoming one of the most important labor struggles in Massachusetts and US labor history, and earning the name “The Bread and Roses Strike.” But what made this strike so important?  

In part, the importance of the strike was because it was waged by workers – ‘unskilled’ or semi-skilled, women, immigrants – who had largely been written off as ‘unorganizable’ by the conservative union establishment of the American Federation of Labor. But in spite of being written off by the establishment labor movement, primarily immigrant women from at least 51 different nations were able to band together, overcoming significant language and cultural barriers, to challenge the power of capital and win their primary demands addressing low wages, and unsafe working conditions. 

The Bread and Roses Strike also was marked for the role played by some of the titans of the labor movement in the early 20th century, including Industrial Workers of the World leaders Big Bill Haywood and Elizabeth Gurly Flynn.

The strike saw the implementation of many new tactics and substantial victories that created a blueprint for subsequent strikes which helped to expand the labor movement beyond the relatively privileged layers of native-born, high skilled workers organized by craft, and into the far larger layers of semi-skilled industrial workforce of the mass-production industries. Although it would not be for another two decades that the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) split from the AFL in order to fully embrace this industrial model of mass-organizing, this later split would not have been possible without the earlier efforts at industrial organizing which were, in part, kicked off by the Bread and Roses Strike. The historical impact of this strike means it is important for the modern labor movement to study its development and be able to implement the lessons of this strike, to win the rights that the working class deserves.

Slaves To The Loom

The city of Lawrence, Massachusetts was founded in the 1840s explicitly as a one-industry town to expand the textile industry out of Lowell, another nearby textile hub. By 1912, Lawrence was the textile capital of the United States, with a workforce made up primarily of Southern and Eastern Europeans, specifically Poles, Italians, and Lithuanians, as well as some Russians, Portuguese, and Armenians. There were also some smaller immigrant communities in Lawrence, most notably Syrians. The majority of the city’s black population also worked in the textile mills, although they made up a small percentage of the overall workforce. Many of these immigrant workers were women and children, who were intentionally hired after the mechanization and deskilling of textile mill labor, who could be paid significantly less. 

The working conditions in the mills were appalling. Poet William Blake summed it up perfectly as “these dark satanic mills.” Workers were regularly forced to work 6 days a week for 60 or more hours.¹ Workers were frequently killed, maimed, or seriously disabled due to workplace accidents, while others died slowly from inhaling toxic fibers and dust. The life expectancy of a textile worker at this time was about 20 years lower than the rest of the population. In fact, over a third of workers in the Lawrence mills died before the age of 25, and 50% of children born to workers died before the age of 6.²

Early Organizing

Even before the strike broke out, and in response to the terrible conditions outlined above, there was a high degree of organization among the textile workers. There was an AFL union, the United Textile Worker, which claimed to represent several thousand of the more skilled textile worker, but in reality this union only counted a few hundred dues-paying members, evidence of its weakness even among the “organizable” minority of skilled worker, more likely to be native born men. Far more energetic was the organizing of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which had been active in Lawrence for 5 years prior to the strike. The IWW in Lawrence had 20 different foreign language chapters operating in the city to accommodate the various immigrant communities in Lawrence at the time. The Italian Socialist Federation (ISF), part of the Socialist Party of America, was also active in Lawrence at the time, and had some overlap with the IWW. In addition, many of the immigrant workers had experiences in cooperatives and unions in Europe and were able to use those experiences once they got to the United States. 

In fact, the workers had already been organizing, forming “shop committees” in the various textile mills to democratically relay their demands to the textile bosses, with organizing assistance from the IWW. In the fall of 1911, mill owners had refused to meet with the shop committees to discuss the upcoming cuts to working hours. The workers wanted assurances that their pay wouldn’t be reduced, since wages were already incredibly low. The mill owners’ refusal to meet with the shop committees agitated workers, who had also been struggling against long hours, horrible working and living conditions, and high infant mortality rates, along with the poor pay. 

Although the Bread and Roses Strike is often painted as a spontaneous action, it was actually these years of organizing, at least half a decade prior to the strike, which enabled workers to take the flashpoint of reduced wages and turn that into a massive 8 week strike.

The Strike Breaks Out

On January 11, 1912, a number of Polish women working at the Everett Mill in Lawrence, Massachusetts opened their checks and discovered that their pay had indeed been cut by 32 cents due to the slightly reduced work hours.

32 cents may not sound like a significant reduction in pay, however, wages had already been so low, about $8.76 a week, that this reduction was substantial. This group of Polish women proceeded to shut off their machines and started marching around Lawrence, taking to the other mills to notify the other workers of their strike over the cuts in pay, and later that night, word of what happened at Everett Mill spread around the workers’ tenements. The women of the Everett Mills’ brave actions clearly struck a nerve, as the next day, on January 12, some 10,000 workers shut off their machines and went on strike across the city. On the first day of the strike, workers slashed the belts on their machines and threw bricks through factory windows to protest their low pay and horrible working conditions and their bosses’ refusal to listen to them. And as news of the strike spread, farmers wanting to support the workers drove to Lawrence in order to donate whatever they could for food.³

Joseph Ettor of the IWW and Arturo Giovannitti of the ISF took the lead and formed a 56 person strike committee with 4 representatives from 14 different nationalities. This created a strong worker-led democratic leadership team with strong roots among the various sections of the workforce. This model was uncommon if not unique at the time, and stood in direct contrast to the typical AFL craft union model where the union bureaucracy had final say on everything. This robust democracy, which ensured representation for all the ethnic groups in the city, created a deep sense of belonging and unity for the workers which proved crucial when the United Textile Workers (UTW) tried to break the strike, claiming that they were the union that spoke for the workers. Because the workers felt such a strong sense of ownership in their movement, seeing the IWW as their vehicle for collective power, they stood behind the IWW leadership and ignored the UTW.

Another important aspect in building community among the workers was the effort made to cultivate deep connections between workers outside of working hours. The women in the city deliberately formed networks in the different ethnic neighborhoods of Lawrence. The language and cultural barriers were overcome through community spaces like soup kitchens, ethnic organizations, and community centers. These spaces brought the various immigrant communities in the city together, creating a sense of connection and commitment to each other. 

During the strike, the workers did more than hurting company profits by keeping factories closed and destroying mill property. In addition, they also actively worked to build mass support. They organized massive marches through the city with singing, chanting, and banners. The call for higher wages (Bread) and workplace dignity (Roses) was a consistent theme, and led to the chant from which this strike gets its name “We want bread and roses too.” Workers also entered stores in large numbers around the city to halt operations and create further disruptions. A key aspect to this strategy was to keep the pressure on the mill owners through these large public displays and keeping the mills closed, while also avoiding any unnecessary provocation or property destruction. The strike leaders were very aware of the need for public support and were deliberate in maintaining a positive image in the public as much as they reasonably could. 

These tactics would prove to be crucial in making sure material support was available to the strikers to help them maintain the strike and withstand the retaliation from the capitalist class.

Mill Owner Retaliation

The mill owners, the City of Lawrence, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reacted to the strike with mass violence, revealing to the workers of Lawrence that the government was not a neutral party, but rather clearly in the pocket of the capitalist class. Police and state militiamen were called in to beat back the striking workers and protect the mills. Police used clubs to beat workers as they marched through the streets and picketed at their mills, while state militiamen stood around the mills with their bayonets pointed at the picketing workers. The police even killed two strikers, Anna LoPizzo and John Ramey, during a struggle between striking workers and scab workers that were being brought into the mills. The authorities later charged Ettor and Giovannitti as accomplices to the murder of Anna LoPizzo, even though they were nowhere near the scene when her murder actually took place. This was clearly an attempt by the state to disrupt the strike by targeting two of its leaders. 

Later when striking workers began to send their children to other cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, etc, police were present at the train stations and proceeded to beat and arrest the mothers there who were trying to send their kids to safety. Those same kids were forced to watch this ordeal, no doubt traumatizing them. 

But the mill owners did not stop with leaning on state repression, they also resorted to framing and discrediting the strikers. Mill owners hired a group of agitators to foment trouble among the strikers and even had a group plant dynamite near one of the mills in order to discredit the strikers. The man who was found to have planted the dynamite was not imprisoned, and was given a small $500 fine. It was later revealed that William M. Wood, president of the American Woolen Company which owned a number of the mills in Lawrence, had made a large payment to the man just before he had planted the dynamite.

The history of repression brought in by the state on behalf of the mill owners is a great reminder of who the state serves and the lengths they will go in order to protect capital. But the workers’ resistance, including their continuation of militant tactics paired with their savy appeals to public support, shows that even the unity of the capitalists and the state is no match for the unity of the militant working class.

The Strike Comes To An End

The stories of police brutally beating the mothers of Larence created outrage around the country. So much so that President Taft ordered the attorney general to investigate the strike and Congress began a hearing on March 2nd, 1912. Testimony from workers about the horrible working conditions and abject poverty dramatically shifted public opinion of the strike in favor of the workers. They highlighted diseases contracted by workers from inhaling dust and debris, deaths to workers due to workplace accidents, and others appalling stories. Specifically, a 14 year old girl named Carmela Toreli told the story of how her scalp was ripped off by one of the mill machines, which left her hospitalized for seven months. 

The massive shift in public support for the strikers, and the public pressure placed on the mill owners as a result, forced the mill owners to come to the table and discuss the demands of the workers. And by March 14th, workers and mill owners had reached an agreement that included a 15% wage increase for workers, an increase in overtime compensation, and a guarantee not to retaliate against the striking workers. This victory led to similar wage increases for 275,000 New England textile workers and workers in other industries as well. This result revealed the power of the industrial union model promoted by the IWW, and later by the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), as opposed to the craft union model promoted by the AFL. Rather than trying to organize unions based on a specific job, the IWW focused on organizing unions based on industry as a means to unite all the workers in a given industry and allow them to have significantly more bargaining power and for the benefits of their wins to apply to more workers.

Meanwhile, Giovannitti and Ettor remained in jail for months after the end of the strike. Bill Haywood and the IWW threatened a general strike if they were not released. On March 10th, 1921, a 10,000 Lawrence workers protested for the release of Ettor and Giovannitti, and then later, on September 30th, 15,000 Lawrence workers went on strike to demand their release.⁴ There was even an international campaign for their release, with Swedish and French workers proposing a boycott of woolen goods from the US and protests in front of the US consulate in Rome. Fortunately, Ettor and Giovannitti, and a third defendant, who had never even heard of either of them and was at home eating dinner at the time of the killing, were all acquitted on November 26th 1912.

As many of the textile mills began to move south, efforts were made specifically by the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) to organize southern textile mills. CPUSA had begun organizing their own unions separate from the AFL, based foremost on their experience trying to bore within the AFL, but also in part being influenced by the Communist International’s (Comintern) position that world revolution was approaching due to the crisis of Capitalism and that communists should organize their own organizations, including unions. Southern mill towns were much more tightly monitored due to the mill owners’ tiger connections with local police, which made organizing much more difficult there. However, the CPUSA did have some early success organizing workers in the National Textile Workers Union (NTWU) which they organized through the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL), including the famous strike at the Gastonia Mill in North Carolina. Ultimately, some of the high profile strikes by AFL unions and the rise of the CIO made many organizers within TUUL decide to rejoin the mainstream labor movement, which ultimately led to a dramatic reduction in the organizing efforts of these southern textile mills.⁵ 

Lessons of the Strike

The Bread & Roses Strike is a reminder of the power of workers when they are organized and militant. Immigrant women are one of the most vulnerable groups in the United States, and yet this group of immigrant women were able to use their collective power as workers to deliver one of the most substantial wins in American labor history. One of the most important factors of the strike was the community built by the women in Lawrence through workplace organizing. This was crucial to overcoming the vast cultural differences among the workers and cultivating the sense of obligation to each other and the solidarity necessary to withstand the state repression, and build the networks of support for the strikers that allowed them to maintain the strike for 2 months. The strike committee was also crucial in maintaining unity among the workers, specifically the move to ensure representation for each of the ethnicities present among the workers was in place. This is similar to the practice of “mapping the workplace” in order to find natural leaders among the workers, which is so important in any successful unionization campaign. 

Many leaders of the IWW ended up leaving the IWW in favor of boring from within the reactionary AFL union. This came as a result of the failures of the IWW mentioned above in the previous section. This was more in line with the general marxist-leninist position of how to interact with trade unions, which Lenin had described in “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder”. The basis for this position is that communists need to be doing their work within the unions that the mass of workers most commonly reside in, even if those unions are led by more conciliatory labor partners of the capitalist class. 

Remembering our power as workers and making sure that we are talking with and making connections with our co-workers and with our communities will be crucial for the labor movement. Winning more substantial victories will require the courage of rank and file workers, and also the solidarity of other workers to build support systems for striking workers and isolate the employers by refusing to cross the picket line. And this can only be built through deliberate community building and organizing like what was done in the lead up to the Bread & Roses Strike.

Ben Cabral is a member of Boston DSA and contributor to Working Mass.

Photo Credits:

“Bread and Roses Strike of 1912: Two Months in Lawrence, Massachusetts, that Changed Labor History” Digital Public Library of America online exhibition
https://dp.la/item/3420c6a58eb17c992594e2e0f110980e

1. Remembering the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike – AFRICANIST PRESS ︎
2. The Lawrence Textile Strike https://reuther.wayne.edu/node/8239 ︎
3. The Strike That Shook America ︎
4. Crossing Borders on the Picket Line: Italian-American Workers and the 1912 Strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts on JSTOR ︎
5. Trust the Bridge That Carried Us Over: The Failure of Operation Dixie 1946-53 – Cosmonaut ︎

by Jean Allen

“American workers can leave a company. Imported H1B workers can’t, Tech wants indentured servants, not ‘high-skilled’ workers”–Ann Coulter

In the closing days of 2024, the far right tore itself apart. At the center were statements by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, both key leaders of the tech capital fraction of the Trumpist movement, that despite running on deporting 12 million people, the H1-B program should remain. The H1-B visa (category?) is a category of migrant selected for technical skills, and H1-B workers have long been the backbone of the tech sector. After Ramaswamy said that the need for H1-B workers came from an American culture which looks down on skills and a good work ethic, that “A culture that venerates Cory from “Boy Meets World,” or Zach & Slater over Screech in “Saved by the Bell,” or ‘Stefan’ over Steve Urkel in “Family Matters,” will not produce the best engineers”, the conflict erupted, shoved in front of those of us still foolish enough to be on Elon Musk’s Twitter. 

After a period when Trumpists mixed racist screeds about Indian-Americans with too-honest critiques of each other (see the Ann Coulter quote above), Trump eventually came down on it, announcing that of course he supports H1-B visas. This despite being against them in 2016 and despite running on a platform of mass deportations. To some commentators, this was a betrayal of Trump’s base in favor of big money.

The conflict, which appeared as one between white ‘Populists’ and migrant billionaires, was ultimately a play-act, because H1-B Visas can absolutely exist alongside the threat of mass deportations. Many liberal politicians have now called out Trump on the grounds of being insufficiently deportationist, a claim that Biden made and Harris stuck by. That is a fascistic and dead ended politics that we as socialists need to have an answer to, at the very least because it misunderstands what is really going on here.

Trump’s base is not really in ‘workers’ of any capacity–working class people in the United States are the least likely to be involved in politics–but the elites of suburbs and rural towns. These ‘gentry’ have key roles in their local economies, which are disproportionately dependent on agribusiness, resource extraction, and construction, all industries which disproportionately employ migrants. Why do they employ migrant labor? Because it is cheaper.

And that’s where the narrative usually ends, with that cheapness existing as a natural fact, as if someone’s nationality determined their wage, as if anyone makes a desperate journey to explicitly make less than their fellow workers. Our acceptance of this ‘natural fact’, this dehumanization cast as social science, is required for this discourse to work. Liberals get to pose as accepting and metropolitan for having the humane position that it’s good to exploit migrant labor, while conservatives get to pretend their racism is somehow pro-worker. That Trump’s base is in business owners who themselves hire migrant labor gets to exist solely as hypocrisy, as a moral failing of those individuals. That Obama and Biden deported more people than Trump is an easier fact to digest, since the Trumpist right can just ignore it.

All this stupid noise hides a deeper question. Why is the cost of migrant labor cheaper? Because their whole existence is kept clandestine through state policy and the threat of deportation! Because they are disallowed from joining unions, can’t vote, have to use false IDs and identification numbers, have to live in but not of this country. They are policed both by the typical murderous racism of our beloved officers of the law, and a special category of police meant specifically for them, who police a ‘border’ that extends over two thirds of the US population. These things do not exist separately from or to protect against the cheapness of migrant labor, they are the cause of it. Supporting H-1B visas, which are very tightly policed and explicitly tied to specific employers, is something that can absolutely coexist with mass deportationist politics. All of it serves to threaten and tighter regulate migrant labor, preventing them from participating in US society. This isolation then makes their labor cheaper.

Socialists should not get dragged into the worthless ‘debate’, where full human beings are reduced to their culinary tradition and the cheapness of their labor. We should work together with migrants to break down the walls the state erects between us. Full, political equality across the people who live in an area should be the norm, and as socialists we must fight for it.  Migrants should be able to form unions, should have the same speech protections as everyone else, should be able to vote and have IDs. We need to constantly critique these lack of political rights as divisions that the state is driving between migrants and other workers, and how all of that is in service of better exploiting all of us. 

I recognize that this might seem ambitious, after the bi-partisan passing of the Lankin Riley Act, which responded to an instance of violence by making all migrants deportable if charged with any crime.  This bill, voted for by our dear friend in Congress, Congressional Representative Morelle, shows how quickly a liberal position that exploited migrant labor is good bleeds into a support for that exploitation. But while the bi-partisan turn will create real suffering for people, we should not be afraid to face it.  The liberals are marching without orders and the republicans obviously have their own contradictions.  If we stand for the equality of peoples regardless of migrant status, we can win, and in winning, we will have built a greater world.

BREAK THE CHAINS! FREE OUR SIBLINGS! OUR LIBERATION IS FOUND FIGHTING FOR THE OTHER

The post Oppression & Exploitation & H1B first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Upcoming Events

Tuesday, February 4 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Newsletter Training (Zoom)

Wednesday, February 5 (6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.): New Member Happy Hour (In person at Zeitgeist, 199 Valencia)

Thursday, February 6 (5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.): Palestine Solidarity and Anti Imperialist Working Group (Zoom)

Thursday, February 6 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Immigration Justice Priority Working Group (Zoom)

Friday, February 7 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.): Office Hours (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, February 8 (10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.): No Appetite for Apartheid Outreach and Training (In person at UNITE HERE Local 2, 209 Golden Gate)

Saturday, February 8 (1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Training and Outreach (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Sunday, February 9 (10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.): Immigrant Justice Canvassing (In person at 24th St Mission BART Plaza, 2800 Mission)

Monday, February 10 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Ecosocialist Monthly Meeting (Zoom)

Monday, February 10 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Electoral Board Meeting (Zoom)

Monday, February 10 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Labor Board Meeting (Zoom)

Wednesday, February 12 (6:45 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.): February General Meeting (In person at UNITE HERE Local 2, 209 Golden Gate)

Thursday, February 13 (5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.): Education Board Open Meeting (Zoom)

Saturday, February 15 (4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.): Electoral Board Happy Hour (In person at TBD)

Monday, February 17 (6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group (Zoom & in person at 1916 McAllister)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

Events & Actions

Newsletter Training

Curious about how the newsletter gets put together each week? Interested in joining the newsletter team and learning how to do it yourself? Join us on Zoom on Tuesday, February 4th from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for an online tutorial! Working on the newsletter is a great way to stay engaged with the chapter and help out with vital but often overlooked work. We are particularly seeking out disabled comrades and folks with busy schedules who might not be able to make it to in-person DSA events regularly.

Check out the #newsletter channel on Slack or message Serena M for the Zoom link!

---

Office Hours: Co-work With Comrades

Co-work with your comrades! Come to the DSA SF office this Friday, February 7 any time between 12:00 and 5:00 p.m. and get your DSA work or work-work done, have lunch, or just hang out.

---

No Appetite for Apartheid Mobilization

Join the No Appetite for Apartheid (NA4A) campaign this Saturday, February 8 at 10:00 a.m. for a mobilization with Arab Resource Organizing Center (AROC) and Neighborhood Business Alliance (NBA)! We’ll be meeting at UNITE HERE Local 2 (215 Golden Gate) and covering stores in SoMa and the Tenderloin.

If you haven’t canvassed for our NA4A campaign, we’ll be doing a training session followed by a canvassing effort where you will have the opportunity to talk to real store employees and owners about this work. If you’ve been trained already and you want to join us for the canvassing effort, please do!

RSVP so we know how many people to organize for turfs and canvassing groups. Looking forward to seeing you there!

---

Know Your Rights Canvassing

Join us to distribute posters and Know Your Rights red cards to local businesses and members of our community. We’ll be meeting at 24th St Mission BART Plaza (2800 Mission) this Sunday, February 9 at 10:00 a.m.

---

Organizing 102

Come out and flex your organizing skills with the Labor Committee in this follow up to Organizing 101. Attendance at Organizing 101 is not a pre-requisite. At this next session on Tuesday, February 25, we’ll jump into what it takes to start planning collective actions with a special focus on workplace organizing. We’ll meet 7:00 p.m. at 1916 McAllister. See you there!

---

DSA SF Education Board: 2025 Planning Survey

What did you come to DSA to learn about? What types of educational events do you think would help our organizing work as a chapter? Help the ed board shape our 2025 educational offerings by taking this three-minute survey.

Behind the Scenes

The Chapter Coordination Committee (CCC) regularly rotates duties among chapter members. This allows us to train new members in key duties that help keep the chapter running like organizing chapter meetings, keeping records updated, office cleanup, updating the DSA SF website and newsletter, etc. Members can view current CCC rotations.

To help with the day-to-day tasks that keep the chapter running, fill out the CCC help form.

Workers' rights vary from state to state. Here’s what you need to know about right-to-work and at-will employment in Virginia.

The post What are my rights as a worker in Virginia? appeared first on EWOC.

Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris handily, winning the popular vote alongside every swing state. How did this happen? How did Trump pull off such a definitive victory?

Trump’s victory is viewed by many as a product of the discontent of the American working class. Many feel left behind by the political and wealthy elite. And the failure of the Democratic Party to engage with and support the working class is a factor in the recent rise of anti-establishment sentiments, many of which Trump took advantage of. If the Democratic Party had put more resources towards supporting and listening to the working class, the election results could have turned out differently.

In order to understand the Democratic Party’s role in Trump’s rise to power, we must analyze what the Democratic Party did during the Obama Presidency. Winning the 2008 presidential election and a majority in both houses of Congress, the Democratic Party had complete power. What did the Democrats accomplish with this power? Analyzing these years could give us a better look into how the party ended up where it is today. Let’s look at a few of the most important crises facing us today.

Health care. The most notable thing to point to would be the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). While a definite improvement, allowing some poor and elderly people to access medical care more cheaply, extending family care to young adults up to age twenty-six, and ending the exclusion of people for pre-existing conditions, it still leaves a lot to be desired. Many working-class Americans still live without adequate healthcare. People go from paycheck to paycheck, worrying if a surprise medical expense will push them over the edge. While helping some, the ACA does not provide support to a huge part of the American people. 

Worse, it functions through private insurance companies. These businesses have no motivation to actually help people, instead, they kill thousands by denying medical coverage to make more profit. The profit incentive inherent in predatory insurance companies allows working people to be overcharged for simple medical procedures, costing, for example, entire savings on ambulance rides and medical tests on top of paying large amounts for necessary medication. An interesting point regarding the ACA is that many of the ideas behind it were heavily pushed for by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank,  infamous today for  Project 2025. From a critical perspective, the Democratic Party passing the ACA was a band-aid solution. If this is all the Democrats could accomplish with control of Congress and the Presidency, how are working people going to be convinced that the Democrats are a party that will help them?

 Prisons and Police. During Obama’s presidency, the prison industrial complex grew stronger and the murder of Black people such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown led to mass protests and unrest. One cause of these murders is the increase of a militarized police force, which overpolices poor and black neighborhoods, leading to mass incarceration, while the legacy of slavery, segregation, and redlining create mass poverty in the Black community. Modern-day exploitative practices like predatory loans, as well as landlords charging high rents for poor tenets (see Poverty by America by Matthew Desmond), keep Black communities poor. These poor neighborhoods are then over-policed, leading to mass arrests and denying many people in these communities upward mobility due to their criminal record, continuing the cycle of poverty and over-policing. 

What did Obama do to combat police brutality and exploitation in Black communities? He began a process to eliminate private prisons during the last few months of his presidency, which was undeniably a good thing to do. However, only 8% of incarcerated people are being kept in private prisons(9) and Obama did nothing to solve the issues of a violent and militarized police force.

Black Lives Matter. How did the Democratic Party leadership respond to  protests sparked by the police murder of George Floyd in 2020?Keep in mind that most of the big city mayors that sent out the police to beat and tear gas and arrest protesters were… Democrats!! Later, some Democrats backed mild police reforms, but they generally went nowhere or were immediately shot down. Again and again, the fundamental evils of this country rear their ugly heads. And again and again, Democrats scrap together a mild response that does nothing to address these problems. Even if the Biden administration was able to get his police reforms passed, it would not have solved the underlying issues causing this violence. Only through a complete demilitarization of the police, and refocusing funding on policies that lift up black communities. Through attacking continued economic segregation, as well as reforming police and prisons to end the cycle of poverty they create. Making the blow of the baton softer is not a long-term solution. Fundamental changes need to be made to the justice system. To solve systemic problems you need systemic solutions. 

Housing and poverty. Having a home is a fundamental need, just as necessary as food or water. Under the Obama Administration, homelessness went largely unaddressed. Although homelessness did drop slightly from around 644,000 in 2008 to around 549,928 in 2016, it has since risen back to around 653,104 people. These statistics show the failure of the Obama Administration to put a dent in homelessness, with the housing crisis only worsening.

Owning a home has become increasingly unrealistic for Millennials and Gen Zers. Millions of Americans’ needs remain unaddressed. In 2008, at the start of Obama’s presidency, around 39.8 million people were below or at the poverty line. In 2016, it grew to 40.6 million. If we take into account population growth though, poverty decreased by about .5 percent, which is about as successful as throwing a pebble into a river to divert its course. The high levels of poverty in America make renting a home difficult for many people, let alone actually owning one. Once again, the Democratic Party in power did not change much to truly help the working class; in reality, there were eight years of milquetoast reforms and lackluster policy. With little to no tangible change in the lives of working people, it is not much of a surprise that many turned towards more radical solutions.

After analyzing some of the downfalls of the Obama administration, it is clear that many working-class citizens were done with the political establishment. On both the left and the right, populist candidates were rising to the forefront. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were gaining massive support. This is evidence that the recent failures of the Democratic Party pushed people to search for more radical solutions.

The Democrats refused to engage with the clear rise of populism. They abandoned Bernie for the staunch neoliberal Hillary Clinton. Clinton is a pure embodiment of the establishment. Her candidacy promised more of the same ineffective reforms that plagued the Obama administration. Despite her many flaws, the Democratic Party completely backed her. With Bernie out of the race, Trump was the only candidate who spoke to those disaffected by mainstream politics. While the Democrats doubled down on the narrative that everything was fine, Trump rallied support by pointing to the broken system. He lacked any strategies or policies to fix it, but the fact he was addressing the system’s faults in the first place was enough to gain enough votes to win. Democrats did and continue to deny that how our country is currently run is inherently flawed. They continue to deny that massive changes need to be made. Democrats instead campaign on ideas of small reforms and marginal improvements to people’s lives. The Democratic strategy of putting bandaids on bullet holes does not work.

So if the Democrats are so ineffective, then why did they win in 2020? The simple answer is that Trump’s policies did not work. Or at least they did not work to benefit the working class. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) greatly increased the wealth of the rich while leaving working people further behind. He also harmed workers by attacking regulations that protect workers’ pay, costing workers on average seven billion a year. He waged an unsuccessful trade war with China. He attacked women’s rights through attempts to hinder abortions as well as weakening Title IX and weakening attempts to enforce equal pay. On top of all this, he cut environmental regulations and passed policies harming working-class immigrants. While the Democrats still refused to move from their establishment positions the harm from the Trump administration was fresh. And Trump’s failures, combined with his murderous response to the pandemic, were just enough to push Biden over the top in 2020.

2025. Now here we are again. Neither party helps the working class. And while the Democrats retreat even further from even the veneer of anti-establishment populism, the far right gains more ground. In 2024 Trump was able to win the popular vote, something a Republican has not been able to do since 2004. Without a strong populist left, Trump and the far right can fill in the space, employing policies that further harm the working class. If this trend continues, the far right will only grow in America, availing itself of bouts of power before being reined in by establishment Democrats, only to come back stronger and more radical after another Democratic administration fails to help workers.

As long as they keep their head in the sand on the necessity of fundamental changes to our current economic and political system, things will only get worse. “Trumpism” will not go away after Trump becomes too old or dies. Because it was not Trump that created “Trumpism”. It was the millions of desperate Americans looking for some form of change. Trump merely had the charisma to fill a position that would exist no matter what. Any liberals still holding onto the idea that things will return to “normal” after Trump leaves the political scene are going to be very disappointed. You cannot leave the material conditions of society the same and expect suddenly that things will be different. After Trump leaves, someone will simply take his place. 

If the Democrats were interested in combating Trump then they would address the material conditions of the millions of struggling working-class Americans that caused his rise in the first place. People can’t afford to buy a home, they can barely afford rent. They can’t afford the medical care they need. They lack adequate education and social services. Millions of Americans are locked away in prisons more than any other country in the world. Lowering people’s taxes by 5 percent won’t fix this. Radical change is needed to help the people of this country. These issues need to be addressed and are continuously ignored or have ineffective band-aid solutions placed on them. As democrats refuse to address these issues Trump steps up.

In this article, I’ve talked a lot about how the Democrats have refused to address the material issues that caused a far-right candidate like Donald Trump to take office. But why don’t they attempt to implement affordable housing? Prison reforms? Or universal healthcare? We know policies that work. Integrating poor and rich neighborhoods has been shown to improve poor children’s economic conditions later in life. Subsidizing public housing increases income for people who benefit from it when compared to those in the private sector. Universal healthcare is proven to be cheaper and provide better care. Yet they continue to refuse to implement or even advocate for these policies on a national level. Why? 

One likely reason for this is that it is not in their economic interest. The corporate donors of the Democratic Party would be harmed by genuine attempts to elevate the working class.

Because those same donors are benefiting from the worsening conditions of the American working class, many rich families who support the Democrats are worried that attacking homelessness will harm their property values. When Kamala Harris was still Attorney General of California she fought tooth and nail against a Supreme Court ruling which forced California to release prisoners to stop overcrowding. Reducing prison populations meant losing a cheap way to get things like firefighters. In 2022 Biden imposed a contract on rail workers when they threatened to strike. The elite of the Democratic party directly benefit from the exploitation of the working class. This is why they will not push for genuine help for the working class. The Democrats positioning themselves as “progressives” stifle support for the real left while their support of the exploitation of the working class pushes people towards anti-establishment, and populist positions. This is then filled by the far right.

The Democratic party is no friend to working people. This much is clear. Their support for systems of exploitation has led to the rise of radical reactionary forces. From this analysis and others, the Democratic Party has consistently shown that they will support pleasing their wealthy donors rather than helping the working class, every time. Their talk of being anti-Trump rings hollow. They say he is going to destroy democracy, yet they have shifted towards his positions on policies like immigration and climate change. When all is said and done they will peacefully transition power over to him. As much as they decry and denounce him, it is their policies that allowed him to rise to power. Trump is the Democratic Party’s creation. Now they have to live with him. It will be up to the working class to get rid of him. 

The post Democratic Failures Paved the Way for Trump appeared first on Pine & Roses.

DSA Corner is a new monthly feature of handpicked headlines from the previous month highlighting news from the Democratic Socialists of America and related issues.

---

DSA DEMOCRACY COMMISSION RELEASES 61 PAGE REPORT AHEAD OF POLICY SUGGESTIONS

“Democracy thrives on direct, honest, and comradely debate conducted in open meetings with meaningful stakes, where analysis is developed to inform specific strategies.”

The 21 member Democracy Commission elected after the 2023 DSA National Convention has released their report to membership this month in the lead up to the release of recommendations to the upcoming 2025 convention later this year. The report is separated between an analysis of internal democratic structures across DSA and research into the structures of socialist parties outside of DSA at home and abroad. The report finds significant variance but also highlights some common themes and strategies identified as particularly effective or ineffective. 

ROSE D RESIGNS LEADERSHIP ROLES CITING TRUMP THREATS AND PERSONAL REASONS 

“This may be a temporary setback, which a new spring of freedom will soon wash away, or it may be, as I fear it is, the closing of our contemporary era of pluralism and tolerance, and the start of a darker, meaner period, from which our society may not awaken for many years to come.”

Maine DSA member Rose DuBois stepped down from the National Political Committee and the National Electoral Commission this month in a letter published on Twitter. Rose highlights her personal connection to the risk posed to trans and otherwise marginalized organizers by the incoming far-right Trump regime and criticizes political rivals in DSA by claiming unnamed members have given Trump “ammunition” and describing the 2024 staff layoffs as “politically motivated.”

LEFT ON RED TAKES ON LA WILDFIRES

“All of us – the working class – we sorta fail every day when we remain disorganized and we allow the state to be captured by the wealthy. We should be the state!”

NYC-DSA members and podcast hosts Susan Kang and Stylianos Karolidis are joined by Leslie Chang and William Prince from DSA-LA to discuss what is really to blame for the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires. It isn’t “DEI,” nor the pistachio billionaires of the Resnik family. Instead the blame lies with manufactured crime hysterias, abuse of prison slave labor, and the failure of the American working-class to organize up until now and seize state power.

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS UPDATE POLITICAL COMPENDIUM

“DSA is not simply focused on electoral campaigns. It has also played a key role in organizing and leading efforts for militant, class-struggle labor and tenant unions … and more across the country, with significant variations in priorities across chapters, caucuses, and ideological tendencies.”

Bryce S of DSA’s Libertarian Socialist Caucus has released a comprehensive update to a 2023 overview of DSA politics. This document, coming from a distinctly horizontalist perspective, tackles not only the fundamentals of DSA’s governing structures but also provides explainers on contemporary debates within the organization as well as descriptions of the factions waging them and power analysis of how those factions are represented in our governing structures. 

REFORM & REVOLUTION CAUCUS CLAIMS NEW RED SCARE ALREADY UNDERWAY, TARGETING ANTI-GENOCIDE ACTIVISTS

“Red Scares can take different forms. But what they all have in common is that they are a response to the rise of a mass movement gaining steam, and create an atmosphere of fear that encourages people to distance themselves from these popular movements.”

Members of the small caucus Reform & Revolution draw alarming historical parallels between the contemporary crackdown directed at pro-Palestine protests and historical Red Scares this month. They highlight how Trump’s “Project 2025” playbook is set to follow examples set by Senator McCarthy and General Palmer and provide a strategy to combat it. This strategy includes three parts; building independent left-wing media (including social media), breaking from the Democratic Party, and building rank-and-file power for our movement in unions.

EXCHANGE PROGRAM EXPLORES POTENTIAL FOR INTERNATIONAL ANTIFASCISM 

“It is only through hard work, experimentation, honest conversation, and debate that we can move our movement forward. This exchange program is one step in that direction.”

Democratic Left reports on an exchange program organized by members of DSA and Brazil’s Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) intended to collaborate on socialist strategy in combating the rising threat of fascism across the world. DSA and PT share many similarities, both being big tent socialist coalitions, and both facing many of the same organizing challenges. PT has, like DSA, grappled with the moderating realities of wielding the powers of government. Unlike DSA and the Democratic Party however, PT succeeded in bringing Brazilian fascist leader Jair Bolsonaro to justice in a way we could not with Donald Trump. Ultimately these sorts of collaborations allow us to develop strategies beyond winning political power towards our primary goal of transforming our political system. 

GROUNDWORK CAUCUS PRESENTS NEW INTENTIONAL RECRUITMENT STRATEGY

“We’ve seen thousands of new members join across the country, and over 700 join where I’m writing from in New York City. These members will constitute what we hope to be a second Trump Bump, but we’ve got to make sure these new members are prepared to help us build the left and fight the right.”

NYC-DSA treasurer and member of the Groundwork caucus Allegra R released a recruitment strategy this month intended to harness membership spikes that DSA sees around major elections. Arguing that our approach to recruitment should be focused on our political priorities, their proposed strategy presents a six-point plan to plug new members directly into work like phone banking or tabling for strategic electoral campaigns.

The post DSA Corner – January 2025 appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Welcome to your quick glimpse into the work of the chapter over the last month, prepared for Little Red Letter #134.

On January 25, workers from Delta Air Lines organized an inspiring rally at the St. Paul Labor Center.  The ramp, cargo, and tower workers are fighting to join the International Association of Machinists (IAM), and flight attendants are fighting to join the Association of Flight Attendants at Delta, the most profitable airline in the industry.  […]

The post Bodily Autonomy Working Group appeared first on Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.

Decommodification of Housing in Berlin and how we can learn from it in the Twin Cities(Originally Published in Streets.MN) BERLIN, GERMANY — Berlin residents have shown a path out of our global housing crisis via the Deutsche Wohnen & Co. Enteignen (DWE) movement — a mass civil society campaign to socialize tens of thousands of […]