Who would you rather see showing up in your neighborhood—heavily armed, masked men, snatching random neighbors peacefully going about their daily business, shoving them into unmarked cars and taking them away to unknown destinations? Or people in puffy fanciful animal costumes, surrounded by a crowd singing and dancing, carrying colorful banners and chanting funny slogans?

People living in a very wealthy neighborhood in San Francisco got the better of the deal on Saturday, November 15 when the second type of group appeared on the streets they call home. But then the rich usually get the better of any deal. This event, however, hinted that the deal wasn’t entirely favorable to them.

Sharpening the message

Looking to sharpen the message of the growing resistance movement, a coalition of labor and community organizations, including East Bay DSA, opened up a San Francisco front for a worldwide day of action, People Over Billionaires, in swanky Pacific Heights last weekend. Although plans to stage parallel actions in Los Angeles and San Diego were washed away by a hard rainstorm and threat of floods, the northern California demo provided enough inspiration for people, and consternation among the rich residents in their fancy houses, to make up for it. (The southern California actions were rescheduled for December 6.)

Members of East Bay DSA, working in coalition with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), SEIU 1021, the San Francisco Labor Council, East Bay Indivisible, Tenants Together and the Oil and Gas Action Network (OGAN), among others, assembled in well-groomed Alta Plaza Park. In front of a boisterous crowd of three hundred, speakers called for taxing the rich, protecting immigrants, affordable housing, supporting federal workers under attack by the Trump administration, and saving the planet from climate destruction. 

Then they marched several blocks through Pacific Heights to the rhythms of the Brass Liberation Orchestra, pausing in front of the homes of Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO; David Sacks, Trump’s crypto and AI adviser; and Shaun Maguire, right wing venture capitalist and DOGE wrecker. The crowd shared chants, songs, and ideas about whether billionaires should exist or not at each home before moving on. Here are a few images and comments from East Bay DSA comrades about their rally and march through one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in California.

Participant comments

David D., a retired union activist said, “Several hundred of us marched around Pacific Heights with banners and costumes and a brass band. We stopped, got loud and line-danced in front of Larry Ellison’s house. Pacific Heights doesn’t get a lot of marches, so a lot of heads turned. Quite a few people cheered us. There were more people of color at this than any anti-Trump event I’ve been to, mostly coming with ACCE.” 

According to Aleigha L., a substitute teacher, “This was my first ever organized march and my first time volunteering! All the people who came seemed very warm, excited, and motivated to get started. Even as a newbie I felt like it was clear what our aims were: to let billionaires know that real people in their city were not okay with their priorities and that we see the very real fallout of their "profitable" decisions. Many people we encountered as part of safety crew [security detail—ed.] were interested in or supportive of what we were doing. Those that weren't were the uber-wealthy who weren't used to seeing their neighborhood reflect the dissatisfaction of the general population. I hope everyone who marched and everyone who witnessed it sees our dedication to improving life for all Americans, and pursuing more empathetic, supportive communities!”

Mo K., a climate activist, noted, “What was impressive was a diverse group of working people coming together on the grounds of the people who are exploiting all of our labor and resources. Taking it to the billionaires was an amazing thing, to be at their doors and say to them we have the power to tax you, we’re taking back the power that’s ours, and you’re not going to get away with living your life, having your dinner parties, pretending that everything is normal while you’re busy destroying our lives and the world around us. To do all of this while being dressed up as squids and orcas and frogs and chickens and in pink, playing wonderful live music, with people’s art surrounding us, it was just joyous.”

And musician Bonnie L. added, “It was great to hear passionate, articulate rank-file union members and actual grassroots organizers speaking the truth that builds working class organization and power. It was fun to march with the participatory culture of our own brass band, flash dancers and street theater. This is the left wing, the class-based wing of the mobilizations that give us energy and hope. But I'd wager lots of us went away from this gathering of a few hundred wondering, ‘how do we build these politics, this working class culture into the current mass mobilizations of tens of thousands—and in turn, into organized power for a socialist future rather than an illusory democracy under Democratic Party leadership’?”

According to its organizers, this will not be the last event of this sort.

After a long campaign, organizers moved the county Board of Supervisors to adopt an Ethical Investment Policy on October 3. There is only one more procedural hurdle before full implementation.

Alameda County has become the first U.S. county to adopt an Ethical Investment Policy (EIP) that effectively prohibits investment of public funds in companies with substantial ties to the occupation and genocide in Gaza, in a major victory for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. At a special meeting October 3, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted in support of an EIP that bars investment in “companies that consistently, knowingly and directly facilitate and enable severe violations of human rights” and also discourages investment in the fossil fuel, private prison, and other socially harmful industries. The Board decided, however, to delay implementation of the policy until it could be reviewed by an outside consultant.

“I’m super excited that we managed to adopt the Ethical Investment Policy,” said Hannah Gramling, who came to the special meeting to show her support for the EIP, along with hundreds of other Alameda residents, many of whom wore keffiyehs and held homemade signs. “We’re a little disappointed that there’s yet another procedural hoop to jump through [before the policy is implemented], but I think this is a huge win for us and for the 18 months of organizing that we’ve done.”

Nikki Fortunato Bas was the only supervisor on the five-member Board to vote against the delay, saying the County should implement the policy immediately as written.

The policy does not explicitly mention Israeli war crimes or the genocide in Gaza, but the Palestinian cause is its central impetus. Its adoption comes as the result of months of pressure from a coalition of Bay Area pro-Palestine organizations, including Bay Area Labor for Palestine, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), SEIU 1021, and the Divest from Apartheid Campaign of the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America (EBDSA).

In the aftermath of October 7th 2023, BDS organizing in Alameda County has led to a number of municipal divestment measures: in 2024, Hayward and Richmond were the first two U.S. cities to divest from the occupation of Palestine, and the city of Dublin passed an EIP last month.

The Bay Area BDS movement’s first win at the county level came last year in December, when Alameda County Treasurer Henry Levy agreed to sell the County’s $32 million stake in Caterpillar Inc., an American company that manufactures bulldozers used by the IDF to demolish Palestinians’ homes and other vital infrastructure. That decision made Alameda County the first U.S. county to divest from a company because of its role in the genocide.

But a comprehensive EIP is necessary to enshrine that decision as official County policy, as well as to prevent future County officials from reversing it or making new investments in unethical enterprises, said Vish Soroushian, co-chair of EBDSA’s Divest from Apartheid committee. 

“We want to make sure that, going forward, we don’t have classic villains like Caterpillar in our portfolio,” Soroushian said. “And so we want to make sure that there are clear guidelines in place, so that when the next treasurer comes along, they know what they can and can’t do with our public funds.”

Alameda County has historically been in the vanguard of divestment movements in the U.S. In 1985 the County divested from the apartheid government of South Africa, and in 1996, the County prohibited public investment in the government of Burma (now Myanmar) over war crimes committed there by state forces.

“We are hoping that this opens up the floodgates for other counties to go ahead with this work as well,” Soroushian said. “If people are talking about this all over the state, all over the country, and people are inspired to light a flame under their county and state governments, … that’s when BDS is effective. That’s when capital is pulling out of Israel, that’s when we’re really accomplishing what our comrades did decades ago with South Africa.”

It’s taken a variety of tactics–and a lot of perseverance–for the Alameda County divestment campaign to reach this point. After the sale of the County’s Caterpillar bonds, community members continued to pressure the Board, showing up to meetings and submitting public comments in support of the EIP, making hundreds of phone calls, and sending a continuous barrage of emails to members of the Board. 

This pressure was necessary, Soroushian said, to force the Board to follow through on its commitments and schedule yesterday’s vote on the policy, over the objections of aggressive and well-funded Zionist interest groups.

Now, with the board’s decision to delay the policy’s implementation, the pressure campaign will continue. “We’re going to keep organizing to ensure that the review is quick and thorough and comes back for a vote soon–and that the vote is a yes,” Gramling said.

Soroushian and Tim Drew, also co-chair of EBDSA’s Divest from Apartheid committee, both said they were also hoping to channel their campaign’s energy into the Oakland People’s Arms Embargo, a PYM- and AROC-led effort to block Israeli arms shipments through the Oakland International Airport. The embargo would build on the longstanding efforts of union dockworkers in the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), who for several years have effectively blocked Israeli ships from docking at the port of Oakland.

“If we can draw attention to the fact that FedEx, an awful corporation, is shipping military equipment to Israel using property that’s owned by the City of Oakland, and if we can cause disruptions to that supply chain, it could have a material effect on the Israeli conduct of the genocide in Gaza,” Drew said. “Supply chain disruption causes [Israel] to make fewer flights with their F-35 jets. That means fewer 2000-pound bombs dropped on the civilian population of Gaza.”

The BDS movement has a long way to go, but for now, “It feels good,” Soroushian said. “We’ve been another seed planted on the path towards achieving BDS.”

Reprinted with permission from Bay Area Current. Reporting for this article was supported by Matt Takaichi.

I was canvassing for Prop 50 in Boyle Heights, a predominantly Latino neighborhood in LA, and asked a middle-aged man, “So, what do you think, do you support it?” He looked me in the eye and said confidently, “Well, yes, we have to stop Trump; he just cares about himself and getting rich.”

A few weekends later I canvassed in Cypress Park with a new DSA member. We walked up to our first door and knocked. We were greeted by a middle-aged Latino, who, after turning down the loud cumbia playing on the stereo, invited us to their backyard. He went to get his wife, who gathered all five people in the house so that we could inform them about Prop 50 and get them to vote. She was not eligible to vote, but she wanted her family to. After we shared our information, her husband and the younger family members, in their 20s and 30s, were supportive.

Later in our canvass we spoke to an older Latino couple in their front-yard struggling to harvest a guava high up in their tree. We told them we were canvassing for Prop 50. They cheerfully told us that they had already turned in their ballots. We affirmed how important it is that we stand up to Trump, exchanged some friendly small talk and continued with our canvass.

As the month went on, and election day got closer, there were the endless quick conversations: “Yes, I already support Prop 50.” I found overwhelming support for the ballot measure.  People and progressive organizations were sold on standing up to the MAGA takeover.

My experience with other organizations
My experience working with the Democratic Party and other progressive organizations was very positive.  At first, I did not mention DSA.  The organizers of the canvasses had made a point to say that we could mention our organizations when we canvassed.  After I felt more comfortable and saw that others were talking about their affiliations, I said I was from DSA. No one shunned me or treated me differently.  Overall, I had a very positive experience and found people to be like me.

The events were well run and spirited with many elected officials and people of different ages and races working together to stop the MAGA takeover.  It was good for me to participate in these events.  I was able to connect with progressive activists from other organizations.  Those activists are some of the people DSA wants to be in touch with and to have good, working relationships with so that we can effectively build support for Socialism and progressive causes that will improve people’s lives.

While we figure out what is the best thing to be doing at any particular time to build the Socialist movement, we want to be supporting progressive political causes so that we build trust and history with progressive people and win them over to Socialism.

My Prop 50 Journey
This is a timeline of my experience with the Prop 50 campaign.  As you can see, DSA-LA was slow to get involved, even though there were events for us to join early on in September.

My experience with DSA

California DSA promptly endorsed Prop 50, which was a good start, but structural problems kept us from mobilizing more of our members more quickly. A month after the endorsement there was still no DSA-organized Prop 50 activity for our members. The California Democratic Party and other progressive organizations were already starting their Prop 50 work. We missed out on the opportunity to demonstrate our strength and commitment by quickly joining them.

Our activity did pick up, with our San Diego chapter standing out in their level of participation. But if we are going to be a serious political force, we need to improve. When DSA San Diego endorsed Prop 50 they included concrete goals and steps of how many canvasses and canvassers they were aiming for. This was part of the reason they were successful.

In early September, I drafted a proposal for LA to form a Prop 50 committee. In that proposal, I could have included concrete goals. Had I done that, we might have set ourselves up to mobilize more of our LA members. We should learn from San Diego’s experience.

I’ll be contacting each chapter to find out how their campaigns went. Despite taking some good steps in the right direction, the fact is that we mobilized too few of our members. We missed the opportunity to do more, even though Prop 50 had overwhelming support in DSA-LA and other California DSA chapters, was endorsed by the California DSA leadership and is supported among most progressive California voters.

What is the problem?

How can we get DSA to be a strong, relevant political organization that will be able to have statewide coordinated campaigns that build Socialism, fight MAGA and that can respond to political events?

How can we have a streamlined process that cuts through the delay and inefficiency we DSA activists have all encountered?

What to do Now!

With the upcoming very impactful 2026 elections, we do not want to get ourselves in the same Prop 50 position.  Nationally, this is still very much a problem, evidenced by the inability of the National Political Committee to endorse the latest “No Kings” events or to approve $1,088 for California DSA to use for the Prop 50 campaign.

The NPC did not endorse “No Kings” because US flags (regarded as a symbol of imperialism, despite the context) would be prominent. The NPC voted 14-12 against providing funds for Prop 50 support because gerrymandering and Gavin Newsom should not be supported no matter our current political situation. 

Fascists are in power. They are an immediate and dangerous threat to the progressive movement and oppressed people. Socialists are not close to strong enough of a political force to resist them on our own.  If this dangerous reality is not enough to move our leaders to understand why we need to participate in a broad movement of progressive forces, they should reconsider their positions.

A few conclusions

I want to be part of an organization that has broad popular support—not one where people keep saying, “Why did they do that?” California DSA and all the California chapters have a great opportunity to craft together a statewide campaign that will mobilize as many DSA members and supporters as possible.  

I want to be part of an organization that can use resources in a coordinated way. We can work together developing unity and organizational methods and structures that will be the basis for a statewide organization—a statewide organization that can get rid of a lot of the delay and inefficiency that always seems to happen when we try to do anything.

I want to be part of an organization that can be politically relevant and work with others. To make Socialism a reality in the US we will need millions of people who understand and support Socialist programs.  

I want a mass socialist organization, not a small sectarian irrelevant one. I know there are others like me who want California DSA and DSA to become that organization as we work together to figure out the role of DSA in the political battles to come.

Please contact me to work together on this very important task.

The following is a summary of an interview John MarienthaI conducted with Silicon Valley DSA officer Jessen Fox on November 9.

Our chapter had a unique experience in working with the local Prop 50 coalition. We endorsed a second, local campaign alongside it:  Measure A, a temporary Santa Clara County sales tax that will expire in five years. Measure A passed by a 57%-43% margin.

Measure A created a 5/8 of one cent general sales tax increase, beginning April 1, 2026, to raise $330 million a year to replace the federal funding cut by Trump and the Republican Congress to the Santa Clara County Health System. Starting with the process of endorsement, our chapter allied with the South Bay Labor Council to do both phone banking and canvassing.

We started with the Communications Committee making daily announcements of phone banking. We also worked with SEIU local 521. We participated in two three-day phone banking blitzes. What made our presence unique was we showed up in specially designed chapter T-shirts that identified us as DSA volunteers. When canvassing we also tabled and wherever we went we brought a small quarter-page flier on our DSA activities. We learned it would be helpful to list upcoming chapter events on the flier and added a QR code that people could scan for more information. Our tabling also allowed local politicians Ash Kalra and Betty Duong to be in the pictures.

Jasmine was responsible for our superlative social media. Many of the Instagram-tagged photos were of DSA members in their unique shirts. On November 1st we had a big push. On election night itself, DSA was recognized by the South Bay Labor Council as one of the larger groups participating in the Measure A coalition. As a result of the campaign, we are also developing a working relationship with SEIU.

Marienthal adds: The capitalist system is stacked against us. Property taxes are more progressive but require a two-thirds vote, which is very difficult to get. Sales taxes are regressive, and as socialists we're generally for progressive, not regressive taxes. Given a choice, however, between our hospital care cratering and a regressive tax we chose the latter.

The horrors of genocide in Gaza and pogroms in other parts of occupied Palestine are finally having some impact on U.S. Democratic politics, local, state and national.

In California, where state party enforcers have continued to block resolutions expressing even mild solidarity, a number of recent developments offer a path forward: 

• In August, persistent written and live testimony over the course of a year led the Rules Committee to approve chartering a new party organization, California Democrats for Justice in Palestine (CDJP). It was swiftly OK’d by consent at an Executive Board meeting the next day. The new group, similar to a caucus but with fewer political and financial constraints, held its initial meeting online in October. The guest speaker was Anthony Aguilar, whistleblower from the phony Gaza Humanitarian Foundation “aid” outfit that shot hungry people as much as it fed them. CDJP will quickly formalize its structure and membership for an in-person debut at the February state convention in San Francisco. Registered Democrats are welcome to read the mission statement and join, showing support whether or not you’re able to play an active role. 

• Folks in Santa Clara County have chartered a Bay area club, Democrats for Palestinian Rights, which has undertaken an ambitious educational and advocacy agenda. One other such club exists, in Sacramento. Statewide CDJP leadership would love to see more spring up around the state.

• Another cheer for Santa Clara: In October, local advocates won overwhelming support in the county party for a resolution that makes no bones about condemning the genocide and demanding an arms embargo. Another one passed the same month in Shasta County.

• Organizers are angling for a pro-Palestine plank in the state party platform that will be adopted at the February convention. Preliminary testimony has been voiced and  proposals submitted, now consolidated as United for Humanity, with negotiation likely in the offing and a possible floor debate/vote. The sign-on deadline has passed for this stage but look for another petition in January. And expect pushback from California Jewish Democrats (known until recently as Democrats for Israel, also an official CDP-chartered body). The renaming is particularly galling to us Jews whom it decidedly doesn't represent!

• Many of the same organizers and others are also in the process of forming a PAC, entirely outside the party, dedicated to getting real progressives—anti-corruption and big money, pro-single payer, pro-Palestine, of course, and more as delegates to the state Central Committee (DSCC). It’s an outgrowth of previous short-term mobilizations to endorse progressives in the biannual ADEMs, in which about one-third of the DSCC is elected—fourteen per Assembly district. It will organize to recruit and support local slates of candidates for the next ADEM opportunity (early 2027, but with organizing needed way in advance), and also for county central committees (another third, on primary ballots in 2028); plus selected left candidates for office who can appoint the final third (until we succeed in reducing that). 

• A quick detour to North Carolina, where similar efforts won passage of a super resolution by the state Democratic Party. We’re comparing notes, and have learned that in that state, the party Resolutions Committee makeup is formed semi-democratically, while in California, every single member of that and other committees is appointed by the party chair! 

On the state Capitol front, a long and frustrating engagement in the state Legislature ended on Oct. 7, with Gov. Newsom signing AB 715, which will crack down on the freedom to teach about Palestine under the guise of fighting antisemitism. Largely a battle for the votes of the mostly Democrat “diversity caucus” members, hundreds turned out in Sacramento to testify at committee hearings. It got a lot of coverage, much of it misleading in asking whether it would effectively prevent antisemitism while accepting false premises about the subject. Here’s an opinion piece I self-published in August after it was first accepted, then rejected by the Sacramento Bee. And here is a recent piece from Jewish Currents that sums up the larger issues really well. Related battles in Sacramento will surely continue.

Meanwhile, Congress may end up being the last bastion of support for Israeli occupation, apartheid and genocide, but there’s growing ferment, way beyond what would have been thinkable only a few years—or even one year—ago. While none of the following are likely to pass, they are evidence of change.

• A series of “joint resolutions of disapproval” spearheaded by Bernie Sanders, aimed at stopping some arms transfers to Israel, maxed out at twenty seven supporters – a majority of Senate Democrats – in July. Notably, several large unions, including SEIU and UE, came out in support—evidence of a healthy break from labor’s traditional fealty to U.S. militarism. Even more unions were early backers of the demand for cease-fire in Gaza by early 2024, when it still meant something.

• H.R. 3565, the Block the Bombs Act, continues to attract co-sponsors, now up to fifty six, all Democrats, including twelve from California. It too would stop “offensive” arms transfers—a positive step but based on a phony distinction, as even purely “defensive” weapons enable aggressors to act offensively with more impunity.

• H.R. 2411, to restore funding for UN humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees in Gaza and elsewhere, has seventy House backers, all Democrats. 

• Various other bills and resolutions, for instance H.R. 3045, to impose sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers (102 Democrats) have even more support, but notably not from the most consistent supporters of Palestinian freedom like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, presumably because they typically reinforce overall support for Israel and U.S. policy. 

• In the best recent news: On Nov. 13, Tlaib introduced H.Res. 876: Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza. It demands adherence to international law, no arms for genocide, sanctions on offenders and more, with twenty (!!!) original co-sponsors (only Ro Khanna and Lateefa Simon from California).  Read it! And prepare to engage in a loud campaign to win more. Here’s a call to action.

This progress in CDP and Congress, limited as it is, clearly reflects a much larger, accelerating shift in public opinion since October 2023. Highlights of an IMEU survey released last month: 72 percent of Democratic voters agree that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza; only 7 percent support continued taxes going to the Israeli military, with 71 percent opposed; 76 percent support a ban on extending credit to the country through the purchase of Israel bonds; 65 percent support sanctions against Israeli officials, 13 percent oppose. For more such statistics see an August LA Times piece by Prof. George Bisharat.

A final note: The legislation cited has had almost exclusively Democratic support, but public opinion has been evolving in the same direction among Republican voters as well.  A growing cadre of hard right Republican legislators and influencers has suddenly come out in opposition to U.S. support for Israel’s genocide. These include people like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Green and perhaps even the late Charlie Kirk. While authentic horror at the sight of mutilated and starving babies may be part of the explanation, wariness is in order when a large part of their rhetoric centers on MAGA’s “America first” ideology, in which support for Israel is seen as an impediment to U.S. world domination generally, and vague or not so vague blame for failed policy is pinned on “Jewish power,” not the interests of large capital, especially the military industry.

United States labor history is mostly a history of defeats. If that were not true our country would more closely resemble Sweden, with its high union density, social democratic culture and cradle to grave free health care. I used to soften the blow of this information to my community college labor studies students with the proviso that nonetheless the U.S. working class has won some important, lasting victories along the way; and if that were not true the United States would more closely resemble Germany and Italy in the 1930s, with their crushed working class organizations and repressive surveillance state. 

Unfortunately. since my retirement from teaching a couple years ago the impact of our continued and accelerating defeats has eroded what remained of those victories to the point we are now rapidly losing their democratic legacy and headed downhill on fast skis toward a fascist America. And since similar forces are at work elsewhere in the global capitalist economy, Sweden no longer provides quite the exemplary utopian example it once did (it now has small co-pays for office visits and drugs), and Germany seems to be forgetting its own historical lessons.

Be heartened

But as we are have learned in recent weeks, with the largest single day demonstration in US history (No Kings), and the people-powered victory of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani over billionaire cash and fear-mongering in the New York mayoral race (and its echo in Seattle), a growing number of people understand the dangers we are facing and are committing themselves to fighting back with effective forms of action. I am heartened by this; we all should be. We will need this scale of continued participation and many more wins in the contests with fascist billionaires on all fronts before we can restore the democratic institutions that are being destroyed before our eyes and build a better society in place of the one we’re saddled with.

On election night I went to an Oakland brewery where East Bay DSA members were gathering for a Mamdani victory watch party. In line for a locally produced beer, I stood next to a comrade with whom I was slightly acquainted. I expressed the hope that Proposition 50 would be winning along with Mamdani to make for a very good evening. She said, “It will be great if Mamdani wins, but I don’t care about Prop 50. It won’t do anything, and I didn’t vote.”

I wasn’t surprised; I knew that her political north star was Palestine, and that she, like millions of others, had refused to vote for Kamala Harris over the issue. At that time, before the 2024 election, she had told me, “I want to see the United States brought to its knees.” I had responded that the majority of the United States population was working class, and that I wanted the U.S. ruling class to be brought to its knees, not the country itself. I agreed with her critique of Harris on the international side of things, but, I had said, a presidential election is also about what happens nationally. The rapid destruction of the labor movement and immigrant rights were on the agenda if Trump wins. And a fascist America would not create more space for the fight for Palestinian liberation; more likely the opposite. She remained unconvinced, succumbing to a cynical belief shared by millions of working class Americans that elections simply can’t help them. 

Life and death

Although I empathized with the feeling, my practical experience as a union staffer for three decades taught me otherwise. I had little direct knowledge of the internal functioning of government before becoming active in the labor movement as a rank and filer, elected leader and staffer. Until then I would not have been able to tell you what the Department of Labor did, or the National Labor Relations Board, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or how much the appointments to those bodies by Democratic and Republican regimes mattered for the daily lives of workers and their families. 

And that’s just labor-related agencies of government. Federal departments like Health and Human Services, Education, Veteran Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development, all under attack by the Trump regime, also have deep impacts on the quality of life—and indeed often mean the difference between life and death—for millions.

Union members who pay attention to the information provided them by their unions understand these things. But labor represents just ten percent of the workforce and has less reach beyond its shrinking margins compared to what it once could do. My DSA comrade at the brewery had never been in a union, and spent a lot more time thinking about US imperialism than about the role of the working class in struggling for socialism in the heart of the beast. That’s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t provide a complete picture of how we can effectively fight capital.

As we stood in line together, moving it seemed as slowly toward our beers as toward a socialist America, I persisted, perhaps to the point of obnoxiousness, saying that we can’t give up any of the tools at our disposal in our fight against fascism. She believed the only solution was to get into the streets. I agreed with the centrality of demonstrations and direct action, but argued that the courts, elections and pressure on politicians we’ve helped to elect are all weapons in the class struggle, and if we refuse to participate in any of these activities they become tools wielded against us without a fight. We lose. 

Elect Mamdanis, not Pelosis

Prop 50 did win, of course. So now California has likely offset the move in Texas to rig five congressional district seats. What good will this do? It partly depends on who occupies those seats. If it’s five neoliberal Democrats the difference won’t be as big on some key issues, like continuing to arm or not the American empire and its proxies. Even with neoliberal Democrats, it can matter, however, on rebuilding the helping institutions of government that the fascists are trying to destroy, and whether the labor movement has the space and a fighting chance to organize going forward. 

But there’s another possibility with these seats: we could elect Mamdanis instead of Pelosis. That possibility doesn’t exist within the fascist Republican Party; it does within the Democratic Party. We have less than a year to find progressive Democrats and run winning campaigns with them. Continue to get out into the streets? Absolutely. But the ability to get into the streets without being beaten, cuffed and taken away to some undisclosed location by unidentified armed men in masks may just depend on who’s in the seats of Congress, along with local government. 

Although labor history is a sobering reminder of the usual balance of forces in capitalist society, we shouldn’t help the other side stack the deck. We need to be in every game to win.

Zohran Mamdani was just elected Mayor of New York City. He’s not the first Democratic Socialist to win a prominent office, and arguably other office-holders wield more power—Bernie Sanders as a U.S. Senator, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez as a Representative—but what makes Zohran different is how he got there. As he himself put it at DSA’s national convention in 2023, he has been able to stand against the immense power of capital because he has DSA at his back. Our members raised him into office originally, we catalyzed his mayoral run, and we could not be prouder of how he exemplifies our theory of change.

In the U.S., nobody needs to get a political party’s permission to declare themselves a candidate of that party. In theory, members of the party would quickly filter out candidates that had never been active or politically aligned, favoring more known quantities. But in the 1970s and 80s, political parties put increasing emphasis on the mass communications tactics that frankly plague us today—starting with mailhouses, now taking the form of text message epistles buzzing your phone hourly from your “friends” in high places. As Robert D. Putnam chronicled in his landmark thesis Bowling Alone in 2000, political engagement subsided alongside social engagement, generally. Political differences person to person are now rarely about policy, they’re more about identity as a prefabricated product (‘Take this quizlet to see what political character you are!’).

With communications mattering at least as much as official endorsement, politics organized by the vested political parties have splintered, both right and left. The mainstream media has tried its level best to spook liberal audiences by comparing DSA to the Tea Party, but here’s the thing —Americans are desperate for change. With rural hospitals shutting down and biblical-styled catastrophes clobbering every region, they’re dying for it. They know this system is not working for anybody but the elite, and where they differ most is who they imagine those remote and inaccessible elites to be.

Since supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016, DSA has been the leading force in electing hundreds of city council members, school board trustees, county supervisors, state assembly members and a handful of congressional representatives. Each time, we have done so not because we received permission from a local party authority, but because we organized our members and allied working class interests to speak directly to the working class. Yes, we produce mass communications (Zohran’s campaign comms were genius) but our anchor is our commitment to knocking on doors, bringing our neighbors in, and staying in connection every day of the year, regardless of where we’re at in the election cycle.

Because politics is so much more than the ballot line. It’s exploring what you believe with others in your community, and then drawing the contrasts that take shape in votes, by us and by our elected representatives. It’s voicing those politics in protest, and it’s demonstrating those politics in solidarity on the picket line. This is what a party can be. You just need to come through.

Kent Wong died on October 8, 2025. He was sixty-nine years old. The director of the influential UCLA Labor Center for thirty years, he oversaw its expansion from four to forty staff and a corresponding growth in influence in Los Angeles and statewide politics. He was the fierce and effective advocate for expansion of the UC labor centers from two campuses to all of them. His memorial service at L.A. Trade Tech College on November 15 was attended by more than a thousand mourners.—Editor

DSA-LA is deeply saddened by the loss of Kent Wong, a longtime activist and powerful leader in the labor and immigrant rights movements. Kent was a tremendous force for justice, and he leaves behind a strong foundation for us to continue the struggle and apply all that he taught us. Kent was an uncompromising and tireless fighter for workers, immigrants, students, and others of the most vulnerable in our community.

My powerful journey with Kent Wong encompassed most of my adult activist life. I first met Kent in the mid-1990s, when I was Workers’ Rights Project Director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). We had started the movement to organize day laborers and I reached out to Kent to ask him for support to connect us with the L.A. labor movement. Since that first encounter, Kent and I embarked on a 30-year journey where he became my close friend, confidant, director and mentor.

Kent believed strongly that there is no greater power than when workers come together and organize. He was one of the early pioneers of integrating immigrant workers to transform the labor movement. You would always find Kent at every picket line, union strike action and major mobilization. For him, holding up a picket sign was a powerful weapon for justice. Kent also embraced and supported the efforts of worker centers and saw them as a part of the labor movement.

As an educator, Kent’s vision was to create the next generation of leaders in the labor, immigrant rights and social justice movements. Through his leadership, we created a Labor Studies Minor that grew into a vibrant B.A. program. Last month, we officially became a Labor Studies Department, the first one in the UC system. Kent had a vision to launch labor centers beyond he existing ones at Berkeley and UCLA. Today, there is a labor center in every UC campus.

On a global level, Kent was much beloved by the labor movements of other countries. He developed solidarity work between the U.S unions with the labor movements in China, Vietnam and Japan. I am grateful to have worked with Kent on a two-year project with the trade unions in Vietnam. I witnessed how much love and solidarity the workers of the world had for Kent.

As an immigrant rights activist, Kent was always an uncompromising champion for the young leaders of the Dream activist movement. He worked with undocumented student leaders at UCLA to create IDEAS, the first ever campus student organization to represent them. Kent established the UCLA Dream Resource Center (DRC) as part of the Labor Center. The DRC has provided emerging leaders a safe and empowering space to create impactful social, policy, and narrative change. In 2011, Kent worked with young immigrant leaders to launch Dream Summer, the only national fellowship program for undocumented students. Over the past 14 years, Dream Summer has built an alumni network of over 1,000 immigrant rights leaders.

On a personal level, Kent embraced me for who I was – a soft spoken and quiet servant leader who prefers to work from behind the scenes. He always challenged me, however, to step up and make my voice heard whenever the moment called for it. He supported my work with DSA-LA and he believed in its vision of organizing to build a world where everyone can live a life of dignity, free from injustice and capitalist exploitation. Kent represented for me the true meaning of deep camaraderie and radical solidarity.

Our hearts go out to Kent’s family, close friends, and all who were touched by him. Today we honor Kent, and we continue forward in the path that he created for us to fight for a better world.

Rest in Power, Kent Wong.

In the months leading up to the New York City mayoral election, there had been some unease in leftist online spaces about the possible results. Polling consistently showed for months that Cuomo was running behind Mamdani, and it may not have even mattered if the race narrowed to the two men. No, the anxiety over the election results was not whether Zohran Mamdani was going to win, but how Mamdani would govern. Every statement was scrutinized for possible concessions; every compromise seemed to portend even more.

Before the primary election, the dream of a leftist mayor could bathe in the promise of his most ambitious proposals without having to dwell on the realities of politics. Now that the general election is over, these very real concerns will need to be confronted, and those who decry electoral work (or of running DSA candidates on the Democratic party line) seem ready to call out any betrayal of the DSA by Mamdani. But  it’s important to first understand what a ‘betrayal of DSA’ would look like, or even mean. 

I’ve heard a similar spiel answer this question countless times at general chapter meetings and branch meetings, and in conversations with the press and interested non-members – what is DSA? The response generally includes some of the following phrases: We are a multi-tendency, multi-caucus organization; we are a mass-politics organization that is dedicated to anti-capitalism, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism; we include people from a broad range of ideological backgrounds on the left. Sometimes people talk about our ‘agenda’ in a local context, and sometimes they talk about national policy goals, like a Green New Deal or universal health insurance. Sometimes people talk about concrete next steps, and sometimes they talk about long-term ideals, like democratizing the workplace or decommodifying housing. All of this is to say that many people have overlapping, yet still different, ideas about who and what we are as an organization, and why we exist. These definitions are all true, but not completely true. How, then, can we be ‘betrayed?’ 

To start off with an obvious example, Mamdani could cancel his membership and denounce the DSA. Maybe he will do this after some huge break with NYC-DSA leadership in the future; but I doubt it. 

Oftentimes, activists will talk about an elected official ‘betraying’ their constituents. This may take the form of accusing them of abandoning their campaign promises, or opposing what they had promised to support. Other times, activists just use the language of the ‘betrayal’ to mean that policies which they oppose are harming constituents. Plenty of MAGA activists will accuse left-wing politicians of ‘betraying’ America by allowing ‘open borders.’ 

In this case, Mamdani will almost assuredly be accused of betraying New York by the right and center when he simply pursues the policies he has campaigned on. But in the former, there could also be campaign policy reversals that may be considered a betrayal of DSA. 

The New York Times asked Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of NYC-DSA, about Mamdani’s then recent policy choices and whether they would alienate him from cadre membership.

The mayor-elect has made well-documented overtures to the business world, telling leaders in private meetings that he would discourage the use of the phrase, “globalize the intifada,” and was open to funding his proposals by means other than tax increases. He has also offered to keep Jessica Tisch, scion of a billionaire New York family, as police commissioner.

So far, none of these moves have angered Mr. Mamdani’s base. But Gustavo Gordillo, the co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, said there was a line that Mr. Mamdani could not cross. 

“Siding with the 1 percent over his base and the rest of the city is what would really pose problems to his governing coalition,” Mr. Gordillo said.

While none of the issues mentioned were part of the core affordability agenda (except, arguably, taxing the rich, although one could argue the spending is what matters more than the revenue raising), Gordillo makes clear that it’s more about the stance of the mayoralty and with whom it positions itself that will determine whether there is a betrayal. But what about the specific policies?

I think this is a gray area because of the nature of politics. In any negotiation, political or otherwise, you always demand more than you think you’re going to get. The other side will assuredly do the same. When the other side scoffs at your proposal, don’t offer concessions before they’ve made a counter-offer. So, with this in mind, it’s possible to see that not all of Mamdani’s agenda will get enacted, or that he even thought these policies could be enacted. If you want to lower universal pre-K from four years to three, you don’t ask for 3K. The other side will always fight expansions of welfare programs, so Mamdani might as well stake out a maximalist demand, knowing that he may have to negotiate down to a phased-in timeline or something later than 6 weeks. Would settling for less be considered a betrayal of the campaign promise, and therefore DSA? It probably depends on how much is compromised.

By now, the reader may feel the framework I have outlined here is nothing more than a slippery slope into rejecting accountability for our electeds. Rather than arguing that social democracy is good enough, I am asking us to think more fundamentally about what we are as an organization, and what expectations members can make of others. Consider first, for example, the differences between NYC-DSA and the national DSA’s agenda. 

Time and again, both New York and national political media sought to tie Mamdani to planks of the DSA’s platform. The New York Post accused him of dodging questions about enforcing misdemeanors. NPR at least had the decency to quote our national website when they sought to define DSA’s priorities. When pressed on his position on nationals, Mamdani always clarified that his platform is on his campaign website, not on DSA’s. NYC-DSA leadership has also pointed to discrepancies between the chapter and national. The differences between the two reflect the varied backgrounds and experiences of members from across the country, and how delegates sought to shape national priorities at successive conventions. Part of the backgrounds and experiences that some delegates brought reflect a dearth of political power or opportunity from their chapters’ region; moreover, the political ideologies and tendencies which guide strategies in rural or suburban America no doubt differ from that of blue state, urban organizers. Again, these are all parts of DSA, but not completely DSA. 

If our organization includes people who describe themselves as communists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists, it means that our organization will have long-standing disagreements over goals, practices, strategies, and more. When a chapter endorses a candidate for office, though, they are not endorsing a multitude – they are endorsing a single person who is from one of those tendencies, or doesn’t clearly identify with any one of them. When a democratic socialist candidate who believes in a dirty break strategy, for example, gets elected and governs as a democratic socialist who believes in the dirty break strategy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. It should also come as no surprise that the Maoists or Trotskyists who believe in a clean break would find reason to disagree with this new elected official. But when an organization contains so many multitudes and allows for diversity of thought, it also means that the accusation of ‘betrayal’ is harder to justify. A democratic socialist elected official who governs according to their own beliefs is not betraying the other factions within DSA by not suddenly adopting someone else’s beliefs. You can disagree with someone in shades or degrees, and still appreciate the capacity of your organization to put forward candidates who will advance a movement that allows for greater consideration of left-wing ideas. 

As the Mamdani mayoralty will soon take hold, we should hold true to our vision of a better future and demand the most that we can from him. We do this as we demand the city council, state legislature, and Governor Hochul to work with him, too. That there will be compromises made to his campaign platform, we can only assume. I would never counsel anyone to give over absolute trust to a politician. Just remember, though, that if people accuse Mamdani or others of ‘betraying’ DSA, we should ask if there’s good reason to believe it, or if these accusations are just manifestations of  the ideological and strategic disagreements between people that existed long before the election.

The post What Does It Mean to Betray DSA? appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

This is the first of a three-part series assessing MAGA, developing anti-fascist strategies, and organizing for democracy and affordability in Maine and nationally.

Trump’s had a bad month so far. Although Senate Democrats caved on the shut down, Trump’s numbers have slipped as many voters blame the Republicans for SNAP cuts, federal layoffs and furloughs, and airport chaos. Yucking it up with Saudi Prince MBS failed to distract from his disorganized retreat on the Eptsein files, MTG’s mid-term resignation, and early Wall Street wobbles. Meanwhile, there is a noticeable shift in mood on the left. Katie Wilson won big in Seattle… as did centrists in New Jersey and Virginia. Mainers crushed a Republican referendum to suppress voting rights. Millions turned out for No Kings! rallies in October and significant and sustained opposition to ICE invasions has thrown sand into the gears of Trump’s pet militia. Trump’s chummy approach to his meetup with Zohran Mamdani might indicate he’s feeling vulnerable on the affordability front. All this is to the good, but don’t count MAGA out. 

Trump has accumulated a great deal of power. He has succeeded in remaking the Republican Party into a far-right machine and has done lasting damage to the liberal welfare state. He has remade NATO, crippled the Iranian challenge, and is openly pushing for a coup in Venezuela. The Supreme Court rubber-stamps 90% of what he does. And there is more to come. It is easier to destroy than to build. Moreover, Trump and the MAGA right are building a purified imperialist administrative state that will not “go back to normal” even if Schumer and Jeffries claw back a narrow majority in the House. There is little prospect in the short term for completely reversing Trump’s cuts and evisceration of democratic rights, and even dimmer prospects for reforms and spending on the (limited) scale of Biden’s (failed) Build Back Better.

No one has a crystal ball, but it’s worth thinking through potential scenarios. 

[Read next: Mainers don’t want Janet Mills for Senate]

The first scenario—and the most likely to my mind—is a Reagan-to-Bush-to-Clinton trajectory, that is, frontal Republican attacks on unions, civil rights, and democracy followed by centrist Democratic modifications of the worst excesses. Those modifications will come as a relief, but the danger lies in accepting a “new normal.” Clinton did little to undue Reaganism. Newsom, Shapiro, and Whitmer offer no systemic solutions to the problems ordinary families confront today. Mamdani and Wilson—along with Brandon Johnson in Chicago—may serve as major or minor outliers in fighting for pro-worker reforms, but these will not be championed at the federal level by the Democratic Establishment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stands ready to strike down any transformative efforts that happen to sneak through. 

The second most likely scenario is a third Trump term, whether headed by Trump himself or his heir. We should not underestimate the MAGA elite’s determination to hang on to power by any means, legal or otherwise. A recession may undo them temporarily, but Reagan used the 1982 recession to smash unions, strip social spending, demoralize his opponents, and consolidate his popular and ruling-class support. Authoritarian figures are often able to ride out chaotic circumstances as long as there is no coherent alternative. If you had to bet on Schumer or Trump in a political brawl, who do you think would come out on top?

A third scenario could open up with a massive electoral rejection of MAGA in 2026 and some initial rise in social struggle, leading to an AOC-type victory in the presidential primary and a related qualitative shift in the level of class struggle, perhaps anchored by a national strike on May Day 2028. This scenario poses the greatest threat to the billionaires as a class and MAGAism as a movement. It’s the perspective we should fight for, but it’s also the least likely outcome in my view. Why? 

Despite Trump’s wobbles, the underlying balance of forces between the oligarchy and the working class still tilts strongly in favor of the rich. The billionaires tolerated the liberal welfare state—expansive public education, civil rights legislation, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—for a long period. From Reagan to Obama, both parties hacked away (sometimes drastically) at it over the long neoliberal era, but they did not eradicate it. The billionaires adapted and learned to get what they needed from the state under the given circumstances as they paid ever diminishing taxes in exchange for social control at home and global control abroad. 

Trump has opened a new path for them. And they are demonstrating an inclination to rule in a different way. They are not only surrendering to Trump out of moral cowardice, they are also plowing trillions into AI, oil, banking, military production, etc. Lip service to climate change is out, an ugly feeding frenzy is in. The bankers are sensing hundreds of billions in windfall profits by privatizing Social Security and public education. Besting China and breaking unions are their organizing principles and nearly a trillion dollars a year in military funds will buy off any “constitutional” brass in the Pentagon. The billionaires might have been slow to Trump’s party, but they’re drinking from the punch bowl now.

Against this juggernaut, elites in the liberal political class are unable to imagine a world beyond free-market neoliberalism. Like the billionaires, Schumer and Jeffries are not only political cowards, they see incentives for their own social layer in containing the resistance to those strategies that land them back in charge. This makes them a weak force in the face of Trump’s lust for power. However, they are not without resources: they have practically unlimited money, a small stable of national Democratic politicians who have figured out they must at least posture as radically anti-Trump, and, most importantly, no more than the beginnings of an organized opposition to their left. 

[Read next: The case for Troy Jackson]

Despite some recent counterexamples (Mamdani, UAW stand up strikes, ICE protests, etc.), the U.S. working class remains fractured. A historical process of sustained class struggle is the only means to construct new consciousness and mass organizations. This process could develop relatively quickly (several years), but we are starting from a very low level of organization, so it will most likely be more drawn out than in previous periods of heightened class struggle in the U.S. (1905–1919 or 1933–1938, for instance). There are other enormous challenges, including social media spectacle, generational activist discontinuity, the dispersion of working-class life, robber barons’ ability to withstand company-specific strikes, international production and distribution, etc. None of that is insurmountable, but it speaks to the continuing vulnerability of class-based challenges to both liberalism and MAGAism.

Socialists argue that fascism is a counterrevolutionary, extraparliamentary movement posing falsely as a challenge to capitalism. However, once they come to power, fascists rule in the interest of, and with the support of, the capitalist class. These two aspects must be considered simultaneously. In Germany, the fascist movement came before the fascist state. However, Italian fascism came to power earlier as a political force several years before it succeeded in completely remaking the state in its own image. For instance, resistance leader Antonio Gramsci retained his parliamentary immunity until 1926, four years after Mussolini’s assumption of power. In the Spanish, Chilean, and Argentine cases, varying combinations of fascist movements and military maneuvers via the armed forces led to fascist (or fascist-type) states. The German and Italian cases might be classified as “fascism from below,” while the Spanish, Chilean, and Argentine cases may be classified as “fascism from above.” The Jim Crow State in the U.S. and Modi’s India represent varieties of the species.

In my mind, what matters most here is directionality. It is less important to classify MAGA as a “fully” fascist movement and more useful to determine its potential to move in that direction. In my view, Mamdani was right, “yes,” Trump is a fascist. But does it matter how we define MAGA?

Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “Know thy enemy and know yourself and you will not be defeated in one hundred battles.” No one bats 1.000, but his point stands. If Trump and MAGAism are lurching towards fascism, we need to study their strengths and weaknesses, redress our own shortcomings, and develop specific initiatives to drive a wedge into their base. 

I will return to this question next week in Part 2 with some lessons from past generations and strategies we can pursue today to shift the balance of forces in favor of the working class.

[Read next: No Kings! speech by Portland city councilor Wes Pelletier]

The post MAGA one year before the 2026 elections appeared first on Pine & Roses.