by Hannah W.

The first ever Rust Belt Rising conference was held on August 15th and 16th here in Rochester. This was organized by Workers Assembly of Rochester (WAR), an independent organization of local labor activists, including DSA members, union staffers and organizers. Local labor leaders, rank and file members and members of community organizations gathered to discuss and learn about the role of the labor movement in Rochester, and how we can move it to be more militant and left.

Opening Keynote

The opening keynote was a panel containing Colin, an organizer with the Teamsters Local 118, Christina, President of the Federation of Social Workers and Max from Buffalo DSA and Field Director for the Adam Bojak Campaign. The topic was How to Build an Independent Worker Program, which I think is a relevant topic given the current political state. 

Comrade Max talked about the role labor plays in elections, citing the work he and other comrades have done for Adam Bojak for the 149th assembly. While many unions did endorse Bojak, “We want labor to be a partner, not just a stamp”. Max posed to the audience what difference does union endorsement make, especially if they’re not turning out members for electoral races. While they may provide money for mailers, having people to knock doors is the most effective way to reach voters. He also spoke about the need to move away from the Democratic Party and not waste time and resources trying to take over local Democratic committees. Starting to run your own candidates, and that a sense of “ownership” will be felt by the members. We’ve seen this with Clarie Valdez as an example of a rank and file union member and DSA member who ran for state assembly and now Congress.

Colin spoke about the union endorsement process that candidates go through and asked if that process is democratic. Do members have the ability to ask questions of the candidates? Do  members have the final vote for the endorsement? Colin noted that this gatekeeping of democracy comes from entrenched union leadership wanting to keep power, rather than allow the rank and file to make decisions. We’ve seen this play out with unions endorsing candidates like Joe Morelle. Colin also spoke on how unions think we’re organizing to support candidates but oftentimes, the politicians are the ones “organizing us.”

Christina spoke about beating apathy by having continuous conversations with membership. From engaging them in endorsements to participating in co-governance with endorsed candidates. This looks like holding town halls with electeds, starting mobilization committees, and shifting the union perspective to an organizing mindset. While not all members have the same perspective, this will lead to a more engaged membership. She also talked about the need to work with community groups to build strength and solidarity.

Overall I was impressed with the panelists’ perspectives on building out an independent program. This is a long term goal to achieve, but I think the first step is educating the rank and file. In doing so, we can hopefully have members active in electoral campaigns, and end the cycle of endorsing candidates who don’t stand with the working class.

Workshops

Throughout the conference there were 5 different blocks of workshops with 16 unique workshops. Overall the variety in the programming was impressive, from union contracts, to organizing history and current politics.

Get a Job to Organize: Salting

This was about salting a workplace. For those unfamiliar with the term, Salting is getting a job with the explicit purpose of unionizing the workplace. Doing so is not an easy task as you have to build out a list of who would want to join in this effort. The workshop went over what it takes to salt, the qualities of a good salt and what the process may look like. The main skill being communication, as salters will have numerous conversations with their co-workers.

Colin mentioned a learning on his end of making sure the timeline is communicated to the salter before taking a job. An example is Amazon as this is a long term operation that is 15 – 20 years and a salter should be willing to commit for several years. In addition, he spoke to the desire to have salts stay through the unionization effort and become shop stewards. In doing so, it can ensure the union stays militant and left-leaning.

DSA has its own Workers Organizing Workers program, which will train members on how to salt. If you are a member of DSA and interested in salting, please reach out to the chapter and we can get you connected.

Secrets of a Successful Organizer: Beating Apathy

Kari from Labor Notes gave this training on how to beat apathy. When we think about organizing, we need to think about our list of members as a bullseye (pictured below). This helps determine the level of membership involvement in a given union/organization. The training covered different reasons members wouldn’t get engaged and proposed solutions to counter that.

Once we’ve built out our list, the training went over common barriers as to why people might not engage. These four barriers were fear, hopelessness, division and confusion. The room was ask to split amongst those four barriers. In each group, we were asked to give an example of our word and then provide solutions to beating this. 

Secrets of a Successful Organizer: Assembling your Dream Team

Assembling your Dream Team is a continuation from the previous session of Beating Apathy. This workshop went over how to identify leaders within a workplace and bring them into your organizing committee. From there building out a list of your workplace and identifying your members/coworkers who are core, active, disengaged, supportive and hostile. Kari stressed the importance of listwork to identify members that could be leaders.

The workshop had us go through two scenarios. One where we were trying to organize a workplace to wear stickers. This was to get us to think of mapping out our workplace, who works there, who talks to who. From there we went over ways to identify leaders in the workplace. Lastly we went through a scenario of identifying leaders for an organizing committee at a hotel.

My work with member engagement has familiarized me with the bullseye method. While it is tedious to go through around 550 records, it is important work. Identifying where members lie helps us determine who we need to reengage with and potentially turn into active members. In doing so, we can build leadership and bring members up within the chapter.

What NOT to do if you want an active membership

The final workshop I attended was things not to do if you  want membership engaged. Colin led this workshop and was mainly posing questions to the audience. The first was about involvement and why members don’t engage or get involved. Answers ranged from cliques and gatekeeping to lack of understanding from membership. 

Second was phrases used that people have heard. Responses included “That’s how it’s done,” “That’s not how it works.” Of the responses, it was noted that sometimes these  are valid. On the other hand, we also must think about what message  that conveys  to membership. Does it allow them to engage or eventually solve the issue on their own?

The session ended with asks for all the organizers present to:

1. Invite
2. Listen
3. Delegate
4. Train
5. Support
6. Move on

The workshop for me helped change my perspective about how I answer questions members may direct at me. Instead of taking on the work myself, am I able to delegate and empower said members. In doing so this can help create a more involved membership and also build the skills members need to become leaders.

Day 1 Closing: New Union Organizing

The Day 1 closing was a panel about new union organizing. This included RUNAP, Webster & Penfield EMT (Teamsters 118?), U of R Grad Labor Union (SEIU 200) and Home Healthcare Workers (1199 SEIU). Each of the panelists were given the same set of questions to answer.

One question that stood out to me was about tactics they tried that fell flat. For the Webster & Penfield EMT, it was them not anticipating how aggressive the union busting campaign would be. While they did prepare, it was far more hostile than what they expected. The same was also said for the U of R grad union, as UofR changed tactics once Trump was re-elected in 2024. Matt from RUNAP mentioned ensuring that people stay involved and enthusiastic, but their expectations don’t go beyond what the union can actually do. This leads to needing to educate membership. Lastly, Mike from 1199 SEIU emphasized the importance of tools and speed for organizing the ~200,000 home healthcare workers in New York who are now eligible for union membership.

Through organizing, workers can create power and pressure on the boss and win. While some, like the Grad Union are still waiting to be recognized, they were able to win wage increases through organizing. With the continued organizing of unions in the Rochester area, we can build worker power and fight for what is rightfully ours.

Day 2 Closing: Upcoming Labor Fights

The final panel of the conference was on upcoming labor fights here in the Rochester area. This included 1199 SEIU, SEIU 200 and RUNAP. This covered the two largest employers in the area: University of Rochester and Rochester Regional Health. As stated during the panel, these employers set the economic health of the Rochester region. If they underpay their workers, it brings down wages across the entire community.

Part of the panel discussed bargaining units and what the main concerns of their members are. Overall, the top concern was health care and benefits. It’s no secret that companies have moved the American population over to high deductible plans to allow wealth transfer to insurance CEOs. I asked the panelists how the NY Health Act (Single payer health care) would benefit them during bargaining. The panelists were all in favor of the bill noting it would allow them to not spend the fight on health care, and bargain for other benefits such as child care. 

Overall Thoughts

First I want to recognize the organizing effort that went into this by my fellow WAR members. From reaching out to unions, to getting panels and booking the venue. I appreciate the work that was done to make this a successful event. I think for the first ever conference I enjoyed going to it and did learn from it and view it as a success. 

From what I talked with others, some of the workshops could be improved. However I think that is somewhat standard for conferences given that not every workshop will be a success. Perhaps more vetting and walkthroughs of the workshops might be helpful prior to the conference. In addition, evaluations of the workshops can also help the presenters as well. 

Outside of ROC DSA there were a handful of other DSA members that attended the event. The beginning panel had two DSA members on it calling out socialism explicitly. I think as DSA we should continue to build relationships with members of unions. I think conferences like this are a great opportunity to learn more about local organizing efforts and have direct conversations with union members.

To me, the best part was the opening panel as it spoke to the need to divert resources and power from the establishment. In doing so, we can elect people who will actually support and fight for the working class, rather than use us  for a photo op. 

This conference helped reshape the way I view myself as an organizer and the actions I take. The people I talked to were in some form of elected leadership or staffers, with some unelected rank and file members. My hope with this conference is to have more unelected rank and file members join in the coming years. I was impressed with how the conference went and I’m looking forward to the next one.

The post Rust Belt Rising first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Plus a plan for universal healthcare in Pennsylvania, a stand with nurses in Boston, and two high-profile mayoral endorsements in this month’s edition of “Chapter and Verse.”

The post Curtain Closing on 2026 Primaries appeared first on Democratic Left.

Photos from the vigil and protests following the murder of Corey Ruiz, July 22–Aug. 4, 2026.

If you’re in one of the photos and would like to be removed, you can contact us through the Submissions page.

As someone with a space science background and a long-term interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), I could not avoid the recent film on that topic, Disclosure Day. The film fits within the genre of UFO flicks dating back at least to the classic The Flying Saucer (1950), the first film on the topic. The film’s release also coincides with recent testimonies of government officials claiming that the U.S. government is secretly studying and reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology and the recent study by NASA on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs).

In Disclosure Day, the character Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) goes rogue against his company, the Wardex Corporation, a government contractor that works with extraterrestrial technology and experiments on captured extraterrestrials with the goal of reverse-engineering their technology. Kellner, believing his company is on the wrong track, steals a device called the Archive, which. contains records of extraterrestrial technology dating back to the Roswell incident. Kellner is almost caught, but escapes with his girlfriend, Jane (Eve Hewson).

Meanwhile, in Kansas City,  news meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) has an incident where she speaks in an unknown language. Unbeknownst to her, Margaret is speaking in an extraterrestrial language. After this incident, Margaret is pursued by Wardex agents and eventually encounters Daniel. The two eventually realize that they were both abducted as children by extraterrestrials and given complementary powers. Near the end of the film, they team up with ex-Wardex agents to reveal the truth of the existence of extraterrestrials to the world. 

Disclosure Day fits in with recent films in which the extraterrestrials are portrayed in such a way to make them seem more mysterious. This includes films like Arrival (2016) and Interstellar (2014) where the extraterrestrials are portrayed as mysterious, even godlike, but ultimately benevolent and films where the extraterrestrials are portrayed as malevolent or Lovecraftian, such as the 2016 film adaptation of The Three Body Problem, a science fiction novel by the Chinese author Cixin Liu. In a post-secular world, it could be argued that godlike extraterrestrials, whether benevolent saviors of humanity or Lovecraftian monstrosities, are an example of the current appetite for the re-enchantment of the world.

One of the ways this type of re-enchantment overlaps with politics is a curious left-wing political tradition that sees advanced extraterrestrials as playing a key role in advancing human progress. The Argentinean revolutionary Juan Posadas, founder of Fourth International Posadism, wrote an essay in 1968 arguing that spacefaring extraterrestrials, being more technologically advanced than humans, would also need to be more socially advanced and therefore socialist. Posadas believed that the socialist countries should call upon extraterrestrials to help them in the fight against capitalism. 

Another example of a space religion that significantly influenced left-wing movements is Russian cosmism. Russian cosmism was founded by the Russian Orthodox mystic Nikolai Fyodorov, who was also a mentor to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the father of Soviet and Russian spaceflight. Fyodorov believed that science would one day resurrect the dead and that space colonization would be required to make room for everyone who was to be resurrected. 

Russian cosmism was initially suppressed in the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, it continued to influence the Soviet space program. The initial Soviet headstart in the space race with launching Sputnik 1, the first satellite, into space in 1957 and launching the first human, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, into space in 1961 were both hailed in the Soviet Union as the victory of socialism over capitalism, proof that space exploration was intrinsic to progress.

While Russian or Soviet cosmism did not necessarily involve extraterrestrials, it did form the background of Soviet speculation about life on other planets. This included science fiction authors, such as the Russian revolutionary and scientist Alexander Bagdonov, who wrote Red Star about a Martian civilization that had achieved socialism. It also included scientists, such as the astronomer Nikolai Kardashev, the inventor of the Kardashev scale, which classifies hypothetical civilizations by energy capacity output, and the astronomer Iosif Shklovsky, the pre-eminent SETI research scientist in the Soviet Union and co-author of the book Intelligent Life in the Universe in 1966 with the U.S. astronomer Carl Sagan.

Like their U.S. counterparts, Soviet scientists and science fiction authors interested in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence showed an openness to learning from intelligences other than their own. In the NASA report Anthropology, Archaeology, and Interstellar Communication,  extraterrestrials are referred to as the “ultimate others” in an essay by Ben Finney and Jerry Bentley. This perhaps unintentionally echoes more traditional religious movements that emphasize hospitality and love of “the other.” The late Pope Franics wrote about “the sacred ground of the other” in his apostalic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

An older example of such thinking in religious contexts is the tradition of Marguerite Porete (c. 1258-1310), a medieval mystic and member of the Beguines, an all-female quasi-monastic lay religious order that was part of the larger heretical Brethren of the Free Spirit. The Brethren were known for antinomianism and libertinism, but also a form of radical hospitality and egalitarianism that is described by the situationist author Raoul Vaneigem in the book Movement of the Free Spirit as a precursor to later revolutionary and socialist movements.

Porete, in her book The Mirror of Simple Souls, taught that a person needed to go through stages of increasing self-denial and realization of God’s love in order to become truly free to submit to the Holy Spirit. One stage of this was to see God as the ultimate other. In seeing God as the ultimate other, the person would then become more open to the other in general and be able to truly love others. 

The current political scene not just in the United States but around the world is defined by increasing hostility toward the other as well as hostility toward immigrants and refugees across the United States; Europe; and, recently, South Africa and Australia. The underlying issues behind these conflicts are complex and solutions are still unclear. But one thing that is clearly needed is greater openness to embracing and cooperating with the other to create a world that is less unequal and more peaceful, one in which we can solve problems such as the climate crisis and the risk of misaligned artificial intelligence. 

Perhaps an encounter with the ultimate other, whether divine or extraterrestrial and whether good or bad, would enable us to have better encounters with the “others” who live next to us and are not all that different from us in the cosmic scheme.

The post Disclosure Day and the Ultimate Other appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

by Gregory Lebens-Higgins

On July 14, 2026, the national body of the Democratic Socialists of America released Workers Deserve More, a program outlining the organization’s goals and values. Workers Deserve More was drafted by a committee consisting of members of the National Political Committee, leaders of other national committees, and rank and file members following a process outlined by a resolution passed at DSA’s 2025 National Convention. 

Upon its release, Workers Deserve More received significant attention in mainstream media. The coverage has provided free advertising for DSA’s popular demands such as universal healthcare, improved working conditions, and replacing the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Appearing on Fox News, DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer was pressed on the earnestness of these demands. Host Shannon Bream projected DSA’s proposals on screen and asked a series of true/false questions – Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them? “Yep,” replied Romer. Abolish ICE? “Absolutely.”

Among these demands, the call to abolish the Senate has been met with a particularly strong reaction. On newspaper opinion pages, in exchanges with the public at chapter tabling events, and across the family dinner table, it is greeted with a tone of disbelief: “No, seriously, democratic socialists want to abolish the Senate,” exclaims USA Today. As Red Star contributor Jean Allen recently noted, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of America’s undemocratic institutions.” Our indoctrinated attachment to American institutions and the mystification of their undemocratic nature limits our possibilities for creating something better.

James Madison, architect of the Constitution, wrote clearly of his antidemocratic intent. In the tenth of The Federalist Papers, a series of arguments published to support the ratification of the Constitution, Madison considers the problem of “control[ling] the violence of faction.” It is not mere difference of taste or opinion to which Madison is referring, but opposing class interests. “The most common and durable source of factions,” he writes, “has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” Madison continues,

“Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”

The “principal task” of the Constitution is to suppress the struggle between these opposing interests, or at least to ensure the property-holding faction is never on the losing side. The task is achieved by dissipating the popular will and by impeding the ability to reform entrenched power structures. The Senate carries out both of these functions.

The United States Senate website (Senate.Gov) explains the “Idea of the Senate” by adopting the remarks of British Liberal politician and later ambassador to the United States James Bryce, from his 1888 work The American Commonwealth. Bryce explains the purpose of the Senate as fivefold: (1) to reconcile the independent spirit of the states by giving them equal representation; (2) to create a council to advise and check the President; (3) to “restrain the impetuosity and fickleness of the popular House, and so guard against the effects of gusts of passion or sudden changes of opinion in the people”; (4) to create a body of experienced men as an element of stability; and (5) to establish a court of impeachment for abuses of power by the executive. The Senate has failed on each of these counts. 

The equal representation of states in the Senate was reached as a compromise between large and small states at the Constitutional Convention. This arrangement leads to wildly undemocratic results, with most senators representing more empty land than people. A majority of senators (fifty-two) from the smallest twenty-six states represent only 21% of the United States population. Though California holds sixty-six times the population of Wyoming, both are entitled to only two senators. The subversion of democratic will to states rights should have been decided by the Union defeat of the Confederacy, yet it remains enshrined in Article I of the Constitution.

Bryce’s “body of men [with] greater experience [and a] longer term of membership” has failed to guarantee stability for the country, but has cemented itself as a ruling class. With six-year terms and no recall process, senators are rarely held accountable for selling out their constituents. By amassing wealth and political connections, incumbents in the Senate are reelected at a rate above 80%, and about one-third of senators are currently above seventy years old. As for meritocratic qualification, it is impossible to view Senate press briefings and sustain the belief that America serves up the best and brightest leaders. 

The Senate is an instrument of obstruction. Its most important tool is the filibuster, requiring sixty votes to end debate and bring most legislation to a vote. Thus, policies with majority support are unable to become law. Since the end of Reconstruction, the procedure has frequently been used to kill Civil Rights legislation and anti-lynching laws. More recently, the Senate filibuster has stifled bills on election integrity, LGBTQ protections, workers rights, immigration reform, climate change, healthcare affordability, and more. Constitutional checks and balances more often subdue challenges to power than restrain the powerful.

The inability of the Senate to pass legislation has further empowered the Presidency, which now enacts change rapidly through a flurry of executive orders. The Senate has ceded its role in holding the President accountable. Party loyalty transcends inter-branch responsibilities, and the high bar for impeachment and removal (two-thirds) makes it a toothless and undemocratic remedy. The Supreme Court has also taken on the task of legislating, issuing sweeping rulings on matters that Congress has failed to resolve.

Abolishing the Senate is not something that will happen in a vacuum. It is a maximalist demand for achieving a working-class democracy. To reach this horizon, other significant measures must be implemented. These include getting money out of politics by breaking the lobbying power, overturning Citizens United, and publicly funding elections. It includes creating a more representative Congress by implementing proportional representation and ranked-choice voting, and ending gerrymandering to create fair districts. It also includes expanding democracy by protecting voting rights and ending voter suppression. Each of these demands is contained in Workers Deserve More.

These changes will help transform Congress into a deliberative body that is more responsive to the democratic will. In this context, the concept of an upper house responsible for checking democratic decisions would seem even more ridiculous. The failures of American institutions arise not from too much democracy, but too little. It must be the mission of all democracy-minded activists to throw off the vestiges of upper-class rule embodied in the Senate.

The post No, Seriously, Democratic Socialists Want to Abolish the Senate first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By Kevin Szczesny

To get clean Porta-johns in our workplace, construction workers at the Marriott site in downtown Detroit marched on the boss. Workers from at least seven unions of the building trades were represented, with zero union staffers or officers present. Many union halls were in support of the action, but the work and the application of leverage were entirely rank-and-file driven.

As an active member of IBEW Local 58 (Electrical Workers), I often hear from sympathetic organizers who “can’t imagine how hard it must be” organizing in a largely conservative and obstinate workforce. Our campaign is a contribution to the death of that narrative, and an answer to the universal follow-up question about how these shop floor conversations go in detail.

Day One on the job, as I met my 50 or so fellow electricians, I was immediately overwhelmed with warnings that the bathrooms were going to be unsanitary. I knew before the end of my shift that the issue was widely felt, and every electrician already had the same idea: we wanted the cleaning schedule changed from twice a week to three times a week. I had a long conversation with the steward about what efforts were already in progress to correct the issue.

The first instinct of a construction worker is to “drag” (quit), drive over to the union hall, and pick up a new job. As expected, there was a steady trickle of drags and conditions on site had not improved. OSHA had been called and walked the job soon after my arrival, only to say that the number of bathrooms was up to their standard.

The electrical contractor had been notified, but because the bathrooms were for all of the trades to use, our bosses didn’t feel it was their responsibility to pay for additional cleaning. The local IBEW contract only gestures vaguely to “sanitary facilities,” and protects us explicitly should we leave site to find a “sanitary” facility. This clause was exercised regularly, but no one could say for sure whether the boss was even aware we were leaving.

Over time, smaller issues would pop up and get resolved quickly with small actions. Sweeping compound to control toxic dust, unprecedented changes in break time, trades doing the work of other trades out of convenience: these were things that were easily managed by the steward with one or two voices in support. I got involved with a couple pushes and so was asked to fill in for the steward while he was out for a few days.

When I walked the job to make sure everyone had my number, more than half the conversations touched on the bathrooms. I then introduced myself to the stewards from the other trades, who all encountered the same comments from their members. The idea was formed to take the issue above our bosses and straight to the general contractor (who hires out each trade and is responsible for the job site at large).

A letter was written titled “Unacceptable Bathroom Conditions,” which opened politely and assumed the boss was ignorant of the problem. The letter referenced the impact on our work and a widespread feeling that we were not being treated with respect by the contractor. We suggested that the person responsible for scheduling use our bathrooms for a week, to better assess the need for more cleanings and a wash station. We gave one week for a response.

Every worker who was presented with the letter signed immediately, but reactions were mixed. Most people felt like they would just laugh at our demand, but were interested in the idea of swarming the bosses’ trailer at lunch and forcing them to read it in front of us.We fielded many suggestions, from delivering the letter and going home to tipping over Porta-johns on the way to the boss, and we told our coworkers that if our response date came and went without change, we would be coming back around “to have a different conversation.” This demand had to be made collectively and clearly first so that any future action would be naturally tied to the lack of clean facilities, and we had to start our escalation low enough that further demonstrations would be felt.

Many of our one-on-one talks were focused on assuring the workers that we would circle back for an escalation if the letter went ignored. “This is only the beginning”, “they probably will ignore this or lie, but we need to show that we’re all on the same page first,” “dragging only leaves behind the people who can’t quit with shitty conditions,” etc. We warned of possible counter-strategies from the boss and stressed the importance of demonstrating solidarity, especially across the trades, above all else. We also left out the officers at the hall and our reps on purpose, though we did inform them. We had a lot of conversations about the power in the hands of the rank-and-file. “Every member is a steward” has become sort of a slogan for us.

In the end we had 105 signatures and roughly 35 folks across four trades who gave up their lunch break to deliver the letter. The contractor read that letter, was brought outside to look at us, and immediately conceded to our terms.

Maybe they didn’t know how bad the bathrooms were, maybe they didn’t know how widely and deeply felt the issue was on site, or maybe they figured it was fine to ignore. All we know for sure is, when a seemingly small fraction of us came together with the backing of three times as many signatures, it didn’t matter if we had the hall behind us. We are the union, the working people who don’t walk away from a job which doesn’t satisfy us, and our demands have been met.

Kevin is a trade unionist and has been a member of the IBEW for two years and DSA member for five.

Organizing from the Bottom: IBEW’s Fight for Sanitary Facilities was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

There is a simple action DSA can take to dramatically change the relationship between the United States and the genocidal regime in Israel.

Start talking about their nukes. Openly, aggressively. Denounce Israel as a rogue nuclear state.

Since Israel began developing its nuclear program in the 1950s, its nuclear capabilities have remained the subject of longstanding secrecy and diplomatic silence. The U.S. government has refused to acknowledge Israeli weapons for a variety of reasons; a big one is that a Presidential determination would trigger the stiff sanctions in Sec. 102(B) of the Arms Export Control Act.

By acknowledging and denouncing Israel’s nuclear arsenal, DSA can force political recognition of these weapons and inspire action, such as imposing sanctions on Israel. Furthermore, the non-recognition of Israeli nuclear weapons creates a political asymmetry in which Iranians become the “bad” guys for wanting to deter Israeli nuclear aggression. If Iran wanted to acquire such weapons, it would not be doing so in a vacuum as though a bunch of mavericks had suddenly introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East for the first time. Israel already possesses them and is obsessed with destroying the Iranian state. In other words, the public logic of the aggression against Iran, which was launched with the atomically thin justification of denying Iran nuclear weapons, depends upon the continued non-recognition of Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

The imperialist line is even more absurd given that at least until the February 2026 U.S. assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran had a fatwa (a religious ruling) against building such weapons. Moreover, what is known of Israel’s nuclear policy is that it is alone in the world in continuing to contemplate weapons use against its non-nuclear neighbors explicitly.

Yet, this is not the half of it. Israel’s nuclear arsenal helps explain several otherwise puzzling aspects of the U.S.-Israel “special relationship.”

Why does the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv exercise such extraordinary influence over U.S. policy? Why do countries around the world, despite widespread disgust at Israeli and American genocide and aggression, have been unwilling or unable to forcefully intervene? Why do the weaker nations of the world allow international law to be discarded so casually? What would be needed to stop Israel for good?

The Israeli nuclear arsenal is a key under-discussed factor. The U.S. socialist movement, including our elected leaders, is not anywhere near where we need to be in terms of formal influence over public policy around these issues, yet this shouldn’t mean total silence. We have a bully pulpit from which to speak, and we must engage all levers of power to stop the genocidal Israeli grab for lebensraum.

U.S. support for Israel cannot simply be explained by some timeless affinity with Jewish people, given the history of U.S. antisemitism. There are sticky factors that are tying American imperialism to this specific colonial outpost, and a big one is the bomb.

Nuclear containment with flowers

The American state consists of both a rational part and an ideological part. There must be something that is firmly convincing the rational actors to let the ideologues have their way. Israel is a tiny nuclear state with a huge victim complex that is highly militarily vulnerable should its subsidies be cut off. It is unique in that it is the only nuclear state that is not formally acknowledged. A formal admission by the U.S. that Israel is nuclear-armed would trigger domestic sanctions and begin major reorientations in the region. Of all the countries that have acquired nukes after the 1967 Non-Proliferation Treaty cutoff (the DPRK, India, Israel, and Pakistan), Pakistan and the DPRK are subject to sanctions. India was subject to stricter sanctions, but craftily cut a deal with the U.S. in 2008, and more of those sanctions are being removed. Israel alone has avoided sanctions entirely. Apartheid South Africa, a nuclear collaborator with Israel, also attempted this trick, but when the Afrikaner regime finally collapsed, they dismantled their small stockpile of nuclear weapons to avoid letting them fall into the hands of Black Africans.

Notwithstanding the occasional slip-up, U.S. politicians do not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear status, and Israeli politicians are usually (but not always) oblique about it. This suppresses most official discussion of nuclear policy around Israel, though academics and journalists will sometimes speak up on the margins. Congresspeople do not discuss the issue publicly since it goes against the U.S.’s unofficial but rigid nuclear policy position of strategic ambiguity regarding Israel’s weapons program. It is a strange game where everyone knows the truth but does not speak it out loud, leaving Israel’s status suspended in the air.

It is thought that Israel has boosted fission nuclear weapons and potentially untested thermonuclear and neutron bomb designs based on research data from its collaborations with France and South Africa. Modern boosted fission weapons are an order of magnitude more powerful than the two comparatively simple and morally shocking 15-20 kiloton city killers that America detonated in Japan. To give a sense of proportion, while American nuclear arsenals have had bombs up to 25 megatons in the 1960s, our modern strategy focuses on a greater number of lower-yield weapons in the hundred kiloton range. For the most part, this strategy is more efficient at destroying a given area than a larger bomb of equivalent strength (though the big ones are still useful when used with inaccurate missiles).

In order for a research program to develop reliable weapon designs, it is crucial to obtain accurate explosive test data. Despite U.S. denials, it is likely that Israel collected test data in partnership with South Africa; a part of a test sequence was observed in the 1979 VELA satellite incident when a break in the cloud cover revealed a tell-tale double flash over the Southern Indian Ocean. Seymour Hersh wrote there were three tests, and the one that was caught by VELA was a low-yield nuclear artillery shell according to multiple unnamed Israeli government sources in his 1991 book “The Samson Option.” (Hersh, p. 271)

Said French nuclear physicist Francis Perrin, who participated in discussions about building the reactor, “We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed at the Americans….  Not to launch it against America but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation, we will require you to help us. Otherwise we will use our bombs.'” (Hersh, p. 40). There is an unfortunate realist logic to Israel’s nuclear policy. Since the country is so small, it cannot absorb a ground invasion force the way Russia, for example, has been able to historically. Therefore, since it is nuclear-armed, Israel has implied it will use its nuclear weapons in a first strike against non-nuclear states should it fear for the life of the state.

A nuclear attack in the region would slaughter innocent people in the hundreds of thousands, millions, or tens of millions in a horrific manner. Additionally, Israel is located in an energy-rich region with critical shipping lanes. Such an attack would likely target economic targets like oil fields across the Middle East, obliterate them, and contaminate them with radioactive fallout. Shipping lanes would be disrupted, with ports destroyed or even tight geographic features like the Suez Canal could be damaged. Firestorms started by nuclear explosions could smoke into the stratosphere, which would linger for some time. The reduced sunlight would degrade agricultural output over a wide area (an effect termed “nuclear autumn”), creating famines that could be even more deadly than direct war damage.

This is the kind of power the Tel Aviv Reich wields. It helps explain why the international community has barely lifted a finger to help the Palestinian people in the midst of a genocide where one 2025 projection estimates 680,000 Palestinians may have already perished from all causes. In addition to all the direct sticks and carrots American diplomats have undoubtedly deployed behind closed doors, they can also appeal to reason: You wouldn’t want them to go nuclear, would you?

Such a situation as outlined above would be much worse for the economy than the current self-induced crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one might think that American planners would attempt to mitigate the risk of nuclear war—and mitigate it they do. You can see this in their harsh and unrelenting treatment of Iran, where they constantly talk about preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. While I don’t believe this is their only motivating factor, nor that their treatment is justifiable on a moral or legal basis, it is true that they routinely set back Iranian nuclear chemistry capabilities with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Iran bears American aggression because they do not possess a nuclear weapon. During the Korean War, North Korea had about 20% of its population wiped out in the 1950s by American aggression and was constantly antagonized until they acquired a nuclear deterrent and now appear to be safe. By contrast, Libya surrendered its nuclear program, and its leader Gaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet after America secured the safety of a militant insurgency from the air. Three different countries contradicting American interests, three different nuclear statuses, three different outcomes. Iran has nuclear potential and is resisting; Libya surrendered and was defeated; the DPRK succeeded and is secure. That doesn’t mean acquiring a nuclear weapon is some unalloyed good. It defers one immediate state-wide risk for a potentially wide-area or world-wide one that gets bigger with each country that acquires them.

Israel offers a mirror perspective to examine. They already possess nuclear weapons. If America treated Israel like we do Iran, such as by routinely assassinating their citizens and invading their airspace, Israel would probably perform a nuclear strike, so that approach is ruled out. If Iran treated Israel like America treats Iran, that too could trigger a nuclear launch. Hence, Iran is very careful about calibrating its actions and signaling its position in the escalation ladder when it does act.

It’s not in America’s interest for Israel to wage nuclear war in a highly sensitive region. So how does America “contain” Israel? With flowers instead of swords, in what is frequently termed a “bear hug.”

America provides a conventional security guarantee to avoid existential Israeli anxiety that stems from their extensive history of criminality and territorial vulnerability. The word “anxiety”  is important because Israeli anxieties may become detached from reality, but America’s military commitment must scale with them lest they launch the nukes. After Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, the settler-colony’s paranoia has become all-consuming, attacking everyone and everything around it viciously and without conscience. The Israeli public’s blood lust gives Nazi Germany a run for its money—in 2024, 73% of the citizenry, amidst a horrific slaughter of children, thought that the job the military was doing was “about right” or “not far enough.” With Israel’s international reputation in tatters, and with Israel’s domestic politics stabilized by expansionary war, they are attempting to complete and solidify their conquests with all possible haste, hoping that all will be forgiven, or at least tolerated, in the gleaming light of victory. American military commitments have paced Israel’s expansionist aggression and genocidal revenge.

In 1956, when the Dimona research facility was still in its early phases, Bertrand Goldschmidt, who was present at a meeting of the  French Atomic Energy Commission, shared,: “…They [the Israeli delegation] said that when the Americans will realize we have  a nuclear capacity, they will give us the guarantee of survival. All this was decided before the  Suez Affair.” (p. 39) To put it crudely, Israel has America by the balls, and America is smiling.

Lest you think this is an exaggeration, in the chapter “Nuclear Blackmail” of “The Samson Option,” during the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel was losing badly, and their military was threatening to collapse for lack of supplies. Henry Kissinger was considering letting Egypt bleed Israel a bit and then have the two sides settle for peace on more balanced terms. Instead, the Israelis raised a nuclear alert and forced him into an immediate conventional arms resupply.

In a second incident, during the first Gulf War, Hersh describes how in response to Iraqi truck-mounted Scud missiles that were rumored to be loaded with chemical weapons, Israel raised a nuclear alert that lasted for weeks and visibly pointed its nuclear launchers at Iraq. In response, America offered money, patriot missile batteries, and marked Scud launchers as priority targets. It turned out the Scuds were conventionally armed. (Hersh, p. 318)

The attitude of John McCone, CIA Director in 1961, was reported by Walt Elder, an executive  assistant to the CIA, as, “He thought an Israeli bomb would lead to escalation and then you  could just cross off oil from the Middle East for years.” (Hersh, p. 106)

In February 1968, just before Israel had completed its first bomb, according to Schlomo  Aronson, Henry Kissinger said to a group of Israeli scholars that the United States would not  “lift a finger” to help in case of a Soviet missile attack—right after Israeli intelligence learned that four Israeli cities had been added to Soviet nuclear targeting lists. (Hersh, p. 177)

There is also a historical coincidence that occludes the nuclear aspect in some discussions of the America-Israeli relationship. Around the time Israel acquired its first nuclear weapons, the country also fought and won the Six-Day War. This was the moment Israel proved itself to America and the Zionist lobby started to become included in major decisions. Anti-semitism went from highly prevalent to a no-no. Due to this timing, aggressive containment of Israel’s nukes was never on the table (though there was substantial but ineffective pressure for  IAEA inspections of the Negev Nuclear Research Facility).

Thus, containment with flowers was born. All the incentives align—and while American planners inside think-tanks and the military may not have particularly wanted Israel to get a nuke (though they pointedly looked the other way according to Hersh), American Zionist businesspeople with close ties to the U.S. government helped finance Israel’s acquisition of nuclear technology from France. France agreed to sell Israel a nuclear reactor in exchange for help retaining French Algeria as well as due to mutual nuclear collaboration with scientists when France was building its own weapon.

While sending conventional arms to Israel helps forestall imminent use, it is something of a band-aid. Israel is still a tiny state that is unable to absorb land invasions. This causes considerable existential anxiety. If Israel were territorially bigger, this anxiety would be reduced  (and it would have more natural resources, making it more self-sustaining). Thus, there is at least one rational basis for at least some U.S. planners to support the “Greater Israel” project to take over the Middle East even though there is no possible legal or moral justification for this concept.

Another dismal aspect to consider is that based on the disclosures by Mordecai Vanunu, Israel likely has advanced “clean” neutron weapons that have vastly reduced fallout compared to standard designs. (Hersh, p. 199-200) This has serious implications because it increases their willingness to use nuclear weapons in proximity to nearby population centers – such as Gaza.

One shouldn’t assume that just because our government supports Israel and doesn’t publicly mention their nuclear capability doesn’t mean the military doesn’t make certain considerations for it. Despite my longstanding serious grievances with the U.S. military, I don’t think they would like other countries to be freelancing nuclear war. Therefore, the deployment of naval vessels and bases around Israel possibly has a dual purpose. If Israel plays along, we use those assets to protect their territory and reduce their existential dread. If they launch nuclear missiles, those assets can be used to try to shut down their remaining launch capability, and in certain lucky cases, perhaps shoot down an impulsive limited launch, particularly if there was forewarning. If that shut-down capability is used, the “special relationship” would be over, so if there are such plans, they would only be used as a last resort. Even if they are in place, I’m not confident that the realists would win the argument over the ideologues. According to Hersh, Israel has missiles, bomber aircraft, long-range nuclear artillery shells, suitcase nukes, and nuclear landmines—it is not possible to stop them if they are really determined to use their capability.

containing nuclear apartheid

How can the Israeli war machine and settler-colonial project be stopped? There are some unfortunate facts. The first is that no state will intervene militarily in Israel’s territory in a way that seriously scares them for fear of inciting a nuclear strike. Conventional missile attacks have a much more limited capacity to ignite that kind of fear—air power alone is generally insufficient to overthrow a government. Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen have launched missiles and rockets, but no military has dared to cross the border to assist the internal Palestinian Resistance since the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, when resistance fighters streamed out of Gaza. The focus has been instead on containing and punishing Israeli aggression in very measured ways.

The safest strategy is to aid in causing the nuclear-armed apartheid state to collapse internally via economic sanctions. However, so long as nothing is done about the nukes, they can continue to get away with applying the Dahyia doctrine of total destruction wherever they attack. The unfortunate truth is that it would take decades for a tough sanctions regime to start to make a dent in their nuclear capability.

One should not expect the apartheid regime to fall quietly. When the victory comes, it is plausible that, as in the South African case, the Israeli government would destroy their own nukes rather than hand them over to Palestinians as part of shared democratic governance. We can expect the revolutionaries to have to make hard and swift decisions to attempt to avoid the worst. In the United States, we will need to do our part to support the new Palestinian government.

Speak the Truth about Israeli Nuclear Weapons

Iran historically did not want a nuclear weapon, but given the current unprovoked assault on Iran and the reality of Israeli nuclear weapons, and with their biggest opponent, Ayatollah Khamenei, assassinated, they would be foolish not to consider acquiring a deterrent. In response to this situation of its own making, the U.S. is considering providing civil nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, so if Iran were to acquire a deterrent, Saudi Arabia might not be too many years behind them. This is a nightmare of nuclear proliferation that could cause other countries at odds with these powers to become interested in their own capability. The risks to the region and the world would keep increasing.

There could be some positives if Iran obtained nuclear capability. For example, they could extend their nuclear umbrella to Lebanon and Gaza, much as the U.S. does for NATO allies; this would do much for curbing Israeli excesses and would give the Palestinian resistance much-needed relief from the constant onslaught of the occupation forces.

An Iranian deterrent would secure the safety of Iran from invasion, provide the Palestinians with a lifeline, and contain the Greater Israel project. It might even open the door to the fall of apartheid Israel. However, these positives would come at the risk of a two-sided nuclear war in the Middle East with all that entails—including the risk of entangling other nuclear powers.

The root cause of this situation is Israel’s behavior, the fact of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and the actions of the United States. This can all be avoided if Israel were to denuclearize, which will only be possible if the United States insists on it.

What is our contribution? DSA can immediately help by talking about Israeli nukes officially and pointing out the difference in how Israel and Iran are treated on this issue. This will impede American aggression against Iran and give Iran a political lifeline.

I suspect that some DSA congresspeople have been reluctant to speak on this issue because of the nuclear gag. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has for years maintained a very controversial position of supporting defensive weapons such as interceptor missiles for the Israeli military but not offensive weapons like guns, tanks, bombs, etc. These defensive weapons, of course, allow the Israeli military to commit crimes without taking a hit back. Recently, in concert with the Israeli government signaling they’re okay with it, she has adopted the finely threaded position that defensive weapons are good, but Israel has to pay for them. It is hard to know what someone is truly thinking, but one very charitable explanation for AOC’s bizarre position is a credible fear of Israel starting a nuclear war.

U.S. government officials have been reticent to talk about Israeli nukes for the entire duration of the program, even within the confines of the intelligence agencies. On March 26, 2026, Rep. Ilhan Omar was interviewed on the subject of Israeli nukes:

“We’re able to talk about what kind of nukes we have. We have always been able to talk about the nukes that exist with our allies. The fact that we can’t have a discussion on Israel’s nukes, whether they have it or whether they tried to acquire it, and how much they have… it tells you that the level of fear that exists in Washington when it comes to questioning anything Israel and its army is doing.”

On May 5th, she and thirty of her colleagues, led by Rep. Joaquin Castro, presented a letter to Sec. of State Marco Rubio demanding clarity on Israel’s nuclear capability in stark terms, yet still hedged their language in terms of possibilities rather than a frank acknowledgement.

She came close, but Ms. Omar and her colleagues stopped short of recognizing a reality that has been evident for decades. She did not break the taboo.

Nonetheless, there is momentum on this issue. Breaking the taboo will have impacts on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will rearrange nuclear policy in the Middle East. It will refocus attention on the real reason for the aggression against Iran: ensuring Israel retains nuclear supremacy over its neighbors.

My fellow comrades in the DSA, it is important that we continue to raise the banner of Palestine every chance we get and build pressure to disarm Israel. It is clear that this is a central challenge of our time. We must be able to push boundaries. We must defend the humanity of Palestinians and support the fall of the apartheid state as quickly as possible.

We must talk about denuclearizing Israel.

reference

Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. 1. ed., 2. print, Random House, 1991. ISBN 0-394-57006-5

In remarks on the House floor, U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib contrasted the goals of democratic socialists with Republican policies that immiserate Americans.

The post Tlaib responds to House Resolution Condemning Socialism appeared first on Democratic Left.

Hey, comrade! The latest edition of the Pinellas DSA newsletter is here!

August was another exciting month of base building and growth for our chapter. In fact, we concluded the month with an exciting milestone: we’ve now officially had more than 100 new and prospective members of Pinellas DSA attend an orientation this year!

Of course, that’s just one of the highlights we’ve got to talk about. Read on to learn more about what we’ve been keeping busy with!

August Highlights

As I’m sure you’re aware, our Dump Duke campaign has been steadily gaining traction for well over a year now. But, our members decided this month to launch two additional campaigns for our chapter to undertake — the DeFlock St. Pete initiative and the No On 3 campaign. We’ll provide more details about each of these new campaigns below.

Looking beyond The Bay — unfortunately, despite knocking over 41,000 doors and making over 750,000 calls the campaign to elect our comrade Oliver Larkin to congress down in Broward County was unable to overcome the nearly $3 million raised by Zionist reactionary and self-styled “DeSantis Democrat” Jared Moskowitz. But, the big story on election night was the incredible upset pulled off by Jacksonville DSA member Angie Nixon to win the Democratic nomination for the US Senate! Angie’s campaign caught the pollsters off guard, winning a commanding victory against Alex Vindman. We’ll be following Angie’s campaign closely over the next two months!

CAMPAIGN LAUNCH: DeFlock St. Pete

More than 100 community members came out to the Barack Obama Library in St. Pete on the morning of Saturday, August 15, for the initial interest meeting for the new DeFlock St. Pete initiative.

If you’re not familiar, Flock cameras are AI-enabled surveillance devices capable of tracking the movements of vehicles and people across an entire community. This private company, made possible with investment from Peter Thiel and other authoritarian elites, is creating vast collections of data about where you go and when you go there, all with no democratic input from the public. And, they’re just one of the vendors attempting to expand the surveillance state into our communities.

We maintain that these devices are tools of racial and class violence. And, the people of St. Pete clearly agree — turnout for our campaign launch event was overwhelming. In fact, we had at least two dozen community members who unfortunately were turned away due to capacity issues. But, that immense response just goes to show that resistance to AI-enabled surveillance devices in our community is a winning issue that our members were right to begin organizing around.

The DeFlock St. Pete campaign is going to be voted on for endorsement by the chapter at our next General Body Meeting. If endorsed, we will ramp up the campaign under the purview of our Socialists in Office Working Group. If you want to learn more about this new campaign, check the Discord and be sure to mark the next Socialists in Office Working Group meeting on your calendar on September 30!

Click here to learn more about the DeFlock St. Pete campaign

CAMPAIGN LAUNCH: No On 3

Property taxes are a vital source of revenue for local governments in Florida. The taxes paid by property owners fund emergency services, libraries, transportation, flood infrastructure, schools, and many more of the services we all rely on every day, and represent the only form of progressive taxation in Florida. But, the far-right state government are insistent on trying to eliminate this vital lifeline for our communities by pushing Amendment 3, which will dramatically increase the homestead exemption, thereby cutting billions of dollars annually in tax revenue to our local governments.

In response, we announced the launch of our No on 3 campaign at a kickoff event Thursday night at the Clearwater East Community Library in Clearwater. The campaign is an effort to educate Floridians about Amendment 3, and raise awareness of its potential consequences for local governments, public services, and communities across Florida.

This initiative will be focused on educating the public and driving turnout to ensure that Floridians collectively say “No on 3!” this November.

Click here to learn more about the No on 3 campaign

Upcoming Events

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

PDSA September General Body Meeting

Sunday, September 6 from 2:00–4:00pm. Barack Obama Main Library (3745 9th Ave N. in St. Pete) or on Zoom. RSVP here for updates or to attend via Zoom.

Health Justice Working Group Meeting

Monday, September 7 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only! See the Discord for the Zoom link.

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, September 8 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only meeting; here is the Zoom link.

Canvass at The Portland Apartments

Thursday, September 10 from 6:00–7:30pm at The Portland Apartments (300 8th St N. in St. Pete). Inform tenants of the power of collective action and to encourage them to attend a tenants meeting where they can tackle issues facing the property together.

“No On 3” Canvass — North County

Saturday, September 12 from 10:00am — 1:00pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

Dump Duke Canvass

Saturday, September 12 from 10:30am — 1:30pm. Meet at Wildwood Park (tentatively).

PDSA Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, September 13 from 7:00–8:30pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

DSA Political Program Meeting

Monday, September 14 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meet in the Hybrid Room to discuss Workers Deserve More and develop the chapter’s political program.

Canvassing at The Morgan Apartments

Tuesday, September 15 from 6:00–7:30pm. Canvassing at the Morgan to keep tenants informed on the campaign to prevent another slumlord by pressuring the City of St. Pete to purchase the Morgan and turn it into city-owned public housing. Meet in front of the Family Pak & Ship (2822 54th Ave S. in St. Pete).

“No On 3” Phone Bank

Wednesday, September 16 from 6:00–8:00pm. Check Discord for more details.

Housing Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, September 22 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Joint meeting of the Pinellas DSA Housing Working Group and St Pete Tenants Union to decide action on tackling the exploitative capitalist housing system. Zoom link.

Interest Meeting & New Member Orientation

Saturday, September 26 from 2:30–4:00pm at Barbara S. Ponce Public Library (7770 52nd St N. in Pinellas Park). RSVP here.

“No On 3” Canvass — North County

Sunday, September 27 from 10:00am — 1:00pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

North County Meeting

Sunday, September 27 from 1:00–2:30pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Monday, September 28 from 6:30–8:00pm.Zoom only meeting; check Discord for more details.

“No On 3” Phone Bank

Tuesday, September 29 from 6:00–8:00pm. Check Discord for more details.

Socialists in Office Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, September 30 from 6:30–8:00pm. Meeting location will be available in Discord.

2nd Annual Tri-Chapter Social

Saturday, October 3 from 12:00–5:00pm at John Chesnut Sr. Park (2200 East Lake Rd S. in Palm Harbor). Meet comrades from Tampa DSA and Pasco-Hernando DSA for a potluck in the park! RSVP here.

PDSA October General Body Meeting

TENTATIVE: Sunday, October 4 from 2:00–4:00pm. Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete) or on Zoom. RSVP here for updates or to attend via Zoom.

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

If you would like to create an event on the Pinellas DSA calendar, please contact the Steering Committee no later than two weeks prior to the requested event date. You can always check the Pinellas DSA website for our full chapter calendar and email us with any questions at dsa.pinellas@gmail.com.

We hope to see you at some upcoming events!

Follow us on social media:

Instagram: @pinellasdsa
Twitter: @pinellasdsa
Bluesky: @pinellasdsa.bsky.social
Facebook: facebook.com/pinellasdsa
YouTube: @pinellasdsa

An occasional round-up of media coverage of DSA.

The post Socialism’s Summer Isn’t Over — And Neither Is the Media’s Fascination appeared first on Democratic Left.