The democratic road to socialism needs state power, so democratic socialists need to engage in and win elections. Why? Once the office is won, it can be used to win strategic reforms, move more people into working-class ‘for itself’ activity, and accelerate the break away from capitalism. For that to happen, elected officials need to be guided by a socialist theory of change and make choices based on information and experiences coming out of working-class activity. 

Over the last decade or so, socialists have been bedeviled by electoral strategy. This is in part because we have been getting the order of operations wrong. If ‘accountability’ has to happen after the fact, your electoral strategy has already failed. It means the officeholder feels comfortably disconnected from the organization and the political program it has developed, and empowered to act in a way that directly conflicts with that program. Any accountability process is more likely to drive an even bigger division between the office and the organization.

In response to this reality, many democratic socialists have theorized how to develop ‘cadre’ candidates who will be disciplined by virtue of the fact of being ‘cadre’, and therefore less likely to act in a way that requires ‘accountability’. If the candidate owes their political development to the organization, goes this theory, they simply won’t break from the organization. 

The problem is that this ignores institutional pressure. Starting as ‘cadre’ does not address the immense pressure on elected officials from formal party apparatuses, organized constituencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), non-profits, and other state and non-state organs. Setting aside the very real phenomenon of opportunists, even the most earnest and sincere cadre candidate will only be able to resist that institutional pressure for so long until compromise builds on compromise and one day they find they are no longer cadre at all.

So what is the answer? What is our theory for engaging in elections and holding elected office? That is still unclear. Like one of those optical illusion drawings of a vase or two faces, the statement “democratic socialists need to engage in and win elections” can be interpreted one of two ways: that individual democratic socialists (the candidates) need to be elected to office, or that “democratic socialists” as a collective political body via campaigns need to engage in and win elections. 

Unlike those optical illusions, though, there is actually one answer: the latter. The democratic road to socialism requires that the democratic socialist movement, consciously and as a body, determines the strategic way to engage in win, and collectively hold state power through elections.

If we can agree on this theory, we can agree that running cadre candidates may be the wrong way to think about accomplishing our goals. What we actually need to do is run cadre campaigns. Everything we need to achieve through our electoral work can be gained only by this approach: big-picture strategy, mutually reinforcing work, non-reformist reforms, victories for the working class, and wielding state power to bring about a rupture with capitalism. 

A cadre campaign is one where the relationships needed to win and hold office are developed, managed and held by the organization, not the individual candidate; the candidate will always be in a weaker position than the organization. Chapters should pick offices where running the campaign and winning it will be based on the strength of the chapter’s relationships, not the candidate’s. Discipline and accountability will result from that, because conflict with the chapter will automatically jeopardize those relationships. It is not a question of what the chapter can ‘offer’ a candidate in terms of support or the candidate’s stated or apparent ‘loyalty’ to the organization. It is a matter of the practical power the chapter holds in a given campaign. It is our responsibility to build our power to the point where we can exercise it as the decisive factor in winning. The campaign, not the candidate, is the path towards accountable cadre. 

The Relationships Needed to Win Power

A successful electoral campaign requires a web of political relationships: to funders, voting blocs, and institutions and organizations that provide these. The first are direct relationships and the second indirect. 

Who  can you call to raise money for an aldermanic election in Chicago? Those are direct relationships. Through your work on a local school council or other organizations, do you know 200 people who would vote for you? Those are direct relationships. A good candidate has both of those. A cadre candidate holds the same relationships the chapter primarily holds; a cadre campaign connects the relationships held by the organization to a specific electoral campaign. The organization’s endorsement (and the process by which it gets to that endorsement) is enough that it can lend its direct relationships to that candidate. 

DSA’s challenge is to build relationships where a democratic decision of the membership results in activating them for a specific electoral campaign – and can also sever those relationships. Will the chapter’s union members build committees at their workplaces in support of a campaign? Will the branches reach out to community organizations and leaders to proselytize for the candidacy? Will the chapter convincingly pitch the campaign to regular PAC donors who are likely chapter members? 

Traditional politics means that leaders of organizations confer and decide on good candidates and good races. That is not a viable long-term strategy for the democratic road to socialism. If a DSA chapter’s relationship is with leaders of a union, for example, that is helpful and healthy; but the real relationship needs to be ‘body-to-body’ – between organizational memberships. DSA members need to make the case to their union siblings and their leadership to make an endorsement; that is how individuals are minimized in the relationship, and discipline and accountability become built into the electoral strategy.

Within a chapter, the candidate is not cadre merely by being chosen, or really liking socialism. The candidate is cadre by virtue of their standing in the chapter and the relationships they’ve developed through their work. The chapter can send out fundraising e-mails, but if there is no membership buy-in or relationship with the candidate, they won’t bear much fruit.

The Relationships Needed to Hold Power

Once an election is won, a democratic socialist holds power; but do democratic socialists hold it? This is why there actually is a right way to see the puzzle. If the candidate’s relationships are held in common by the organization, the SIO (socialist in office)  holds formal power, but practical power is collectively held by the organization. 

The ends will look like the means, always. The way we win power will shape the way power is held and used; the last decade of DSA electoral work bears this out. Fighting over discipline and accountability are just different forms of frustration over failure to develop and execute cohesive long-term electoral strategy. 

No DSA chapter has the resources or relationships to win major elected offices on its own; for the foreseeable future, we will need to bring in other organizations and high-visibility figures to be part of a winning coalition. The question is not whether that has to happen, or whether it will require some degree of compromise on our message. That is inevitable, and denying it only marginalizes us by choice. The question is whether the political relationships that bring those coalitions together are held by the organization collectively, and therefore whether the membership has made the democratic decision to accept compromise or change. 

It should never be the case that the leaders of a chapter are worried about damaging their relationship with an elected official. It should always run in the other direction. That will happen when the SIO knows that if they piss off the teachers’ union too much, it will reverberate into the DSA chapter and vice versa. That reverberation can only happen when members are kept informed and have the opportunity to deliberate and discuss. When that happens, that is when accountability becomes real. The accountability happens before the fact, not after. 

“I am Awake”

In neurologist Oliver Sacks’ book Musicophilia, he writes about Clive Wearing, who suffered from anterograde amnesia and was unable to form new memories, and describes how Wearing would write in his journal, “I am awake” each time he came back into consciousness realizing he could not remember anything he had been doing. Wearing lived in a “continuous present.”  DSA chapters all over the country seem to get stuck in these continuous presents, with little institutional memory of campaigns past, of their relationship with various SIOs, and with other organizations. With each new membership bump or leadership turnover, we, too, are awake.

This lack of institutional memory is partly because of our all-volunteer, high-leadership turnover structure, but it is also because there is a culture of quiet around SIOs and other organizations. We’re often afraid to talk about the dysfunctional or non-existent relationship with this or that “DSA elected” because we do not want to alienate them or harm an already poor relationship. In other cases, the relationship is good but precarious, because the chapter knows that other than create mild embarrassment for a couple of news cycles, there isn’t much it can do to pressure an SIO. 

Being more open about the nature and history of these relationships is easier said than done, but it is important for experienced chapter leaders to discuss these things with newer members, and for those members to seek out this history in order to understand the challenges ahead of them. Otherwise, we are constantly waking up, living in an eternal present, doomed to make the same mistakes over and over. 

This phenomenon is particularly damaging to any meaningful electoral strategy, because the SIOs have stability and continuity our organization lacks. As a result, not only can this phenomenon reverse the flow of accountability, but it can harm the SIO project itself, as electeds feel they cannot rely on the organization to provide resources they need – volunteers, policy experts, donors, and organizers – to move their constituencies around a program. 

There’s no shame in admitting that while CDSA’s support may have tipped the scale in aldermanic elections of the past, it was neither necessary nor sufficient to be the only factor. 25th Ward alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez is the SIO who has maintained a meaningful and productive relationship with CDSA, but his relationships in Pilsen were already deep before his winning 2019 campaign. He had strong relationships with an influential local union of which he had been a member, and he had been director of a highly visible and well-respected community organizing group. Byron’s ideological and personal commitment to growing socialism, and his understanding of what only socialist organizing can do, has kept him close to the chapter and its membership, but – quite reasonably – he also knows that to stay in office and potentially grow beyond it, he needs a broad political base, and, as any elected official would be, he is very aware of how he won his two terms.

In New York City, the story of Zohran Mamdani’s capture of the mayoralty is instructive to a degree. Mamdani was an active member of the Queens branch of the chapter; his first electoral work in leadership was for a NYC-DSA-endorsed candidate, Father Khader El-Yateem, in a campaign where El-Yateem lost with a respectable 31% of the vote. Mamdani surely developed relationships in the course of that campaign, but having operated on the campaign through NYC-DSA, they were not his relationships alone. His experience in electoral campaigns revolved around NYC-DSA’s electoral program, including working on Tiffany Caban’s Queens district attorney race. As NYC-DSA grew stronger in these constituencies, it became more possible to win a statehouse race—which is exactly what Mamdani did in 2020, in a district that overlaps with Caban’s current seat. Even after winning, Mamdani attended NYC-DSA meetings and relied on its members for organizing activity and the ability to connect him to labor struggles they were involved with. Interestingly, as NYC-DSA developed its electoral strategy, Mamdani advocated for the “1234” proposal which would have welded SIOs closer together through common messaging and data sharing. A narrower CDSA version of 1234 was defeated in part due to opposition from supporters of Chicago SIOs who were against the idea of sharing of campaign data. 

Mamdani communicated to NYC-DSA that he would not run for mayor if he could not win its support for that campaign, and set about winning over the various factions in the chapter. This was an acknowledgment that he would need major organizational mobilization to make his campaign viable in the early stages, but it also recognized that his personal relationships to donors, volunteers, and labor and community organizations were insufficient to get him the early momentum he would need to compete. Only an organizational expression of his viability could do that, and NYC-DSA was the organization that could accomplish that. The activity of DSA members in United Auto Workers Region 9A won him a crucial early endorsement, and NYC-DSA activity in other unions coalesced groups of members into informal “[X] for Zohran” committees inside those unions that could fundraise, identify volunteers, and agitate for endorsements, as with the United Federation of Teachers and the AFSCME Council of public sector workers. These relationships not only help a candidate, but also undermine other candidates who try to force union or community leaders to make “pragmatic” endorsements against the will of their membership. A chapter needs to be able to deploy these kinds of activities and relationships for a campaign in order to have the result be cadre-in-office SIOs. 

The challenge for NYC-DSA, should Mamdani win, will be related directly to whether they as an organization have the resources and relationships necessary to maintain their place in a governing coalition, or whether they will be rapidly displaced by more powerful institutions.

The post Cadre In Office, Socialists In Power appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

by Blair Goodman

Purpose and Use

This is a training and reference guide (or maybe just a vision) for developing cadres—members who form the committed core of an organization.  It helps participants understand both the skills and the culture needed to sustain effective socialist organizing.

What is a Cadre?

“I liked doing it, Mac. I don’t know why. It seemed a good thing to be doing. It seemed to have meaning. Nothing I ever did before had any meaning.”
— John Steinbeck, In Dubious Battle

In political organizing, cadre refers to the trained, committed core of activists who form an organization’s backbone. The term comes from the French for “framework”—the people who provide structure and continuity to movements. While it has formal connotations from Leninist party-building, the functional distinction is simple: every organization has general members, active participants, and a reliable core that holds it together.

In DSA, we rarely use the term “cadre,” but the role exists. These are the members who show up consistently, train others, and keep chapters functioning between the exciting moments. They provide continuity, institutional memory, and capacity for growth.

How Cadres Develop

There’s no application or credentialing process to become a cadre. You don’t need a degree or professional experience—these skills are learnable through practice, mentorship, and reflection. Most members remain active participants, but a smaller number become reliable organizers who hold things together. Their development combines three dimensions: practical skill, political understanding, and emotional sustainability.

Core Organizing Skills

These are the foundational abilities that connect people, ideas, and action. They interrelate and reinforce one another.

• Relationship Building & Recruitment: Conducting meaningful political conversations, identifying people’s interests, and moving them along a ladder of engagement. Cadres can assess someone’s political position and help them take the next step.
  
• Meeting Facilitation: Running meetings with clear goals, time management, and inclusivity; encouraging participation while moving toward decisions.
  
• Campaign Planning: Designing strategic campaigns with clear goals, timelines, and escalation strategies. Understanding power mapping and leverage points.
  
• Political Education: Leading study groups, connecting theory to practice, and explaining Marxist or socialist concepts in accessible ways.
  
• Communication: Writing leaflets, press releases, and social media content; public speaking; and internal communications that build unity and motivation.
  

Operational Skills

Operational skills turn plans into effective, coordinated action. They complement the core organizing skills by focusing on logistics, implementation, and management.

• Direct Action Planning: Organizing pickets, rallies, and protests with attention to logistics, safety, legal needs, and media coordination.
  
• Labor Organizing: Understanding workplace mapping, union drives, contract campaigns, and how to connect labor struggles to broader socialist politics.
  
• Electoral Organizing: Managing canvassing and GOTV operations, supporting endorsed campaigns while maintaining DSA’s independence.
  
• Coalition Building: Working across organizations with different traditions, balancing principled positions and practical collaboration.
  
• Administrative & Digital Competence: Maintaining data (Action Network, VAN), budgeting, fundraising, and using communication tools effectively (Slack, Signal, Zoom, Canva).
  

Political and Theoretical Knowledge

Political grounding keeps cadres oriented and principled through complex or demoralizing conditions. Theory clarifies purpose and prevents burnout or disorientation.

• Ideological Literacy: Understanding different left traditions (Marxism, democratic socialism, anarchism, etc.) and how to navigate a multi-tendency space.
  
• Historical Awareness: Drawing lessons from labor, civil rights, and socialist movements—successes and failures alike.
  
• Current Analysis: Following political developments, class composition shifts, and right-wing organizing, connecting analysis to action.
  
• Organizational Theory: Understanding democratic structures, accountability, and how to balance democracy with effectiveness.
  

Distinguishing Features of Cadre

• Skill Integration: Deploying multiple skills in combination—facilitating, teaching, and advancing campaigns simultaneously.
  
• Consistency & Reliability: Following through on commitments and maintaining presence through highs and lows.
  
• Strategic Thinking: Seeing how immediate campaigns fit into long-term power-building.
  
• Political Maturity: Managing conflict and setbacks without demoralization; keeping eyes on shared goals.
  
• Initiative & Ownership: Acting without waiting for direction—identifying needs, organizing others, and taking responsibility.
  
• Reproduction Capacity: Training others, sharing knowledge, and building sustainable organizational capacity.
  

Mentorship and Reproduction Practices

The mark of a mature cadre is the ability to reproduce leadership. This happens through structured mentorship and intentional knowledge transfer:

• Apprenticeship: Pairing new members with experienced organizers to learn through observation and shared work.
  
• Delegation: Giving others real responsibility, not just tasks, and trusting them to learn through doing.
  
• Documentation: Writing guides, maintaining notes, and passing down institutional memory.
  
• Feedback: Offering constructive criticism and praise as part of a regular organizational culture.
  

Example: A chapter organizer pairs a new comrade to co-facilitate a meeting, then debriefs afterward about what worked and what didn’t. This transforms experience into shared learning.

Political Discipline and Collective Accountability

Cadres balance initiative with collective discipline. They understand that personal autonomy operates within democratic decisions. Once a group makes a decision, cadres help implement it faithfully while ensuring dissent remains principled and productive. They maintain message discipline, coordinate action, and avoid freelancing that undermines organizational trust.

Internal Democracy and Conflict Navigation

A healthy cadre culture depends on internal democracy and transparency. Cadres:

• Model democratic behavior by encouraging participation and accountability.
  
• Address conflict directly but constructively, seeing it as part of growth.
  
• Uphold decisions once made while ensuring open, honest debate before decisions.
  

Sustaining Ourselves and Each Other

Organizing is emotionally demanding. Sustainability is a collective practice that allows us to endure and grow.

• Emotional Regulation: Staying calm under stress and managing interpersonal challenges productively.
  
• Boundaries and Burnout Awareness: Recognizing limits and respecting others’ capacity.
  
• Collective Care: Normalizing check-ins, rest, and mutual support. Rest is part of revolutionary practice.
  
• Maintaining Perspective: Seeing our work as part of a longer historical struggle; neither despairing nor romanticizing.
  
• Reflection and Assessment: Building feedback loops—evaluating campaigns, identifying lessons, and celebrating victories.
  

Inclusion and Equity in Cadre Development

Cadre work must be inclusive. Historically marginalized comrades often face additional barriers to leadership. A healthy cadre culture:

• Ensures access and participation across lines of race, gender, class, and ability.
  
• Confronts gatekeeping and informal hierarchies.
  
• Uses practices such as rotating facilitation, accessible meeting times, and multilingual materials.
  
• Centers mentorship that lifts comrades from underrepresented groups.

This essay by Maine DSA member Marianne was originally printed in Building Up, which is published by DSA caucus Groundwork. Reprinted here by permission of the author.

***

When I was making calls last Thursday for Maine DSA’s $19 minimum wage campaign in Portland, a voter asked me, “how screwed do you think we are?,” broadening the scope of the conversation from a single ballot question in a municipality of 70,000 people. I wasn’t sure, I told him. Things look pretty grim. Since the inauguration of the second Trump presidency, we’ve witnessed the brutality and oppression that the US empire has funded abroad come home to roost on the streets of American cities, with masked thugs kidnapping immigrants and assaulting protestors in a show of naked authoritarianism. Republicans control both houses of Congress, and they’re eager to rubber stamp Trump’s far right billionaire agenda.

But it’s not all bad news. A majority of Americans reject rising fascism. Working people are mobilizing to demand something better, but the official opposition, the Democratic Party, is in disarray. In the No Kings protest movement, the Democratic voters are taking to the streets to express their outrage at the administration and its oligarch backers, but also at their own leaders who have failed to resist the fascist takeover happening before our eyes. This raises a question that DSA must answer: Will we meet the mass outpouring of anti-fascist energy where it’s at, seize the chance to make DSA the face of anti-fascism they are searching for, and organize them into DSA? Or are we too afraid that standing next to liberals in the streets will damage our radical brand to even try?

[Read next: What’s at state in Maine in 2026?]

Working people are hitting the streets in record numbers, and we need to be there with them. In Maine where I live, 3,000 people came out to the statehouse for the first No Kings rally on June 14. For scale, that’s in Augusta, a town of 19,000 people in an almost entirely rural state. As socialists, we know that our democracy is flawed at best, slanted in favor of the rich and powerful since our country’s founding. But the ordinary people coming out to protest know that if we don’t defend the limited democracy we have, it can get so much worse.

It’s easy to cringe at the liberal #resistance. I joined DSA in 2017, frightened by the Trump administration and wanting to continue fighting for the demands of the Bernie 2016 campaign. Like so many of my comrades in that wave of newly-minted DSA members, I didn’t think we had much common ground with the pussy hat and pantsuit resistance that emerged from Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the general election. As I saw it, they wanted to go back to brunch. We wanted to build a better world. I was angry at the Democratic establishment over Bernie’s primary loss as much as I was upset about Trump winning the election. And I was living as a man, five years away from when I would eventually come out as a trans woman. In retrospect, some of those liberals probably did want to tune back out as soon as Trump was gone, but many more were deeply sincere about defending LGBTQ+ rights, fighting for racial justice, and taxing the rich, even if we expressed ourselves differently.

Frankly, I was mad but I didn’t feel the visceral fear I do now when I look at what the Trump administration is doing. While Trump may be back in office, it’s not 2017 anymore. This time, only 9 months in, Trump has launched military occupations of our cities and his administration is openly plotting to seize even more unaccountable power. But also this time the mainstream 2025 resistance is built different. The people in the streets are fed up with appeals to norms and decorum in the face of a fascist takeover. This time, they want blood. What they don’t have is a leader.

[Read next: Support, but don’t endorse Platner]

In 2025, corporations and establishment figureheads have abandoned the pretense of opposition. This time around, they’ve chosen to accommodate MAGA rule. The resistance needs leadership, and DSA must lead. We have a duty as socialists to stand with the masses against fascism. In fact, we may be thrust into it whether we like it or not, given the call-out of DSA by name to Trump himself at a White House roundtable on Antifa.

This moment is more than an obligation; it is an opportunity. By joining the popular front against fascism, we can show the millions of outraged working people in this country that we need more than a return to the collapsing neoliberal order that Kamala Harris offered voters in 2024. We can show up on the streets and declare that to fight fascism, we must build socialism. When we do this, we will undoubtedly encounter people whose politics are all over the place or who are brand new to political struggle. These people, like the voter who asked me if we were screwed, are waiting for someone to show them the power that they have. It would be easier if everyone in the streets were all socialists waiting for a party, rather than a diverse group of working people who don’t like ICE agents pulling kids out of classrooms or CEOs raking in millions while everyday people struggle to pay off their debt. But that’s why we became organizers: to turn these people into socialists. One of the best things we do in DSA is develop the skill of talking to regular people about what is wrong in our communities and how we want things to change. We do it when we knock doors and we do it in our workplaces. We need to do it in the streets at No Kings rallies on October 18th.

Sign the petition calling on the NPC to endorse No Kings!

The post Harness street power: endorse No Kings! appeared first on Pine & Roses.

This is a special meeting of the GRDSA Chapter to consider a proposal to endorse and support several ballot initiatives.

We will have reps from each campaign to give a brief presentation and answer any questions. Then chapter members will present a proposal to endorse and circulate these petitions as a chapter.

Michigan for the Many (M4M) is an alliance between the MOP Up Michigan (Money Out of Politics) and the Invest in MI Kids (wealth tax to fund education).

Rank MI Vote (RMV) would amend the Michigan Constitution so that we would use Rank Choice Voting (instant runoff) for elections.

Join us Sunday, October 19, 4pm, on Zoom to hear how these initiatives can empower the working class of Michigan.

The post Special Chapter Meeting: Campaign Proposal Town Hall appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

The following article is the result of a visit to the People’s Republic of China to participate in celebrating China’s 80th Anniversary of its victory over Japanese fascism. Dee Knight and DSA China Working Group coordinator Anlin Wang were part of a five-person self-organized delegation of DSA members.

Beijing buzzed with excitement on September 3, as leaders of friendly countries poured into the city from around the world. They came to celebrate China’s 80^th anniversary of defeating Japanese fascism in World War II and to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) Summit meeting. It was an impressive display of “unity in multi-polarity” featuring Russian President Putin and Indian Prime Minister Modi, as well as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, among about two dozen others.

With participation of most southeast Asian members of ASEAN, as well as the “stans” of central Asia, China was literally surrounded by the representatives of countries representing well over four billion people and nearly half the world economy. Another prominent participant was President Pezeshkian of Iran, which maintains close economic and military partnerships with both Russia and China.

The New York Times called Beijing’s Victory Day parade on September 3 “a defiant warning to its rivals.” The awesome display of China’s military might at the V-Day parade lent “a menacing tone” for Western leaders and media. CNBC said Xi Jinping made “a thinly-veiled swipe at Trump’s global tariff campaign” when he said “shadows of Cold War mentality and bullying have not dissipated, with new challenges mounting.”

CNN offered a more measured tone, quoting Xi: “I look forward to working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system… We should continue to dismantle walls, not erect them; seek integration, not decoupling.” CNN added that “Xi’s vision pushes back against the foundations of a US-led world order, opposing alliances like NATO.”

Russian President Putin commented to Russian media after the summit that “The SCO is not designed to confront anyone. We do not set ourselves such a task. And… during the discussions and bilateral meetings, there has never been anything that could be described as a confrontational beginning during these four days.”

In kicking off the SCO Summit, Xi said “We should advocate an equal and orderly multipolar world, and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, and make the global governance system more just and equitable.”

How defiant is that? (Strange that advocating “universally beneficial and inclusive economic organization” can actually be considered a death threat for the US-led “rules-based” system.)

The massive military display at Beijing’s V-Day celebration left little doubt that China would never allow itself to be bullied again. More than 35 million Chinese were killed in Imperial Japan’s invasion and occupation of their country from the early 1930s to the end of World War II in August 1945. That’s even greater than the USSR’s loss of 27 million from the German Nazi onslaught. Together those numbers prompted Trump to say “Many Americans died in China’s quest for victory and glory. I hope they are rightfully honored…” 

Through the summit, we can see the past and future in contention for a world that’s striving to break away from overwhelming U.S. domination and unipolar rule. 

The “American Century”

The US lost about 420,000 soldiers in World War 2, according to the National WW2 Museum. But it assumed the role of overall victor, launching “the American Century” along with a global war against communism. It has maintained occupation troops in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam and other Pacific islands – all of which are deployed today against China, just as NATO (and its “defensive alliance” against the Soviet Union) continues to threaten Russia. Which side is threatening and destabilizing? It depends largely on your point of view.

During the Korean War, from 1950 to 53, the US slaughtered millions of Koreans, and flattened all buildings of more than one story, in a massive bombing campaign. Its threats to extend the war into China were repelled by the mobilization of half a million Chinese to fight alongside the North Koreans. The US war against Vietnam began shortly after the French colonizers were routed in 1954 and lasted until the US too was finally defeated in 1975, at a cost of additional millions of Vietnamese victims and tens of thousands of US troops. Some estimates put the total number of Vietnamese dying from the U.S. war there at over 3 million, a staggering amount of human loss. Both wars were also aimed at China, and China provided troops and weapons to support their allies in both, staving off further ruin and destabilization within their own territory.

The war zones of today, in Eastern Europe, West Asia and the Far East, are continuations of eighty years of US unipolar domination, both militarily and economically. But the way the US is protecting its interests in all three areas has exposed a blunt reality: the constant official refrain that “America is protecting democracy and human rights” is nothing but war propaganda and mythology. For most of the world’s population, America’s leadership has only meant invasion, coups and more death. 

The US: Sponsor and Protector of Fascists

While China and the USSR achieved major defeats against fascism, the US sheltered and rehabilitated Imperial Japan’s fascist rulers, helping them form and maintain the country’s far-right Liberal Democratic Party which has ruled virtually non-stop for 80 years. (The US CIA did the same for the fascists of Ukraine, and have since sponsored them against Russia.) Japan’s rulers have been obstinate in acknowledging their role in the horrors their empire had perpetrated across Asia, refusing  to apologize for slaughtering millions in their invasion and occupation of China. Ditto for Japan’s 35-year colonial hold on Korea, from 1910 to 1945. In both countries the Japanese imperialists were notorious for setting up systems of “comfort women” – sex slaves for Japan’s occupation forces (not very different from the hospitality enjoyed by US occupation forces across Asia today, but a significant contrast to the status of women in China today).

In South Korea, a country formed by Korean collaborators with the Japanese empire,  the U.S. has sponsored a series of military dictatorships in South Korea, until democracy finally broke through in the 1990s. Such dictatorships were aimed at threatening China, most notably in the so-called Korean War, that resulted in an armistice in 1953 but never officially ended, which has kept Korea split in two and maintained a kleptocratic U.S. client state in power in the south for generations to come. In fact, through the armistice deal, the US working with its anticommunist counterparts in South Korea, awarded itself a forever military presence there, guaranteeing “operational control” of the massive Korean military in case of war against the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea (DPRK), China, or both. Such belligerence underscores the significance of DPRK leader Kim standing next to Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi at the V-Day event. It would seem that America’s network of alliances is now being faced with a counter-alliance of groups and nations no longer willing to accept its rule. 

Even the internal politics of South Korea has been scrambled over the last few months. Its new president, Lee Jae Myung, came to power last June, following six months of intense popular struggle to oust the US puppet President Yoon, who was impeached and jailed after declaring martial law, and trying to provoke a war with US backing. When President Lee visited Trump in August, he resisted US pressure for him to join US escalation against China, which is South Korea’s number one trading partner.

The friendly leaders from around the world who joined both the SCO summit and the Beijing V-Day celebration showed that US efforts to surround and threaten China are failing. Most of the southeast Asian countries that make up ASEAN, notably Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia, attended after recent visits to their countries by Chinese President Xi. The significant exception was the Philippines, where the US maintains a military alliance aimed at China. But like in South Korea, the popular movement against US domination is strong, with serious efforts to force the US bases out, and to help US soldiers refuse to engage in a hopeless war that can only lead to needless suffering and death.

The American century, part two, is in a phase of serious reckoning, as China does what the U.S. has never done, which is build alliances rather than simply imposing its will on other nations. 

Remembering When the US Helped China Against Fascism

The week before China’s national V-Day celebrations, there was a special event in the southwestern province of Guizhou, honoring doctors and nurses from the US and European countries who formed an International Medical Rescue Corps. As this Xinhua article reports, “Dozens of foreign medical workers worked alongside thousands of their Chinese counterparts from the Chinese Red Cross Medical Relief Corps to save lives and provide medical training under harsh conditions. Today, these foreign medical workers are collectively remembered as the International Medical Relief Corps (IMRC).”

On August 26, a delegation of the descendants of these volunteers attended a commemoration in Guiyang, the capital of Guizhou province, “to pay tribute to their forebears and mark the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War,” the Xinhua report said.

“As descendants of the International Medical Relief Corps, we are incredibly grateful to you for keeping our ancestors’ memory alive,” said Peter Soyogyi, whose father served in the IMRC. “For them, as international anti-fascists, this was not just China’s war; it was their own. It is essential for future generations to understand the fight against fascism and the struggle for freedom,” he added.

Following the commemoration ceremony, the descendants’ delegation and a group of solidarity activists from the US traveled along the famous “24-Zig Road” – also known as the Stilwell Road – which served as a supply line from Burma (now Myanmar) and India for medical supplies to the US-supported Chinese resistance to Imperial Japanese aggression. The road was a joint project of US and Chinese forces, and a symbol of their united efforts against Japanese fascist forces at the time.

US commanding General Joseph Stilwell had many conflicts with Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who called for his ouster. Stilwell argued for unified efforts of the KMT and Red Army forces, which led to his replacement.

The descendants’ delegation, and the solidarity group from the US, got a close-up view of the challenges faced by US troops, as well as US and European medical workers, in helping the Chinese resistance to fascism during World War II.

Official US support during World War II for Chinese resistance to fascism was a major factor in defeating global fascism. But the switch to supporting fascism after the war, including up to the present day, poses a challenge to the world’s progressive forces. The existence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization constitutes a giant bulwark in that fight. But the struggle continues, as challenging as ever, as can be seen in the US-backed genocidal assault on Palestine. Just as the world’s progressive forces united to stop fascism in the 1940s, history calls on us to unite even more strongly today. Victory against fascism today may spell the end of imperialism and capitalism, and usher in the common prosperity and shared future the world needs now. China, clearly, in its honoring of U.S. medical teams from the past, and in its willingness to bridge divides between itself and other countries, some who have been less than sympathetic to China such as India, should be taken seriously by those of us studying world events and the trajectory of history. So far, a new world order appears to be possibly forming right before our eyes, a world order promising far more diplomacy than explicit warmaking, a world order led by China and countries emboldened to try a different route than what had been the norm under U.S. unipolarity for generations. The recent summit exemplifies this new possible path that China and other countries are now willing to risk against the terrorism of the West. 

Photo: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea Kim Jong Un, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto at China’s Victory Day military parade in Beijing. Courtesy of the government of Indonesia.

In 2020, Portland DSA led a large coalition of unions, community organizations and elected officials to win our largest victory to date: Preschool for All! This program will provide universal preschool for all children in Multnomah County by Fall 2030, with living wages for teachers, all paid for by a small tax on Portland’s highest earners. Preschool For All is now in its 5th year of a 10-year rollout, and continues to advance, developing significant infrastructure  and capacity expansion in early learning and care.

But before we even won at the ballot in 2020, the establishment was aggressively against us. In early 2020 they took us to court to stall our signature gathering. Despite that, and amid the Covid-19 crisis that year, we organized to collect an astonishing 32,000 signatures in under 5 weeks – nearly 10,000 more than were required! 

Unsurprisingly, powerful and wealthy business interests have continued to relentlessly attack PFA, using all sorts of dirty tricks in an effort to avoid paying the small tax that funds it. We and our allies are paying close attention, however, and our tightly focused class analysis has been instrumental in overcoming every attack. 

2025 Brings New Attacks

In an article published on June 18 by Willamette Week, Governor Tina Kotek was quoted as suggesting to Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pedersen a restructure of the Preschool for All tax. In the Willamette Week article, Kotek is described as making the argument that the tax is causing Portland’s wealthy “job-creators” to flee the city. This assessment couldn’t be further from the truth.

Kotek’s argument was based on spurious data: in a chart created by economist Mary King and posted on Bluesky by DSA member and Portland City Councilor Mitch Green, the data clearly show that the percentage of high-income earners in Multnomah County is dramatically increasing. “Basically, everyone has adopted uncritically this idea that the people who are leaving this county are those exposed to the PFA tax, which just isn’t borne out by the data,” said Councilor Green. With facts like these in hand, coupled with the enormous popularity of the program, we were able to produce a surge of popular outrage that forced the Governor to withdraw. 

The Willamette Week wrote a follow-up article about our campaign to defend PFA, quoting chapter co-chair Olivia Katbi: ”Governor Kotek is declaring war on preschool. She is sacrificing the future of Oregon’s children so that her rich friends stop yelling at her. This is an unacceptable capitulation to the demands of Oregon’s rich and super-rich, whose feelings have been hurt by being required to contribute to the society that made it possible for them to get so very rich.

Kotek’s fear-mongering about the loss of the city’s tax base because of a tax which funds a universal program for every resident of the county is a great disappointment, but not unexpected. It shows how subservient our political class is to the moneyed elite, who pay high prices to get access to elected officials and their political power.

It also hinges on the tired myth that Portland is a city in decline, burnt out after so much conflict. The reality is that Portland is a vibrant, thriving city that the rich want to live in, along with the rest of us. This is true in part because of its social programs, not in spite of them. Working-class voters won this program and will defend it — and Portland DSA is proud to be a part of that fight.” 

Soon after Kotek’s attack, former Nike lobbyist and current Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards tried again, proposing a ridiculous tax-indexing scheme that would have effectively killed PFA before it could realize its 2030 stated goals. We saw that one coming too, and turned out hundreds of parents, educators, and community members to testify at the County Commission about the impact of free, universal and well-paid preschool in Portland’s communities. Ultimately Brim-Edwards withdrew her proposal; another embarrassing waste of time and energy in the service of greedy people who will stop at nothing to avoid paying their share.
It is instructive to observe the difference between the two strategies that the establishment employed against PFA. While Kotek’s plan was simple bean-counting as a handout to the ungrateful rich, Brim-Edwards’ indexing scheme was more insidious, relying on the traditional Democratic Party technique of means-testing all social spending out of existence. Opponents of PFA understand that the program’s popularity comes from its universality, and seek to undermine it through the arbitrariness of means testing and by a slow erosion of administrative restructuring. The universality of PFA is why it works, and the fact that the program provides these benefits to everyone models a social environment in which social care is not deserved by the worthy, but a right freely given to all those who make up the social fabric. Universality is central to the socialist politics that underpin the organizing that DSA does in Portland. A society that works for everyone is not just the world we want to win, but it is how we win: not just a strategy but also a tactic.

What’s Next

Proposals to cut the tax and therefore the program will continue over the next several months, leading up to the next Board vote; probably in March of 2026. Big business lobbyists Oregon Business & Industry have just released a report calling for an economic sabotage campaign against Preschool for All, the Portland Clean Energy Fund and Metro Housing Supports – all popular programs created by popular ballot measures. The business class also want new limits on ballot measures proposing local taxes, because they know that they can’t defend their selfishness against the democratic process.

We will have to demand that our state reps and senators stand strong against further underhanded attacks from the Governor and right-wing legislators, and we will need to be ready to push back against the media hit-pieces that will continue to fester in outlets like the Oregonian and Willamette Week. The wealthy business elite will continue to bend the ears of malleable electeds such as Kotek and Brim-Edwards with tired homilies about the humble needs of job-creators and the generous nobility of the rich, and we will need to be clear with our audience that what that means is class war. After all, that’s the war we’re here to fight. And we intend to win it.

Conclusion

The battle for PFA isn’t over until funding is ironclad and every child in the Portland metro has a secured place. We know more attacks will come, but we will continue to use those attacks to bring more people into our movement. These campaigns give us the opportunity not only to fight for and win necessary social programs, but to show new members what organizing looks like, to demonstrate what we can win, and how we win, when we work together. 

Sign up on the mailing list at friendsofpfa.org and follow us online! If you’re a DSA member (and if not, why not?) you can join the discussion in our discord.

Header image of attendees at our Preschool For All Town Hall. Photos by Chris Hagen.

The post Successes and Lessons from the Fight to Defend Preschool for All appeared first on Portland DSA.

Last night, Wilmington City Council voted 4-3 to enact the Luke Waddell-sponsored “anti-camping” ordinance, which bans camping or sleeping on public property between the hours of 10PM to 7AM. It is no secret that this directly targets the unhoused population in our city, specifically in the downtown area. While there were some positive amendments to the ordinance to make it less punitive towards the unhoused, Wilmington DSA condemns this vote in the strongest possible terms, and applauds council members Andrews, Spears, and Barnett for their votes against it. 

A variety of mental health professionals, community activists, and shelter workers spoke out against this ordinance. They all stated — correctly — that it offers no solutions to the housing problems in Wilmington, and that a cycle of punishment, even if lowered from misdemeanors to infractions, only further traps those experiencing homelessness in  their present condition. It would also exacerbate the problems for unhoused Wilmingtonians dealing with mental health issues or addiction. Councilman Joyner and Mayor Saffo – both Democrats who will likely be asking you to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” in the near future – were the deciding votes on passing the ordinance. Their betrayal of the causes they campaigned on must be noted and remembered. 

We want to be clear: anyone framing this as a grand compromise, or a victory, is lying to you. Any politician or political party that describes this as a positive example of reaching across the aisle to get things done is counting on you being too busy, or bored, or uninterested, to really look at what this ordinance does. This is not a bi-partisan compromise, it is a capitulation to those attacking the most vulnerable among us in the name of protecting downtown businesses and real estate value. No wonder, then, that so many of our City Councilors come from the world of real estate, and openly ignored the advice of the experts who had spent months trying to explain to them why this ordinance would not solve the housing problems in Wilmington.

City Council and the County Commissioners need to work together on a comprehensive plan to create more resources, shelters, and affordable housing in Wilmington and New Hanover County. Policies to control rent, build affordable housing, and create alternatives to police-first interactions are key. These are supposed to be our politicians — we should expect them to enact political change. If they cannot find it in the current laws to do so, they need to write new laws or appeal to the state legislature to do the same. Pretending the problem will simply go away through infraction punishment — which can still require fines or community service from unhoused citizens who often have no means of fulfilling those obligations — is a distraction thought up by those who believe that punishment and heavy policing are the only ways to fix our city’s shortcomings. That future changes and plans for a more compassionate response were promised with no plan for implementing them — despite this issue not being a new one — shows the contempt the city government has for those who organized or showed up at yesterday’s meeting to protest this ordinance. 

We can imagine a better future for ourselves and our citizens. While homelessness has no magic fix, there are examples of working solutions to combat it all across the globe. Our inability to enact them here is a failure of willpower and general disinterest in the actual problems facing our city. Wilmington deserves better. 

Image credit: WECT

By: Dylan Wegela

The following statement was originally posted to social media on October 3rd, 2025 by State Representative for Michigan’s 26th District, Dylan Wegela.

Last night, after a marathon session, the Michigan Legislature passed its General and School Aid Budgets. These budgets were tied to a road funding plan. I ultimately decided to vote no on both budgets, and I hope to outline why in this post. This post is going to be detailed, and I am going to do my best to explain the complexities involved. I urge you to read this entire post, as it is necessary to fully understand why I voted the way I did.

I want to first try and explain our undemocratic and non-transparent budget process. The way we do budgets in Michigan always stinks, but this year was particularly bad.

The Process:

Normally, budgets are passed before July 1st, but this year, Republican Speaker Matt Hall intentionally dragged the budget process out to the October 1st deadline. The deadline approached, and we were facing a shutdown.

It was announced last week that leadership in both parties agreed to a budget deal, and even though they knew all of the details of the budget, they intentionally chose not to share this information with us rank and file legislators. This was done to prevent the public, the press, lobby groups, and legislators from advocating for changes that might blow up the deal.

Several days ago, we were briefed on the toplines of the budget, with some essential information being withheld, and with no way to verify the accuracy of the information.

Yesterday’s session started at 10 am and ended this morning at 4:30 am. I sit here writing this at 1 pm the day after. Exhausted, frustrated, and disappointed.

In the House, we ended up voting on the General Budget around 9:30 pm. It wasn’t until 6 pm that I received the House Fiscal non-partisan summary of the General budget. A 240 page document that is simply impossible to review with any real scrutiny in 3.5 hours. We actually didn’t get the actual line-by-line budget until around 9pm.

We were then forced to vote on this budget almost none of us had seen, with less than 30 minutes to review. This is obviously an intentional tactic used to force votes on a budget. More time to review means more questions to answer. Republican Speaker Matt Hall is the only one with the power to call the vote, and he did.

Call me a radical, but I think that the press and public should have time to look over the budget, provide scrutiny, and ask questions before the vote. At the bare minimum, we should expect that elected representatives should have time to review. To be blunt and honest, I would be surprised if even 1/3 of Reps. even opened the House fiscal analysis to review before voting.

GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T WORK LIKE THIS.

It is the next day, and I still don’t know everything that is in the budget. I will be analyzing it over the next several days.

I want to stress that both of these budgets and the roads package are interconnected. One doesn’t work without the other. I am going to outline why, despite the shell games played to move money around, this budget simply doesn’t work. I first want to start with the budget implementation bills that make this budget possible.

Budget Implementation Bills:

1. Decoupling of the Corporate Income and No Tax on Tips and Over Time:

I voted yes on this bill, and it is one of the most important bills in this equation.

First. “What is decoupling?”

In tax policy, “decoupling” refers to a state choosing not to follow (or only partially follow) certain federal tax rules, even though state tax codes are often based on federal definitions. It’s a way for states to preserve revenue, maintain policy preferences, or avoid unintended consequences when federal tax law changes.

Before this bill, the Michigan Corporate Income Tax (CIT) was coupled with the Federal Government. So when the Big Beautiful Bill Tax cuts were passed, it triggered a tax cut for Michigan corporations. Passing this bill stopped that corporate tax cut from happening, freeing up revenue in the budget.

Additionally, this bill started coupling the state with the federal government for the purposes of removing taxes on tips and overtime, as well as social security. This was a revenue hit, but was offset by the CIT decoupling.

2. Sales Tax & Gas Tax Swap:

These bills exempted gas and several other fuels from sales tax on fuel. Instead, replace it with a gas tax. I voted against exempting these fuels from sales tax.

Here is a simple breakdown of where the constitutionally protected revenue from the Sales Tax goes in Michigan.

Michigan Sales Tax Allocation (6% total)

1. School Aid Fund
2. General Fund
3. Local Revenue Sharing

Exempting fuel from the sales tax means these areas will lose funding. Moving it over to a gas tax ensures that revenue can be used for roads instead.

Schools were set to lose $700 million from this shift. This money was replaced in other parts of the budget (backfilled). Even with this maneuver, I still have major concerns with backfilling school funding from a non-constitutionally protected source.

The local revenue sharing hit is an estimated $64 million. This was not backfilled. Constitutional local revenue sharing is one of the pots of money that cities, counties, villages, and townships receive from the state. At the time of this writing, the amount of money local governments get in this budget is still unclear; it is a bit of a shell game, but more on this later.

24% Cannabis tax increase:

In order to raise money for roads, you need revenue. The road plan proposed a 24% Wholesale tax increase on Cannabis in Michigan. This is estimated to raise $420 Million (Yes that is the actual estimate…), and this money is to be directed into the newly created roads fund. I want to note that some believe that this hit of a tax increase on Cannabis might have devastating effects on the industry. Some also believe that this might force people onto the black market, which could lead to inaccurate revenue projections. Conversations that would have been nice to have, but this was another vote given on minimal notice.

It is also possible that this change will be ruled unconstitutional, due to the fact that the Cannabis ballot proposal that was passed by voters is constitutionally protected. Depending on interpretation, this might mean changes need a ¾ vote to change. (which this didn’t get).

I share these concerns as well, and if this is ruled to be the case or if this is tied up in court, preventing the tax from being collected, the math of the entire budget simply doesn’t work. This would mean local governments would get less road funding than projected under this budget.

I should also be clear that when we voted on this budget, those projections were not available for us to see how each city would be impacted. Even if they were, these projections would be merely speculative.

Even though I had some reservations, I ultimately voted yes on this. I have seen the State Legislature only reduce revenues since being elected. While I think it would be wise to find other sources of revenue, such as taxing the rich. We will never have the roads and schools we deserve if we don’t raise some type of revenue.

Saving Medicaid:

This was another change that was needed because of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. I voted yes on this. Here is my best simple explanation of what we did.

Michigan helps fund Medicaid using a tax on health insurance companies called the Insurance Provider Assessment (IPA), but new federal rules say the current setup doesn’t fully qualify anymore. To avoid losing federal money that supports healthcare for millions of residents, we passed changes that allow Michigan to temporarily keep using the IPA while it asks the federal government for permission and works on a new plan. If that permission is denied, Michigan will need to create a different funding system to replace the IPA. The state has up to about three years to make the transition.

Those are the major bills that were required to make the budget work functionally. Now, let’s look at the budgets. I want to start with the School Aid budget, because what they did to this is at the core of why I opposed both budgets.

School Aid Budget:

The Good Stuff!

• Per-Pupil Funding $10,050 ($442 Increase)
   — Note: You will see people calling this record funding. We have to stop doing that. Is it the highest it’s ever been? Yes. Does that account for inflation? No. Michigan schools are still severely underfunded.
• Free Breakfast and Lunch Protected
   — It’s wild to think this would ever be on the chopping block….
• Mental Health and School Safety Funding increased.
• ELL, Special Education line items preserved.
• At Risk Funding Increased

Things that should never happen:

• An additional $400 million was raided from school aid for Higher Ed (aka a shell game to fund roads)
   — This was one of the largest raids on the School Aid fund in Michigan’s History
   — There is a bit of a shell game here, but this was done in order to free up more money for roads.
   — This isn’t complex. We shouldn’t steal from public schools to fund roads.

In 2018, I helped lead one of the largest teacher strikes in US history to secure $400 million for Arizona’s Public Schools. I refuse to steal that exact same amount from schools today. As I said, these budgets are intertwined. I refuse to support budgets propped up by stealing from our kids.

• $100 million was reduced from MPSERS reimbursement, raising costs for our school districts.
• Cyber Schools are getting the same Funding as traditional public Schools.
   — It simply doesn’t cost nearly as much to run online schools. This just pads the pockets of these “schools”.
• Public Dollars funding private schools.
   — This budget allows private schools to access some public funds related to school lunch and school safety.
   — I am all for requiring private schools to feed kids and keep schools safe, but it is unacceptable to fund them with public school dollars. This is a slippery slope and brings us one step closer to vouchers and other ways for private schools to steal public funds.

Now onto the General Budget. It is important to note again that the General Budget cannot be funded without stealing an additional $400 million from the School Aid fund. This brings the total amount of School Aid dollars being raided from School Aid to $1.3 billion.

General Budget:

• Almost every Single Department in the State had its funding cut.
   — At a time when we are seeing federal efforts to cut departments across the government, I refuse to support a budget that makes significant cuts across the board for no good reason.
  — Republicans will claim they are cutting 2,000 ghost jobs, and Democrats will claim they are cutting no people currently in a position.
   — In reality, there are around 1,000 of these positions that our departments are actively trying to fill; in some cases, these are seasonal positions, subject to regular turnover. Now these positions will simply not be filled. Just because a position isn’t filled, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t work that needed to be done. We should not be cutting government jobs for the sake of cutting jobs.
• The Local Revenue Sharing Shell Game
   — We are cutting 64 million from constitutional revenue sharing.
   — Some types of Local Governments are getting additional road funding
   — It was unclear at the time of the vote and of this writing, the exact breakdowns.
   — Estimates will be based on the assumption that the Cannabis tax holds up in court. If it doesn’t, the road funding would certainly be less than advertised.
   — Like with schools, it is usually a bad idea to cede constitutionally protected funding.

Huge Wins!

• The SOAR (Corporate Handout) Fund has sunsetted (Ended) and will not be funded moving forward.
• I have been fighting to eliminate this funding since being elected! I am happy to see it go.
• Medicaid and SNAP protected (For Now).
• Money for Lead Line Replacement.

Enhancement Grants:

As with every budget enhancement, grants are used to wrangle votes and drum up support for the budget.

Romulus received $1 million for a Fire Truck thanks to Rep. Reggie Miller.

Inkster received $500,000 for the Inkster Cultural Center thanks to Sen. Dayna Polehanki.

Not every rep/district received an enhancement grant. They were limited this year. While I am glad these were added to the budget, it doesn’t change the potential risks of limiting constitutional revenue sharing for all of the cities in District 26, and it didn’t fix the fact that this budget is propped up by questionable math, budget shell games, and, most unfortunately, by robbing even more from our public schools.

This isn’t an easy job, and this wasn’t an easy decision, but I center myself in always trying to do what is right for our District and the long-term health of the State. I am sure there are some who will disagree, and some who will have an honest disagreement with my assessment. There will be others who weaponize it for political victory.

We are in a split government, and things could have been worse. That could be true, but it is equally true that if we had an open and transparent budget process with journalistic and public discourse, it could have resulted in a better budget.

It would have been almost certainly easier for me to fall in line, plug my nose, and vote yes, but I think that is part of the problem right now. We have to stand up and demand better from leaders on both sides of the aisle. Demand better for the people of Michigan. I will never stop fighting to ensure that we have the Public Schools and government we deserve.

In Solidarity,

Dylan Wegela State Representative District 26

Why I Voted No on the State Budget was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

[[{“value”:”

By: James Niedzinski

WORCESTER, MA — About 700 medical residents, represented by CIR-SEIU, are in their fifth month of negotiations with UMass Memorial Healthcare.

Residents are working physicians — often more than 80 hours a week and 24-hour-plus shifts in Worcester — that also specialize in specific fields, like internal medicine or pediatrics. Medical residents agree to work for a hospital, generally three-to-seven years, depending on their speciality. 

“When patients come to the hospital for an appointment, they are most likely first seen by a resident,” said Dr., Dipavo Banerjee, a psychiatry fellow at UMass and CIR-SEIU regional vice president. “Residents are at the heart of the care that UMass provides.”

What the Union Fights For

According to Dr. Banerjee, medical residents in CIR-SEIU are fighting for three primary points: reinstated contributions to workers’ medical plan, a meaningful increase in pay that reflects the rapidly climbing cost of living in Worcester, and a housing stipend.

As in many cases, workers’ labor battle is not just a battle for workplace conditions.

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette reports that Worcester is the third most competitive rental market and experiencing a severe shortage of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) to meet the needs of the most vulnerable fixed-income, low-income, and no-income tenants, against a context of no requirement for landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. Only 52% of people can secure a lease using a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV). That’s down from 93% about eight years ago.

The tenants’ crisis and lack of homes is taking a toll on medical residents, their families, patients and everyone in between, Banjeree said. Maeve O., a second-year resident, right before she met a patient going into labor after speaking with Working Mass, reported:

Honestly, we’re not even asking (UMass Memorial) to pay us what we’re worth, because we know we’re worth far more than what we’re being paid. We’re just asking for the bare basics to cover our cost of living living and necessities.

Medical Residents or Student-Workers?

UMass Memorial management claims medical residents are students, not physicians. Banerjee said:

We are often the first providers patients see when they come to the hospital for an appointment. We wholeheartedly serve as the frontline caregivers for this region’s most vulnerable – caring for the sick, acutely ill, uninsured, and underinsured – while stretching ourselves to fill gaps in staffing and resources that threaten the health of our entire community.

Other institutions that employ student-workers rely on flawed methodology that also ignores the important first provider role performed by residents. But even more broadly, attacks on student-worker rights have increasingly become an arena for labor battle. Earlier this year, Working Mass reported undergraduate workers at Clark University went on strike in their fight for student-worker rights, utilizing tactics informed by challenges to their own classification as workers they anticipated from the NLRB.

UMass management claims they don’t have the funds to cover cost-of-living raises, housing stipends, or medical plan contributions for student-workers. That stance informs UMass’s refusal to meet worker needs. Meanwhile, according to The Boston Globe, UMass CEO Dr. Eric Dickson’s pay increased 26% in 2023 year-over-year, totaling $3.9 million. UMass Medical Center’s former president, Dr. Michael Gustafson, received a 60% raise, during the same time, totaling $2.8 million.

“At this critical time, hospital systems must prioritize putting resources into patient care, not executives’ pockets,” Banerjee said. “When we invest in those who provide care, we protect the patients and communities who depend on us most.”

Management Pushes to the Indefinite Future

A common medical management response is that residents will make much more money once they graduate and finish their residency programs years down the road, resident Maeve O. said. “To me, and a lot of us, it felt like a slap in the face, because my landlord doesn’t care if I’m going to make a lot of money in two years.”

With rising rents, student loans, other costs, and landlords willing to evict, residents can be priced out of the city. Adding a commute on top 80+ hour work weeks can take its toll on worker morale. Patients want a doctor who is healthy and not burnt out and sleep deprived,” Banerjee said. “A fair contract for residents means improvements to our well-being which are inextricably tied to patients and the care we provide them.” 

Bargaining sessions have been tough and emotionally challenging, he added. Nevertheless, residents are building solidarity through collective action across medical specialties. Earlier this year, UMass reached a tentative deal with another union, UMass Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445. Banerjee said that collective effort is a path toward reaching an agreement.

And support has also come from other places. On September 30, Worcester City Council officially passed a resolution urging UMass Memorial Healthcare to reinstate health benefits and bargain a fair contract.

As Maeve O. said:

Our hospital admin folks are good people, trying to do good things for the community… with the financial crisis as of late, it’s been kind of easy to put the residents to the side, despite the fact that we’re the ones that are on the front lines, actually helping patients.

James Niedzinski is a member of Worcester DSA and contributing writer to Working Mass.

The post Worcester Medical Residents Persevere Through Fifth Month of Negotiations with UMass  appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]]