But since my aim was to write something useful for anyone interested … it would be appropriate to go to the real truth of the matter, not to repeat other people’s fantasies. Many writers have dreamed up republics and kingdoms that bear no resemblance to experience and never existed in reality;  anyone who declines to behave as people do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe

Nicos Machiavelli, The Prince

Zohran Mamdani’s victory disrupted politics as they were and inaugurated a new moment for what politics can and should be. It was also “proof of concept” of what socialist strategy might achieve and forced the question: could Mamdani’s strategy be replicated elsewhere? Does NYC provide a roadmap to advance the socialist project nationwide?

This article reviews strategic visions that differ not in ultimate goals but in paths and timing. On one side of the spectrum are those who suggest that conditions favor replicability and a national push now in time for 2028. On the other side, there are those, like me, who suggest that NYC’s campaign is more unique than presumed. Under these circumstances, a national strategy should prioritize expanding power in the most favorable urban areas, consolidating those strongholds, and using them as platforms for expansion when conditions and opportunities allow. 

Replicating the Mamdani strategy where conditions are absent will lead to large expenditures of resources that will likely bear little to no fruit. Yet, consolidation does not mean socialism in one city. DSA can prioritize deepening its influence where: 1) favorable demographic conditions exist, 2) organizational infrastructure is established, and 3) middle-class fracturing creates openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating NYC while expanding in LA or Chicago rather than less viable localities. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic, organizational, and political strategy and readiness.

The question confronting the Left now is which strategy best fits social and political conditions as they actually exist, not as we wish them to be. The Left is particularly susceptible to this error. As partisans, our identities are animated by an optimism that human emancipation remains a material possibility. Nevertheless, the value of our prognoses depend on diagnosing social and political conditions as realistically as we can and moving ahead on such terms.

In search of national replication

 “I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent. —Antonio Gramsci

Many on the left asserted that Mamdani’s candidate profile, message, coalition, and eventual win made clear that the time had come to take the fight for socialism to the national level. At the 2025 August Convention in Chicago, DSA activists enthused about the Mamdani surge precisely because it justified the “universal appeal” of their own foundational principles and norms. One DSA member asserted, “Campaigns like Zohran Mamdani… show that Palestine is a winning issue. That socialism is a winning issue…We can win the Democratic primary in 2028.” At the convention comrades buzzed with ideas about how to “Mamdani” their own locale. Daniel Goulden, an NYC DSA organizer, claimed “I think that the model that we used in New York is 100% replicable.” This sort of bold thinking has an important place in socialist strategy making. At the same time, precision matters.

Antonio Gramsci famously argued, “My own state of mind synthesizes these two feelings and transcends them: my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic.” The challenge consists in recognizing the need to bolster the will of the optimist through statements of faith and solidarity without undercutting the realism needed to exercise the analytical realism of the pessimist’s mind. Confusing desires for what ought to be with real analysis for what is remains a major intellectual pitfall facing all socialist partisans then and now, leading to mistakes that can cost the movement resources, time, lives, and freedom.

The Mamdani Coalition

In a November 2025 Jacobin article, sociologist Vivek Chibber offers a sober assessment of barriers to building a universalizing socialist movement. He explains that neoliberalism is undergoing a profound crisis rooted in both ideological exhaustion and political decomposition. The Left’s ideological evolution magnifies this weakness. Over the last period, much of the Left has shifted toward cultural and identity-centered frameworks detached from material conditions. For Chibber, “real politics…is based on materialism, not on a vibe, not on values.” The Left must therefore reassert economic issues and universal programs rather than relying on moral language or value appeals to drive mass alignment.

Electoral victories only have value if they are a means to building the institutional and intellectual infrastructure needed to sustain the working class as a political force. Mamdani’s win represents an opening to rebuild working-class power, not a shortcut to socialist advance at the national level. A viable socialist strategy must reunite ideology with material interests, rebuild working-class institutions from the ground up, and treat electoral wins as foundations for long-term hegemonic construction. Mamdani’s win proves Chibber’s claims half right. The campaign demonstrated the potency of a campaign focused on material questions. Mamdani won by anchoring his message in tenant protections, redistribution, and public investment.

However, what made victory possible in NYC was not overwhelming support of working-class voters for Mamdani. In fact, he did not win a majority of the poorest workers, nor of homeowners. The decisive class force was in fact made up of those Chibber largely dismisses: overwhelming young renters largely attracted to his messaging on housing, intersectional multiculturalism, and the “values… and vibe” he exuded. This layer of young renters often sees itself as a mutually recognizable, coherent social unit; in fact, it contains white collar workers (teachers, nurses, proletarianized graphic designers, artists, and musicians, etc.), a much smaller layer of few blue collar workers (especially those concentrated in city unions), gig workers, independent contractors, tech professionals, entrepreneurs, low level managers, upper-middle-class urbanists, and even a few aspiring capitalists.

Paths for going national

We can all agree that electability does not require sacrificing socialist principles, as Mamdani showed in practice. However, there are different ways for understanding the when and how socialism improves or undercuts electability across different terrains. Mamdani’s victory generated a surge of momentum that many comrades interpreted as proof of a broader political opening, transforming excitement into a shared belief that the socialist moment had finally arrived. His charisma amplified this feeling: activists saw in him a leader capable of embodying a universal message and carrying it far beyond the city. 

Chibber contends that neoliberalism’s legitimacy crisis has created a rare opening across the entire political landscape, weakening ruling-class ideology and exposing deep unmet material needs. In this context, a leader who articulates clear, class-centered demands can give national shape to working-class discontent. Yet Chibber insists that socialism cannot bypass the long march through organization. National advance requires rebuilding unions, party structures, and working-class institutions capable of sustaining the fight. So what can we take away from Mamdani’s campaign?

A Gramscian case for going national begins not with momentum or charismatic leadership but with the structural demands of the regionally specific “war of position.” [Subsequent Gramsci quotes from The Modern Prince] Because the modern state is fortified through countless institutions (schools, media, courts, bureaucracies, civic networks), any local breakthrough remains precarious unless extended across wider terrains. Gramsci argues that socialism must build national reach precisely because hegemony requires transforming “common sense” at scale, forging a worldview that resonates across regions, classes, and cultural groups. National expansion is not optional escalation but strategic necessity. Yet Gramsci warns that national advance must be grounded in patient construction of a “permanently organized and long-prepared force” capable of sustaining conflict in every trench of the integral state.

Maneuver is an “expansionary” battle within the larger war of position, and any successful maneuver must be followed by consolidation. Mamdani’s campaign represents one such battle: winning the Mayor’s Office captures a single fortification within a vast state lattice of institutions, norms, and counter-powers. Bureaucracies, police, legislatures, courts, and civic infrastructures can all move to neutralize or delegitimize a socialist breakthrough, reminding us that electoral gains do not equal hegemony.

The maneuver phase unfolds through several contingent moments. First, crises inside divided elites create openings when they cannot decide whether coercion or consent will worsen their legitimacy problems. Second, insurgents can generate a surge by communicating effectively, unifying disparate groups, and expanding networks through collective effervescence. Third, the intensity of such a surge can overwhelm poorly prepared adversaries, draining their resources and legitimacy. Fourth comes the actual capture of a government institution, an achievement that remains precarious without deeper foundations.

For Gramsci, hegemonic power means that the dominant norms and values of socialism would legitimize whoever governs, just as New Deal ideology constrained Eisenhower and neoliberalism structured Clinton and Obama. After fifty years of neoliberal dominance, simply winning the White House or a city hall grants position without the legitimacy needed for durable rule. The working class and the socialist movement have clearly not accomplished this at the present time.

Consolidation is therefore critical. In Gramsci’s terms, the “integral state” contains many entrenched sites from which old forces can launch counteroffensives. Electoral victory changes one node of power while leaving most legitimating structures intact. Gramsci warned that old forces concede only to “gain time and prepare a counter-offensive.” Post-victory periods must therefore be devoted to weakening adversaries, securing hesitant allies, and binding an inter-class coalition under a working-class hegemonic vision.

Once consolidated, preparation for the next expansion must begin immediately. Socialism cannot survive in a single city because hostile forces can regroup at higher or lower scales: federal, state, or regional. Class struggle is inherently expansive; withdrawing labor or territory from capital’s circuits creates threats that provoke counter-mobilization. Believing that consolidation alone is enough risks isolation and defeat. For Gramsci, the war of position continues until one side is definitively neutralized or overthrown; there is no stable equilibrium short of that outcome.

Local versus general political conditions

Using Gramsci’s theory of socialist strategy, Mamdani’s campaign is framed as a “war of maneuver” phase within the broader “war of position.” This analysis traces the phases of breaching state power’s outer fortifications, diminished capabilities of repair and closure, and the conditions enabling the campaign’s expansionary surge.

1. Political Crisis Breaches Fortification: Elite Fragmentation Blocks Fast Repair Without Closure

Mamdani’s socialism, steadfast criticism of Israel, and US policy toward Palestine precipitated opposition from key elites within the Democratic Party but not all. The political crisis of the Adams administration and its ties to the Trump administration had already fractured the fortifying power of party elites. The surging popularity of the Mamdani campaign diminished the capabilities of oppositional elites to close ranks in party networks. The result was elite fragmentation and not elite closure. Support from elites came at the cost of some compromises to DSA principles. Mamdani did not disprove the “socialist principles versus electability” dilemma. Rather, contextual factors diminished the capabilities of party elites to “close ranks or tank the game.”

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Elite Fragmentation

Elite fragmentation weakened the capabilities of the Democratic Party to fulfill their fortifying functions but did not deactivate it. Oppositional elites had sufficient power to prolong the campaign, but not enough to close ranks and deny Mamdani support in the general election. Fragmentation proved advantageous: it enhanced insurgent legitimacy at stages of plummeting incumbent legitimacy without costing access to all resources elite gatekeepers control. Mamdani secured approximately 85 elected official endorsements, 12 labor union endorsements, and 15 organizational endorsements, while Cuomo received 7 elected officials, 6 labor unions, and 3 organizational endorsements.

3. Preparatory Conditions: Past Consolidation Sets Stage for Surging Expansion

Past gains through maneuver had been consolidated and used as a platform to prepare and run for the next big expansion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 congressional primary victory mobilized hundreds of volunteers and knocked on enough doors to turn out approximately 25,000 voters in a race where far fewer voters were expected. AOC’s campaign demonstrated DSA’s viability in NYC electoral politics, provided an early proof of concept for the field organizing model, and helped normalize democratic socialism as a legitimate political ideology rather than a fringe position. That win, combined with Bernie Sanders’s two presidential campaigns, catalyzed national and regional debates about socialism, which helped foster recruitment into DSA chapters across the country and region. And NYC DSA’s many years of subsequent work developed strongholds across the city. Consolidation from earlier battles elevated preparation for the next big campaign.

4. Exceptional Expansion: Concentrated Networks as Fuel for Wildfire

Mamdani’s surge remains exceptional. Beginning at 1% in February 2025 Emerson polling when Cuomo dominated at 33%, Mamdani climbed methodically: 16% in April, 22-23% by late May, winning 56.4% to Cuomo’s 43.6% in the final ranked choice count—a 55-point swing in four months. He mobilized 26,000-30,000 volunteers during the primary who knocked on over 644,000 doors, expanding to 76,000 volunteers by the general election with over 500,000 doors knocked and 1 million phone calls. Networks attracted greater resources, labor, monetary contributions, and in-kind support for increasingly sophisticated citywide infrastructure.

5. Messaging: Centering Economic Issues, Sticking Close to Socialist Values

Mamdani’s disciplined messaging on material affordability (rent freezes, free buses, universal childcare) combined with progressive differentiator issues (Gaza, LGBTQ+ protections) helped broaden resonance while solidifying the loyalty of his core base. The message was also refined through constant testing of various iterations in base building politics, deftly exploiting Cuomo’s vulnerabilities from sexual harassment and nursing home scandals to position himself as the honest alternative against a discredited past.

Yet, even accounting for all this, Mamdani secured a thin majority (50.4%), approximately 17 percentage points less than Kamala Harris’s NYC performance in the 2024 presidential election (67.70%). He did not win a majority of votes in Queens, despite large investments of time spent canvassing and money spent on advertising. Mamdani won a plurality in the borough and does not appear to have converted many Trump voters. This was not a blowout or an overwhelming mandate.

Politically, Mamdani’s victory emerged from an exceptional convergence: fractured Democratic Party elites, a delegitimized incumbent administration, and activist networks capable of exploiting the breach. These conditions sharply reduced the Democratic party’s ability to coordinate a unified counteroffensive. Yet such fragmentation is far from national. In most states, party machines remain cohesive, institutional fortifications stronger, and local elites more capable of closing ranks. Without comparable organizational density elsewhere, a national offensive would confront far more fortified political terrain.

Breaking down Mamdani’s votes

Mamdani’s winning coalition reflects trends powering other DSA candidates into city council seats across the country, even if he is the first DSA member to win a mayoral race in a major city. The electoral coalition consisted of:

1. The Youth Vote: Powerful but Not Dominant

Approximately 75-78% of voters aged 18-29 supported Mamdani, compared to 19% for Cuomo and 5% for Sliwa. Young women aged 18-29 were more unified at 84%, while young men gave 68% support—a 42-point margin over Cuomo among young men who had shifted significantly rightward nationally. Youth turnout was strong at approximately 28%, nearly double the 14% in the previous mayoral cycle. The key was not that young voters became dominant but that they turned out at higher rates and voted with near-unanimous support.

2. Recent Arrivals: The Most Overrepresented Group

Among voters in NYC five years or less, 85% supported Mamdani—his most unified demographic group. Recent arrivals constituted 15-20% of his coalition while representing only 8-10% of NYC’s voting population. Mamdani’s coalition was young, mobile, renters. His message about rent freezes, universal childcare, and free buses resonated with direct economic self-interest.

3. Middle to Upper Middle-Class Coalition

Mamdani won the majority of voters earning $30,000-$299,999 annually. Those below $30,000 and above $300,000 favored Cuomo—a salient inversion for a democratic socialist. His strongest performance was among voters earning $100,000-$200,000, where he won 55% to Cuomo’s 37%. His coalition consisted of people with financial stability to care about cultural and affordability issues but not so wealthy as to be insulated from housing cost concerns.

4. The Multiracial Coalition

Mamdani won approximately 60% of white voters, 52% of Black voters, and 60% of Latino voters. White people make up only 31.3% of NYC’s population but roughly 40-45% of Mamdani’s voters. This reflects the concentration of recent arrivals, college-educated professionals, and gentrifying neighborhoods (heavily white) in his coalition. Mamdani also significantly overperformed among young Black voters (83% according to CIRCLE data) and in heavily Black neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn. Latino voters showed mixed support at 60%, which was 7% less than Kamala Harris’s 67% of the vote. Given Latinos’ share of NYC’s population (28.4%), this suggests that Latino voters split more evenly with Cuomo than other demographic groups. This split likely reflected class divisions and regional variation; working-class immigrant communities in some areas of Queens and the Bronx proved more responsive to Cuomo’s message. Mamdani won 49% of Asian Americans but 70%+ among young Asian voters. Approximately 90% of Muslim voters supported Mamdani, making this by far his most unified demographic group. He won only 31-33% of Jewish voters, creating a 29-point deficit compared to Cuomo.

5. LGBTQ+ and Gender Dynamics

82% of the 14% of voters identifying as LGBTQ+ supported Mamdani, translating to 10-12% of his coalition despite LGBTQ+ voters representing only 5-7% of NYC’s population. Young women aged 18-29 voted for Mamdani at 84%, compared to young men at 68%—a 16-point gap particularly striking given young men’s national rightward shift.

6. Partisan Alignment

Mamdani won 66% of Democratic voters compared to Cuomo’s 31%, demonstrating remarkable partisan cohesion. Among Independents, the race was tighter: Mamdani won 43% compared to Cuomo’s 34% and Sliwa’s 18%—a potential vulnerability in his coalition.

Socially, the coalition relied on demographics distinctive to large urban centers with high “culture industry” concentrations: recent arrivals, highly mobile renters, young multiracial professionals, LGBTQ communities, and culturally progressive middle and upper-middle class segments. These groups are overrepresented in New York but sparse across small cities, suburbs, and rural regions. Nationally, the working class is older, more rooted in place, more likely homeowners, more religious, and more culturally conservative. The social base powering Mamdani’s campaign is geographically concentrated, making national replication difficult without first reshaping broader conditions.

Urban conjuncture and the new socialism

A distinct urban conjuncture has emerged in a handful of U.S. cities, producing conditions far more favorable to socialist advance than those found nationally. These cities combine soaring housing costs, generational displacement, fractured middle-class interests, and dense networks of activists, tenants, and young professionals. It is within this alignment that Minneapolis, New York City, Los Angeles, and similar metros have become laboratories for new socialist politics.

For decades, American cities operated under a stable class coalition: developers received profitable construction areas while white middle-class homeowners secured low-density neighborhoods with appreciating property values. As housing became unaffordable, a younger generation—including both workers and middle-class professionals—found themselves priced out of homeownership. Housing became the central issue introducing intra-middle-class conflict within a class demonstrating remarkable unity since the 1980s. This generational conflict precipitated splitting of the urban middle class into three factions: NIMBY (dominant older fraction), YIMBY (market-oriented professionals), and DSA (abandoning homeownership aspirations, aligning with the working class for non-market solutions).

These divisions characterize New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other expensive cities where the young middle class cannot afford entry into the housing market. Mamdani’s coalition in NYC mirrors this pattern: his strongest support came from young renting professionals and workers who had defected from traditional middle-class politics. And this is not the first time we have seen this pattern: between 2010 and 2021, Minneapolis’s City Council shifted from three progressives to eight, driven by gentrifying neighborhoods with concentrated university-educated millennials. Similar dynamics are reshaping NYC electoral politics. 

However, Minneapolis reveals a crucial limitation: despite sweeping political victories and near-unanimous City Council support for upzoning legislation, the old homeowning middle class used its structural resources to block implementation through planning offices, county jurisdiction, courts, and the state legislature. Technical policy solutions, even progressive ones, cannot overcome fundamentally political problems rooted in lack of hegemony. Winning elections does not automatically translate to policy implementation when economic elites maintain veto points throughout governmental and civil society institutions.

The pattern is replicating in NYC. Mamdani won through coalition with young renters and recent arrivals, yet the old neoliberal coalition still controls courts, real estate boards, and bureaucratic institutions. His ability to govern will depend on constructing sufficient hegemonic power to overcome structural veto points.

So what is to be done? Mamdani’s victory was inspiring and points to a better future for socialists. Using Gramsci as a guide, the answer should be clear: we must fight a war of position, not maneuver. Why?

First, this was a very narrow victory with almost no margin for error at the national level.

The narrowness (50.4%) meant minimal margin for error. Loss of just 1%, approximately 10,000 votes, would have resulted in plurality victory with ranked-choice complications. Alienating even smallest fractions of constituent groups would have cost the majority—far more difficult to replicate in northern Wisconsin than Brooklyn.

Second, potential fickleness in the coalition.

Vulnerabilities were distributed unevenly. Loss of 15-20% of young voter support would have cost 25,000-30,000 votes. The greatest vulnerability appears in working-class support, which Mamdani split with Cuomo rather than dominating. A shift of 10% of working-class voters could have changed the outcome.

Third, the local trap and why the coalition cannot scale nationally.

The relative youth of his coalition (20-22% under 35 compared to 15-18% nationally), higher proportion of renters (67% in NYC versus 35% nationally), college-educated concentration, and high proportion of recent arrivals suggest demographic foundations specific to cities like NYC. A candidate replicating this strategy in suburban or rural areas would face different terrain. Homeowners (70% nationally versus 30% in NYC) would be significantly less likely to support rent control and wealth-taxation policies.

Fourth, he needs to improve margins with Black, Latino, and working-class voters.

He won a majority of the Black vote but not margins as large as past Democratic candidates. More concerning: Latino vote at lower margins than Harris in 2024, with Latino support for Democratic candidates dropping nearly 10% every election cycle.

Fifth, uncertainty regarding the left message.

Strident left positions drive high turnout in large global cities, especially among young gentrifiers, but may repel centrist blocs in suburbs and rural areas. Strong commitment to his critical position on Israel cost a large share of Jewish votes. His strong embrace of socialism resonated with youth but lost homeowners, many ideologically conservative Latinos and immigrants. In NYC, this trade-off worked because renters comprise nearly 50% of the city. Nationally, the split is 70:30 favoring homeowners. These positions admired in NYC may repel certain voting blocs while offering only limited reservoirs from which to extract new voters.

Conclusion: consolidate political territory, not just geographic territory

The fight for hegemony is a war, not a single battle. Electoral victory constitutes one engagement in a protracted struggle.

1. The goal of all parties is to achieve a socialist hegemonic project nationally; the point of debate is which strategy is best suited for achieving this end goal. This analysis suggests a strategy of scaling up to the national level through consolidating regional hegemony and using consolidated regions as leveraging platforms to propel expansion to the next opportune battle.

Mamdani’s coalition depends on specific structural conditions: high concentrations of young renters, recent arrivals, gentrifying neighborhoods, and university-educated populations facing permanent exclusion from homeownership. DSA should prioritize deepening its foothold in cities and regions where: 1) these demographic conditions already exist, 2) DSA has established organizational infrastructure, and 3) the fracturing of the middle class has created openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating in NYC while contributing to expanding power in LA or Chicago, rather than upstate NY, if the political terrain is more favorable. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic and organizational readiness.

2. Once a battle is won, consolidation of position becomes imperative through three simultaneous processes: securing the consent of civil society institutions, bolstering domination throughout the state apparatus, and neutralizing political enemies by extracting them from the structural conditions that enabled their power.

Enemies of socialist forces never truly disappear; they retreat into the shadows, awaiting opportunities for counter-offensive. 

Building our first instances of regional influence therefore requires simultaneous forward and backward movement: looking forward to construct intellectual and political leadership across an expanding and increasingly indomitable coalition, while looking backward to extract reactionary enemies waiting in the shadows, sabotaging and scheming for restoration.

In New York City, this challenge is complicated because political enemies come in multiple guises and display little consistent loyalty. This ambiguity blurs the line between friend and enemy when clarity is most needed. Mamdani’s dependence on a substantial Democratic base complicates efforts to target enemies within the party apparatus itself. However, he currently enjoys extraordinary levels of public support, which makes Democratic elites less inclined toward outright sabotage and more inclined toward a cynical strategy of appropriating his charisma and momentum for their own purposes. Recognizing this temporary advantage, Mamdani must move with strategic urgency to establish Democratic dependence on him for their political futures rather than the reverse.

3. Mamdani’s symbolic power is at its peak now and will wane. Maximal consolidation sooner will avoid closure and restoration later.

This moment provides his greatest leverage to consolidate asymmetric power relations over potential rivals within the Democratic apparatus, establishing himself as indispensable rather than replaceable to their political futures and livelihoods. With other enemies (reactionary business interests, the police bureaucracy, the real estate establishment) different tactics apply. These are the fickle constituencies least bound by party loyalty or ideological coherence. They respond to power and the credible threat of counter-power, not to appeals to shared governance or compromise. The tempo of consolidation matters enormously. Delay allows enemies to regroup, rebuild coalitions, and mobilize their substantial structural resources. The question facing Mamdani in his first months in office is whether he recognizes that electoral victory opened a war, not concluded one, and whether he possesses the strategic clarity and ruthlessness necessary to consolidate his position before the inevitable counter-offensive begins.

4. Hegemony must guide tactical choices over consolidation and expansions: Until a political bloc emerges capable of bridging these divides and constructing the intellectual and moral leadership necessary for genuine cross-class hegemony, urban governance will remain volatile and ineffective.

What is needed is not merely electoral victory but a transformative political project that unites diverse constituencies around a shared vision of the city as a common good and reorganizes civil society according to socialist principles. For DSA chapters, this means the painstaking work of organizing across class and racial divides to create hegemonic blocs capable of challenging the commodification of housing at its root, not merely winning individual campaigns but systematically constructing “the permanent organization of the intellectual strata” necessary to build durable, transformative political power. The Minneapolis experience demonstrates that without such systematic hegemonic construction, even left-wing electoral victories will be neutralized by the counteroffensive of established economic interests defending their structural position.

(October 2025)

Across Ecuador, Indigenous, peasant, and working-class communities have risen once again to defend life, dignity, and sovereignty in the face of a government that governs for capital, not the people. The Noboa government has answered peaceful resistance with systematic state terror—deploying thousands of troops to occupy Indigenous territories, firing live rounds and tear gas indiscriminately at protesters and residents alike, and criminalizing the very act of defending one’s community. The Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee extends our unconditional solidarity to the families of those killed and wounded, to the hundreds detained, and to the peoples of Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo, and every territory now under siege.

1. We join their demands

We endorse the demands articulated by CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), UNORCAC (Union of Indigenous Peasant Organizations of Cotacachi), FICI (Federación Indígena y Campesina de Imbabura), and allied popular organizations:

• Immediate repeal of Executive Decree 126, which raised diesel prices more than 50% overnight and deepened poverty across Ecuador.
  
• An end to militarization, emergency decrees, and curfews imposed under the false pretext of “public order.”
  
• Neutral, civilian-led humanitarian corridors, coordinated with the Red Cross and human-rights monitors — not military convoys disguised as relief.
  
• Freedom for all detainees, the dropping of “terrorism” and related charges, and full reparations to the victims and families of state violence.
  
• Independent, international investigations into killings, disappearances, and the criminal use of live ammunition against demonstrators.
  
• Guarantees of non-repetition: training, command accountability, and civilian oversight of the Armed Forces and National Police.
  
• Protection of Indigenous and community media, including Radio Ilumán, TV MICC, and Apak TV, whose journalists have been attacked or censored.
  

2. We reject the authoritarian referendum

President Noboa’s referendum is not a democratic exercise but a tool to consolidate executive power, criminalize protest, and entrench the neoliberal model that produced this crisis.

In solidarity with CONAIE and Ecuador’s social movements, we support the campaign for a nationwide “No” vote and affirm that true democracy lives in the assemblies, cabildos, and territories of the organized people—not in plebiscites designed to legitimize repression.

3. We affirm an internationalist duty

We call on the U.S. government to end all forms of military and police cooperation that enable repression in Ecuador.

We urge labor unions, Indigenous federations, and left organizations worldwide to send observers, condemn the violence, and amplify the media of the Ecuadorian movement.
We encourage DSA chapters and members to:

1. Circulate this statement through your chapter’s mailing lists, internal communications, and social media channels to raise awareness about the crisis in Ecuador.
2. Contribute to neutral humanitarian funds identified by CONAIE and UNORCAC.
3. Pressure their elected officials to demand an end to militarization and to support international investigations.

As we stand with the First Nations here, we stand with the Indigenous peoples of Ecuador — one struggle for life and sovereignty.

In Conclusion

Ecuador’s uprising reminds us that austerity and authoritarianism are two faces of the same project. The struggle against neoliberalism in Ecuador is inseparable from our fight in the United States for public goods, workers’ rights, and socialism.

From Quito to Chicago, from Cotacachi to New York, our struggle is one.

¡Ni un paso atrás! We stand with the peoples of Ecuador in defense of life, territory, and dignity.

DSA Declaración de solidaridad con el pueblo de Ecuador

(octubre de 2025)

En todo el Ecuador, las comunidades indígenas, campesinas y la clase trabajadora se han levantado una vez más para defender la vida, la dignidad y la soberanía frente a un gobierno que prioriza al capital, no al pueblo. El gobierno de Noboa ha respondido a la resistencia pacífica con un terror estatal sistemático, desplegando miles de soldados para ocupar territorios indígenas, disparando balas reales y gases lacrimógenos indiscriminadamente contra manifestantes y residentes por igual, y criminalizando la defensa de sus comunidades.

El Comité Internacional de los Socialistas Democráticos de América extiende su solidaridad incondicional a las familias de los fallecidos y heridos, a los cientos de detenidos y a los pueblos de Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo y todos los territorios que ahora se encuentran sitiados.

1. Nos sumamos a sus reivindicaciones

Respaldamos las reivindicaciones articuladas por la CONAIE (Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador), la UNORCAC (Unión de Organizaciones Campesinas Indígenas de Cotacachi) y las organizaciones populares aliadas:

• Derogación inmediata del Decreto Ejecutivo 126, que aumentó los precios del diésel más de un 50 % de la noche a la mañana y agravó la pobreza en todo Ecuador.
• El fin de la militarización, los decretos de emergencia y los toques de queda impuestos bajo el falso pretexto del «orden público».
• Corredores humanitarios neutrales y dirigidos por civiles, coordinados con la Cruz Roja y observadores de derechos humanos, en lugar de convoyes militares disfrazados de ayuda humanitaria.
• Libertad para todos los detenidos, retirada de los cargos de «terrorismo» y otros relacionados, y plena reparación para las víctimas y las familias de la violencia estatal.
• Investigaciones internacionales independientes sobre los asesinatos, las desapariciones y el uso criminal de munición real contra los manifestantes.
• Garantías de no repetición: formación, responsabilidad del mando y supervisión civil de las Fuerzas Armadas y la Policía Nacional.
• Protección de los medios de comunicación indígenas y comunitarios, incluidos Radio Ilumán, TV MICC y Apak TV, cuyos periodistas han sido atacados o censurados.

2. Rechazamos el referéndum autoritario

El referéndum del presidente Noboa no es un ejercicio democrático, sino una herramienta para consolidar el poder ejecutivo, criminalizar la protesta y afianzar el modelo neoliberal que ha provocado esta crisis.

En solidaridad con la CONAIE y los movimientos sociales de Ecuador, apoyamos la campaña por el «No» a nivel nacional y afirmamos que la verdadera democracia vive en las asambleas, los cabildos y los territorios del pueblo organizado, y no en plebiscitos diseñados para legitimar la represión.

3. Afirmamos un deber internacionalista

Hacemos un llamamiento al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos para que ponga fin a todas las formas de cooperación militar y policial que permiten la represión en Ecuador.

Instamos a los sindicatos, las federaciones indígenas y las organizaciones de izquierda de todo el mundo a que envíen observadores, condenen la violencia y amplifiquen los medios de comunicación del movimiento ecuatoriano.

Animamos a las secciones y miembros de la DSA a que:

1. Difundan esta declaración a través de las listas de correo, las comunicaciones internas y los canales de redes sociales de su sección para crear conciencia sobre la crisis en Ecuador.
2. Contribuyan a los fondos humanitarios neutrales identificados por la CONAIE y la UNORCAC.
3. Presionen a sus funcionarios electos para que exijan el fin de la militarización y apoyen las investigaciones internacionales.

Así como apoyamos a las Primeras Naciones aquí, apoyamos a los pueblos indígenas del Ecuador: una sola lucha por la vida y la soberanía.

En conclusión

El levantamiento de Ecuador nos recuerda que la austeridad y el autoritarismo son dos caras del mismo proyecto. La lucha contra el neoliberalismo en Ecuador es inseparable de nuestra lucha en Estados Unidos por servicios y bienes públicos, los derechos de los trabajadores y la democracia descolonizada.

De Quito a Chicago, de Cotacachi a Nueva York, nuestra lucha es una sola.

¡Ni un paso atrás! Nos solidarizamos con los pueblos de Ecuador en defensa de la vida, el territorio y la dignidad.

The post DSA Statement of Solidarity with the People of Ecuador appeared first on DSA International Committee.

While you were picking up your kids from school, Joe Hogsett, backed by Statehouse Republicans, and billionaire lobby groups decided that a democratically-elected school board isn't profitable enough.

On Wednesday, November 19th, Hogsett’s ILEA board presented several models that do not solve the real problems that threaten quality public education in Indianapolis. ILEA members, parents, teachers, advocates for […]

With record member turnout, and 96 percent of voters in favor, Buffalo DSA has voted to endorse Adam Bojak for New York State Assembly in District 149. The Buffalo DSA Steering Committee looks forward to working with Adam and his campaign toward a socialist future for Western New York.

Adam has been a dedicated, dues-paying member of Buffalo DSA since 2017. A leader in the chapter’s early years, and previously endorsed for Assembly in 2020, he has organized primarily with our Infrastructure (formerly Housing) and Electoral Committees. Adam’s commitment to DSA and its principles is also evident across a decade of fighting for the working class. In addition to serving as assigned counsel in Family Court, he takes on tenant legal cases pro bono. Over the past decade, he has never charged a housing justice client for services.

Through a robust endorsement process, the chapter determined that Adam’s campaign shares our goals for housing justice, universal healthcare, labor rights, and social equity. Additionally, despite New York’s undemocratic closed primaries and ballot access hurdles hindering Buffalo DSA’s political independence, the campaign nonetheless shows potential to build toward a true workers’ party. For too long, Republicans and Democrats alike have exploited our class and ignored our needs; Adam’s proud, socialist campaign offers us new ways to fight the capitalist status quo and agitate the masses.

Last, but not least, the incredible turnout we saw in this vote shows the strength of the American socialist movement, and of our organization. We urge all members and inspired supporters to help Buffalo DSA sustain our organizing–not just for Adam, but for our entire political project. This is our chance to build on our momentum for Good Cause Eviction and the New York Health Act, and continue to support workplace organizing and the labor movement. 

We need you. Join DSA today and get involved in our committee work, to learn the same skills and principles that brought Adam’s campaign to life.

By: Juan Reardon & Nils McCune

November 2025

“Formation must be linked to a strategic political project for the transformation of society. This very project is constantly under development and formation must be part of the process. For this reason, formation cannot be dogmatic nor spontaneous but instead should be prepared, planned and combined with the development of the strategic objectives of the organization.” 

– La Via Campesina

Introductory Note

Across a vast Latin American landscape, the imperialist project of past and present runs up against a plurality of organized resistance. Be they extractive mining conglomerates and the dams they need built, corporate agribusiness and its endless expansion of the agricultural frontier, or the financial capital behind it all, the incursions of capital into Latin America – with the collaboration of corrupt local elites – are almost always met by an extraordinary diversity of worker-, student-, peasant-, Indigenous-, Black-, LGBTQIAPN+- and women-led movements defending their lived, lands, waters, territories, peoples, histories, and horizons. When one looks specifically to the countryside, Latin American social movements stand firm in the recuperation of ancestral knowledge, the defense of multiple ways of life, and the popular construction of food sovereignty – the right of all peoples to define, develop and defend their own food systems through the exercise of rights to land and territory, agroecological production systems, and an end to free market neoliberal impositions. In contrast to the amnesia characteristic of imperial ‘America’ [See: Monroe to Trump], the place known as Nuestra América (Our America) is the carrier of a historical memory rich in organizational experiences and approaches towards collectively building social justice, sovereignty, rights and self-determination. In the face of military dictatorships, fascism and armed extractive industries, the struggle for democratic transitions towards just societies has developed a creative maturation of strategies and tactics among popular movements, with political education at the heart of many.

 

The Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo, or Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations (CLOC), is a “movement of movements” that includes all Latin American member organizations of the global peasant movement La Via Campesina (LVC). CLOC’s remarkable experience in combating colonialism, racism, patriarchy, agribusiness and capital’s extractivist agenda has given rise to a continental system of political education beyond the scope of traditional cadrefication. CLOC’s is a process of experience- and reflection-based education the movements call formación. 

CLOC-Via Campesina: Who, What, Where and Why?

The Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations (CLOC-Vía Campesina) is a continental articulation of peasant, farmworker, fisherfolk, and other land- and territory-based movements with decades of direct experience in the struggle for human, economic, social, cultural, and political rights. The accumulated experience of cadre within CLOC is deep, as many come from the collective experience of building revolutionary transformation in local, national, continental and international contexts. Born in 1994 from an alliance of people’s organizations mobilized in what was known as “500 years of Indigenous, Black, and Popular Resistance”, a protest against official celebrations of Columbus’ arrival to the Americas, CLOC’s steadfast embrace of class struggle offers a profound and pluralistic understanding of socialism, as it stands at the forefront of the struggles against patriarchy, racism, colonialism, capitalism, neoliberalism, and imperialism in the effort to build a new society free of oppressors or oppressed in right relation to Mother Earth. 

Currently, the CLOC includes 84 member organizations in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Some of its more well-known members are Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) [See: Brazil’s MST by DSA], Chile’s National Association of Rural and Indigenous Women (ANAMURI), Cuba’s National Association of Family Farmers (ANAP), Haiti’s Papaya Peasant Movement (MPP), Puerto Rico’s Organización Boricuá for Ecological Agriculture (Boricuá) and Guatemala’s Peasant Unity Committee (CUC). Among its many efforts, CLOC is dedicated to consolidating food sovereignty at the levels of nation and territory by multiplying experiences and knowledge in agroecology. To confront the living legacies of colonialism, patriarchy and racism, CLOC connects peasant organizing efforts with those of workers, students, and others disproportionately demeaned and disenfranchised by corporate interests. 

At the global level, CLOC brings together the struggles for peasants’ rights in Nuestra America with permanent solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for life, rights, and sovereignty. The CLOC campaign “Sovereign Peoples, People in Solidarity”, for example, helps people across the continent hear from and connect with the efforts of the people of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to build and sustain transformative political projects while resisting U.S. imperialist aggression and unilateral coercive sanctions. Unapologetic in nature, CLOC expresses a firm and public commitment to “furthering debates that contribute to building the theoretical and programmatic foundations for a socialist project in the Americas.” 

Many of these debates take place through CLOC’s formación infrastructure, processes, and programs. The CLOC’s ‘Banners of Struggle’, available online in Spanish, give a sense of its vision for structural, democratic change to defend life, biodiversity, and rights in the Americas:

• Popular, Comprehensive, and Redistributive Agrarian Reform
• Peasant Agroecology based on the Recovery of Ancestral Knowledge
• Food Sovereignty based on Public Policy supporting the Peasant and Small Farm Sectors
• Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)
• The Construction of Popular Peasant Feminism
• Alliance-Building with Organizations of Other Sectors
• Youth-led Processes for Intergenerational Renewal
• Internationalist Solidarity
• Political, Ideological and Technical Training or formación…

What is Formación?

People’s movements develop a collective identity based on a shared analysis and, above all, a shared experience of struggle for a fundamentally different society. As noted in DSA’s 2023 article on Paulo Freire and Political Education, “there can be no theory that doesn’t inform practice, and vice versa. While distinguishable, the two must be inseparable, two sides of the same coin”. While in some contexts [See: Global North] for one person to wear “many hats” – to the point that often there can be meetings with more organizations “present” than people in the meeting – this can be problematic and is often an obstacle in the construction of a collective political project. Within the CLOC’s political culture, it is understood to be much more advantageous to have a shared analysis and greater levels of organicity – which is a kind of organizational culture that helps individuals understand where their unique contributions can be most impactful and appreciated within the larger needs of the collective. There is a popular saying that reflects this concept: “It’s more helpful to have one idea in a hundred people than one person with a hundred ideas.” Movements create specific moments for people to share their unique thoughts, reflections and opinions – with consensus and unity being the overall objectives – adjoined by moments in which members are expected to carry out responsibilities effectively without imposing their own desires or opinions on the collective’s agreed-upon commitments.

Formation is simply one part of a larger whole. As social movements or popular organizations attempt to change society, they must take action of some kind – whether that be through street protests, sit-ins, occupations, encampments, boycotts, lawsuits and beyond. Action is a moment in a long-term struggle, and should be planned and carried out collectively. Organization is another moment; this is when people debate and decide what their long-term vision is, and what kind of a structure can help them get where they hope to go. Assemblies, internal elections, designation of roles, and the creation of political positions are all part of organization. Formation, in turn, is a moment of struggle in which people temporarily remove themselves from action in order to critically reflect upon that action. Formation gives form to the action of an organization. By studying their own experiences and mistakes, as well as those of others across borders or throughout history, organizations can more effectively adjust their strategies and tactics, to be able to return to their practice with a more accurate understanding of their context and situation. The cycle of action-reflection-action, like the practice-theory-practice cycle described by Paulo Freire, is part of a collective movement through history known as praxis, as people resist and learn from that resistance. Formation is part of a critical process of collective self-preparation for world-changing activity.

According to La Via Campesina’s International Formation Collective, of which CLOC is an integral part, “formation is an infinite and permanent process of producing, socializing and sharing new knowledge derived from confronting ideas and comparing them with reality. It is a process of producing and reproducing the knowledge of our own reality, including the commitment to seek and distinguish our unique reality from the rest. All of this, of course, not only to understand the world but with the intent to transform it.”

Over 30 years into its development, the many movements that make up CLOC now maintain multiple formation processes with diverse tracks and methodologies. Designed to prepare new and experienced grassroots cadre for a lifelong – often difficult and dangerous – journey of political engagement for social transformation, these processes also serve to strengthen internationalist unity within diversity that is unique to the CLOC and La Via Campesina. 

A few of the CLOC’s most prominent formation processes are:

• Latin American Institutes of Agroecology (IALA)

Beginning with the IALA Paulo Freire in Barinas, Venezuela, the IALA model of peasant universities created by and for member organizations of the CLOC has now spread to include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. These autonomous social movement universities provide advanced training in agroecological production methods, as well as organizing skills, dialogue, and reflection to learn from concrete struggles and improve the practice of social movements in territories. 

The IALAs are a space of Latin American integration that recover the historical memory of 500 years of colonialism and over 200 years of formal independence while US neocolonialism has continued.

• Political and Ideological Formation Schools

Organized at two distinct levels – regional grassroots leadership and continental organizational leadership – the CLOC’s Political and Ideological Schools aim to consolidate an experienced collective of cadre at the national, regional, and continental levels capable of accompanying popular struggles with political clarity and determination. 

At the regional levels, both the “Andean School” (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia) and “School of the Southern Cone” (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay) host grassroots organizers in a diversity of national venues – schools, churches, cultural centers, and more – where selected participants share organizational updates, contextual analyses, contributing to a dialogue of knowledge as well as mística, meals and other daily commitments (cooking, cleaning, studying, and more).

At the continental level, the rotative 15-day Egidio Brunetto School (held in different contexts and countries each time it’s organized) and multiple short-courses held at Managua’s Francisco Morazán International Peasant School host leadership development processes for those who have completed courses and processes at the regional levels.    

• Continental Women’s Schools

The CLOC’s Continental Women’s Schools are about empowering rural women organizers in what La Via Campesina defines as “popular peasant feminism,” a uniquely movement-based contribution to grassroots feminism that centers class analysis and the collective construction of food sovereignty. The most recent CLOC Women’s School took place in the Dominican Republic (May 2024) –- the sixth such school in recent years. In it, Nicaraguan feminist leader Yolanda Areas Blass noted that, “each region in La Via Campesina used to organize their own political education processes. Now we have been able to strengthen the school system of the Women’s Articulation from the first International Women’s School carried out in Africa, where we advanced globally in the discussion about popular peasant feminism and about women’s political participation.” From grassroots to global, the CLOC and Via Campesina’s popular peasant feminism are contributing to other important formation processes such as the Berta Cáceres International Feminist Organizing School (IFOS).

• Continental Communication Schools

Involving many of the same grassroots leaders engaged in the above mentioned processes, the CLOC’s Continental Communication Schools are an equally important cycle of action, reflection, and matured action designed specifically to deepen political and technical expertise in “popular anti-capitalist communication.” According to their own reporting, the 5th Continental Communication School (online due to Covid-19) included critical reflections on “the concept of internationalism and its implications for popular struggles” as well as “the ongoing challenges facing communication in CLOC organizations.” 

Participant communicators, “learned about and evaluated CLOC’s current continental communication work as a counter-hegemonic strategy in the class struggle.” They then, “delved into the nature of CLOC’s communication, current strategies and challenges, internal and external communication tools,” before engaging in practical, “workshops strengthening skills in areas such as photography, video, audio, graphic design, social media, newsletters, and internal communications”. 

“The rich process of political education in popular communication,” left participants of the 2020 course with, “many lessons learned, challenges identified and, above all else, a growing collective (of communicators) with transformative dreams and hopes, strengthened by a revolutionary and internationalist spirit.”

• Continental Youth Encampments

Last but by no means least, the CLOC’s multiple youth-led processes feed into their own larger political education process known as ‘Encampments’. Each held in a unique national/historical context, hosted by the youth of a CLOC-LVC member organization, dozens of organized youth gather to, “promote formation and reaffirm the principles of CLOC Via Campesina as well as to exchange productive experiences, celebrate Latin American and Caribbean culture, cultivate the mystique and strengthen the peasant struggles of the regions of our territories.” In Spanish only, the following documentary shares some of the voices, smiles, and experiences of the XVII Youth Encampment of 2022.

Closing Remarks

Latin America’s Coordination of Rural Organizations (CLOC) is a living, breathing, and learning articulation of people’s movements prioritizing the political development of cadre within a larger process of action, reflection, and matured action aimed at consolidating a socially just and ecologically sound society for all. It listens to and learns from its own organizers – encouraging honest debate amongst the many – while encouraging friends and allies to contribute their own experiences through a dialogue of knowledges. From a place of organizational strength and sincerity, the CLOC learns while teaching and teaches while learning. For those of us engaged in our own processes of political education for societal transformation, the CLOC inspires. 

Readers interested in contacting the CLOC directly can do so in both English and or Spanish emailing: secretaria.cloc.vc@gmail.com. 

See Also: 

https://cloc-viacampesina.net

https://www.instagram.com/cloclvc/?hl=en

https://web.facebook.com/cloc.viacampesina

https://web.facebook.com/friendsatc/?locale=es_LA&_rdc=1&_rdr#

Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement

Paulo Freire and Political Education

Political Education in Social Movements and Theory

Contributing to NPEC Collective Research Project

Click here to read in English.

Imagínese que en los barrios más pobres de Detroit, Atlanta y Chicago, en lugar de solares vacíos, pudiera encontrar un parque público con relucientes piscinas, instalaciones deportivas y recreativas de primer nivel y un paisajismo espectacular. Si es madre soltera, en vez de tener que cargar con su ropa varias cuadras para pagar por lavarla, podría ir a un espacio público y bien mantenido donde lavar la ropa gratis mientras disfruta de comida deliciosa cultivada en el huerto agroecológico al costado de la lavandería. Mientras tanto, tus hijos pueden aprender a nadar, asistir a talleres sobre cómo cultivar alimentos en la ciudad, visitar el planetario para aprender cómo la cosmología maya se relaciona con el Big Bang, pasar el rato en el parque de patinaje o aprender a tocar la guitarra.

Mientras almuerzas y lavas la ropa, hay una empleada cuyo trabajo es hablar contigo y estar atenta a cualquier indicio de violencia doméstica en tu vida. Si estás lidiando con violencia doméstica, justo al lado hay una consejera que puede ayudarte. Imagina que, en este escenario, incluso en las zonas más vulnerables de las ciudades estadounidenses, puedes tener acceso a un abogado experto si lo necesitas. Independientemente de lo que estés enfrentando en casa, puedes consultar con la masajista y la acupunturista en este mismo edificio público, un espacio para mujeres conocido como Casa Siemprevivas. Ella no solo te ofrece masajes, sino que también enseñará cómo hacerlos a quince de tus vecinas y amigas para que puedas usar este espacio para círculos de apoyo mutuo. Son espacios donde se fomenta la liberación emocional a través de la risa y el llanto. Todo esto es gratuito y financiado por el gobierno.

En Estados Unidos, esta clase de inversión en servicios públicos tan extensas sigue siendo una fantasía, por ahora. Pero es muy real y funciona eficientemente en la Ciudad de México bajo el liderazgo del partido MORENA de la presidenta Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, la líder populista de izquierda del país.

Estas instituciones públicas en México se denominan Unidades de Transformación y Organización para la Inclusión y la Armonía Social, o UTOPÍAS. Actualmente existen dieciséis, todas ubicadas en Iztapalapa, la alcaldía más poblada y pobre de la Ciudad de México. Prácticamente todas las UTOPIAS ofrecen servicios para mujeres que sufren violencia doméstica, centros de reducción de daños para personas usuarias de drogas, espacios de apoyo para personas queer y trans, centros comunitarios para personas mayores y talleres para ayudar a los hombres a deconstruir la masculinidad tóxica, lo que en la práctica implica enseñar a hombres cuyas relaciones están en declive terminal o que se han convertido en padres solteros debido a una tragedia imprevista, cómo hacer cosas como lavar los platos, freír huevos o trenzar el cabello. No es poca cosa.

Cada UTOPIA ofrece una variedad de servicios especializados. Por ejemplo, UTOPIA La Libertad, ubicada justo detrás del muro de una prisión, cuenta con un zoológico interactivo y un planetario. UTOPIA Meyehualco, que ocupa lo que antes era un extenso parque con canchas de fútbol exclusivas para ligas privadas, ahora tiene un gran parque de dinosaurios animatrónicos (sí, leíste bien) y una pista de hockey. UTOPIA Olini alberga estanques amplios y bien cuidados, una piscina de marea y un gimnasio que sirve de sede a un destacado grupo de breakdance. UTOPIA Estrella Huizachtépetl se asienta sobre lo que antes era una zona de drenajede una planta de tratamiento de aguas y que ha sido convertida en un extenso ecosistema de humedales. Y UTOPIA Quetzalcoatl, ubicada de forma inusual en múltiples edificios y espacios discontinuos en una zona urbana densa, se centra en gran medida en los servicios de salud mental infantil, contando con una arteterapeuta en su plantilla. Algunas de las UTOPIAS organizan talleres periódicos para apoyar a los residentes, especialmente a las mujeres, en la creación de pequeñas empresas y cooperativas bajo el lema de la «economía solidaria».

En la siguiente sección, compartiré más historias sobre cómo las personas utilizan y se benefician de los servicios que ofrece UTOPIAS, basadas en varios meses de investigación de campo en México. Mi objetivo es ampliar nuestra visión colectiva en Estados Unidos y otros países del centro del poder sobre cómo puede ser un sólido sistema urbano de atención comunitaria. Además, espero compartir la historia más profunda de la organización y la lucha de la clase trabajadora que hizo posible estos programas. A pesar de las muchas diferencias que existen entre nuestros contextos en cuanto a sistemas de organización, considero que los organizadores estadounidenses tienen mucho que aprender de los organizadores que han construido poder de masas en México.

Historias desde abajo: cómo las UTOPIAS mejoran la vida de los trabajadores

Con todos estos servicios sociales gratuitos que se ofrecen, con un marcado enfoque anticarcelario, feminista y ecológico, no es de extrañar que las UTOPIAS hayan captado la atención de los círculos de izquierda internacionales como un ejemplo concreto de cómo puede ser la política ecosocialista municipal. Como parte de mi investigación en ecología política urbana, estoy pasando un semestre sabático aquí y baso este artículo en visitas a ocho de las dieciséis UTOPIAS y entrevistas con diversos miembros del personal, usuarios y funcionarios.

A lo largo de estas visitas y entrevistas, surgió una imagen inequívocamente positiva. Los terapistas de salud mental me comentaron cómo podían dedicar mucho más tiempo a los pacientes trabajando en los centros UTOPIA que en las clínicas con poco personal.

Una ginecóloga obstetra que realizó rotaciones entre las clínicas UTOPIA creía que finalmente podía hacer aquello para lo que había estudiado: “llevar la justicia reproductiva directamente a la gente.”

Un agricultor que trabaja en UTOPIA La Libertad compartió que su visión agroecológica para el futuro era que “las ciudades pueden y deben cultivar sus propios alimentos.”

Una mujer de tercera edad me contó que los talleres sobre la muerte y el morir le brindaron apoyo y consuelo tras el fallecimiento de su esposo.

Un carnicero de 24 años, antiguo adicto a la heroína, logró rehabilitarse gracias a los servicios de reducción de daños y asesoramiento de UTOPIA Teotongo, y ahora acude al centro al menos una vez por semana para ayudar al chamán en sus ceremonias de temazcal (cabaña de sudar). Explicó: “Las UTOPIAS me proporcionaron una vida que nunca antes hubiera podido imaginar.”

Un grupo de chicas adolescentes que formaron una banda de punk rock confirmaron que no lo habrían podido hacer sin los instrumentos y espacios de ensayo gratuitos proporcionados por UTOPIA.

Las UTOPIAS también demuestran que ampliar los espacios comunes urbanos para elcuidado de las personas no tiene por qué ser costoso. El gobierno de Iztapalapa ha declarado que la construcción de cada UTOPIA costó 100 millones de pesos (unos 5 millones de dólares estadounidenses), con un presupuesto operativo de aproximadamente 1 millón de dólares estadounidenses. Incluso si estas cifras fueran subestimaciones, e inclusive si fueran diez veces mayores en Estados Unidos debido a los precios más altos de los materiales y la mano de obra, las cifras igual no serían muy onerosas, considerando los miles de millones que nuestras grandes ciudades gastan en policías y exenciones fiscales para los ricos.

Mientras hablaba con trabajadores y usuarios de las UTOPIAS y les preguntaba sobre cómo se construyeron estos espacios, un nombre surgió constantemente: Clara Brugada, la ex alcaldesa de Iztapalapa y ahora Jefa de Gobierno de toda la Ciudad de México. Trabajadores de la salud mental, jubilados, técnicos hidropónicos y administradores de los sitios me dijeron que las UTOPIAS fueron una creación de Brugada, y que fue a través de su visión y pura fuerza de voluntad política, respaldada como estaba por el pueblo, que se construyeron las UTOPIAS.

El consenso que escuché era tan generalizado que parecía absurdo negarlo, incluso si resultaba contraintuitiva que una sola persona pudiera recopilar un conjunto de servicios tan radicales relacionados con temas tan variados como la salud mental, la educación científica y la agricultura urbana. Aun así, algo parecía incompleto, así que investigué más a fondo. A través de mi investigación sobre la historia reciente de la política de la Ciudad de México, quedó claro que existió un movimiento de masas que moldeó la estructura política urbana de la ciudad, desarrolló e impulsó muchas de las iniciativas que hoy se encuentran en las UTOPIAS y, de manera significativa, dio lugar al surgimiento político de Clara Brugada. Se llama el Movimiento Popular Urbano.

El Movimiento Popular Urbano y MORENA: organización política tras el neoliberalismo

Décadas antes de que surgiera el partido MORENA, una constelación mucho más dispersa de organizaciones urbanas luchaba por las demandas inmediatas de los trabajadores: títulos de propiedad de sus tierras, servicios de agua y electricidad. Pero en algunos casos, estas organizaciones se iban más allá de luchar por demandas políticas inmediatas. También experimentaron con y finalmente construyeron servicios directos para mejorar la vida de las personas. Crearon centros para mujeres víctimas de violencia doméstica, cultivaron alimentos, regeneraron ecosistemas forestales urbanos y brindaron servicios de reducción de daños para personas usuarias de drogas. En esencia, construyeron muchos de los elementos que ahora encontramos, a gran escala, en las UTOPIAS.

El hecho de que los organizadores urbanos de la Ciudad de México lograran crear un movimiento social contundente con verdadero poder político en estas condiciones debería darnos aún más confianza en que nosotros también podemos hacerlo.

El propio Movimiento Popular Urbano construyó poder político entre los ocupantes informales y marginados de la ciudad, la población urbana en situación de pobreza con empleos informales y otros trabajadores que se aferraban a una apariencia de normalidad y dignidad. Este movimiento creció en el terreno fértil del descontento urbano durante las décadas de dominio procapitalista del Partido Institucional de la Revolución (PRI) y la posterior oposición conservadora.

El partido gobernante PRI históricamente mantuvo su poder desde finales de la década de 1940 hasta bien entrada la década de 1990 e incluso parte de la década de 2000 mediante una estructura corporativista construida sobre tres pilares organizativos bajo su estricto control: la CTM(Confederación de Trabajadores Mexicanos), representando al trabajo organizado, la CNC (Confederación Nacional de Campesinos) representando a los campesinos, y la CNOP (Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Populares) representando a las clases medias urbanas, las organizaciones de la “sociedad civil” y, en teoría, la población urbana en situación de pobreza.

Sin embargo, para la década de 1980, un gran número de residentes de la Ciudad de México no pertenecían a sindicatos industriales ni estaban representados de manera significativa por la CNOP. Para quienes vivimos en Estados Unidos en el siglo XXI, esto probablemente nos resulte muy familiar: la afiliación sindical se ha desplomado en nuestro país desde la década de 1980, y las organizaciones de la ‘sociedad civil’ han ido desapareciendo gradualmente de la vida popular.

Al igual que en Estados Unidos, en la década de 1980 el movimiento sindicalista en México era solamente una sombra de su pasado militante.  La CTM se formó en el crisol de la década de 1930. El presidente progresista Lázaro Cárdenas fundó esta organización con el objetivo de aglutinar al proletariado industrial, más militante y de tendencia comunista, con los trabajadores más independientes del sector del transporte y los empleados de pequeñas empresas. Sin embargo, tras la llegada al poder del derechista Miguel Alemán Valdés en 1946, este rebautizó al partido oficial como Partido Institucional de la Revolución (PRI) y se propuso purgar a los militantes del movimiento obrero organizado. Nombró a Alfonso Ochoa Partida, apodado “el charro” por su afición a la charrería, deporte típico del rodeo mexicano, como jefe de la CTM para llevar a cabo estas purgas. Hasta el día de hoy, los sindicatos procapitalistas, de carácter débil, son conocidos como “sindicatos charros”. En México, estos sindicatos favorables al capital siguieron siendo fuerzas políticas poderosas durante los años de bonanza económica de la relativamente próspera industrialización por sustitución de importaciones durante las décadas de 1950 y 1960.

Esta era, caracterizada por una relativa armonía de clases y sostenida por la estructura corporativista del PRI, comenzó a desmoronarse a finales de la década de 1960. Las masacres de activistas estudiantiles, primero la de Tlaltelolco en el año 1968 y luego de manera subsiguiente la del Halconazo, seguidas por la Guerra Sucia impulsada por José López Portillo en la década de 1970, generaron una crisis de legitimidad política para el PRI. A pesar de las demandas relativamente moderadas del movimiento estudiantil en favor de la reforma política, el PRI se mostró reacio a tolerar cualquier desafío a su hegemonía corporativista. La crisis de legitimidad política del PRI se agudizó con la crisis económica mundial de finales de la década de 1970, que supuso el fin de la industrialización por sustitución de importaciones, la cual había mantenido un nivel de vida en ascenso durante las décadas de la posguerra. Estas crisis combinadas marcaron el principio del fin para el PRI y crearon oportunidades políticas para que la oposición de izquierda se organizara y se fortaleciera.

Durante las décadas de 1970 y 1980, organizadores radicales y estudiantes que habían huido al campo durante la represión de la Guerra Sucia trabajaron arduamente en la implementación de programas de educación política rural, a menudo inspirados en la teoría maoísta de la línea de masas. Muchos campesinos ya contaban con convicciones radicales arraigadas en el legado de Emiliano Zapata, el militante defensor de los derechos territoriales campesinos de la época revolucionaria mexicana. Dichas convicciones se vieron reforzadas por sus experiencias vividas en la lucha económica rural a lo largo de los años.

A medida que la crisis económica de la década de 1970 empezó a mermar la viabilidad de los medios de subsistencia rurales, decenas de miles de campesinos que acababan de ser desplazados económicamente comenzaron a trasladarse a las afueras de la Ciudad de México. Si bien estos recién llegados eran pobres, carecían de poder político formal y eran muy vulnerables a la explotación de terratenientes codiciosos, distaban mucho de ser actores pasivos. Trajeron consigo sus análisis políticos radicales y rápidamente comenzaron a formar organizaciones comunitarias politizadas. Con el derrumbe de la legitimidad de las vías formales para la participación política popular urbana, estas organizaciones se transformaron en el Movimiento Popular Urbano. 

La historia de Enrique Cruz, un militante de treinta años perteneciente a la UPREZ (Unión Popular Revolucionaria Emiliano Zapata), una de las organizaciones del Movimiento Popular Urbano, ayuda a esclarecer esta historia. Él me explicó:

Soy hablante de soque indígena y nací en Oaxaca. Mis padres y abuelos participaron activamente en la lucha contra la minería de oro y plata que destruía nuestra tierra y amenazaba los ecosistemas que tanto apreciábamos. Al mudarme a la ciudad, encontré una escuela dirigida por la UPREZ adornada con murales de Emiliano Zapata, y supe que esa era mi gente. A través de la UPREZ, adquirí una sólida formación política y me convertí en organizador comunitario, luchando por una vivienda digna, brindando educación directa y formación política a otras personas, y trabajando en otras causas.

Organizaciones como la UPREZ surgieron en la década de 1980 y se fortalecieron especialmente tras el catastrófico terremoto de 1985, que desencadenó una ola de solidaridad urbana. Una de las organizaciones más fuertes es la Unión de Colonos de San Miguel Teotongo, ubicada en el extremo noreste de Iztapalapa, en las afueras de la Ciudad de México.

Cuando, en agosto de este año, visité su centro comunitario y oficina para examinar sus archivos comunitarios y expliqué que estaba interesado en la historia y las consecuencias políticas de las UTOPIAS, el empleado Marco Antonio Flores me informó que “Si te interesan las UTOPIAS, has llegado al lugar correcto. Gran parte de lo que ves en las UTOPIAS —servicios para mujeres que sufren violencia doméstica, apoyo a personas con problemas de drogadicción, agroecología— nosotros lo pusimos a prueba, experimentamos y desarrollamos desde la década de 1980. Ver que ahora están generalizadas y cuentan con el apoyo del gobierno es algo maravilloso.”

Al conocer las UTOPIAS, algunas cosas me resultaron familiares. En mi trabajo político y académico, he visto una impresionante variedad de proyectos con objetivos similares, desde grupos anarquistas independientes que realizan proyectos de conservación de tierras, hasta centros sin fines de lucro avocados a la salud sexual y reducción de daños, pasando por organizaciones agrícolas comunitarias. Pero ver todo esto, y mucho más, reunido y a gran escala con todo el respaldo del Estado, me pareció algo completamente distinto. 

¿Qué hizo que estas organizaciones tuvieran éxito no solo en la lucha por los servicios urbanos básicos, sino también en su influencia en la política nacional y local? Le pregunté a Marco Antonio por qué su organización parecía tan sólida y persistente, con una presencia tan fuerte en la comunidad hoy en día, mientras que otras organizaciones miembro del Movimiento Popular Urbano parecían haberse disuelto. Él respondió: “En la década de 1980, muchas organizaciones se centraron en exigir la regularización de la tierra, el suministro de agua potable, electricidad e incluso el control de alquileres. Una vez satisfechas algunas de esas demandas, no tenían muchos motivos para continuar. Nuestro enfoque era más amplio: luchamos por los derechos básicos, pero también construimos un centro comunitario dinámico con el objetivo más general de velar por el bienestar integral de los miembros de la comunidad”.

La propia alcaldesa de la Ciudad de México, Clara Brugada, pertenece a este movimiento. Siendo estudiante, comenzó a organizarse con la Unión de Colonos San Miguel Teotongo. Se organizó políticamente para abogar por servicios básicos como electricidad, agua y desagüe. Según Florentina Juana Martínez, activista con la Unión de Colonos desde la década de 1970, Brugada desempeñó un papel fundamental como joven estratega a principios de la década de 1980. Impulsó a su grupo a presionar al gobierno para que cumpliera con esas demandas, así como a autoorganizarse para brindar servicios que el estado no proporcionaba.

En la década de 1990, Brugada lideró una campaña para transformar una prisión de mujeres, que también solía albergar a presas políticas durante la Guerra Sucia, en una escuela preparatoria. Esta campaña, que hoy podríamos describir como abolicionista, finalmente triunfó y la escuela se inauguró en el año 2000. Mientras luchaban por la titularidad de las tierras, Brugada continuó organizándose con la Unión de Colonos para establecer un centro comunitario que apoyara a mujeres víctimas de violencia doméstica, restaurara ecosistemas urbanos y brindara apoyo a personas con problemas de drogadicción.

Aquí hay una lección más amplia para la Izquierda de EEUU, para DSA, y quizás aún más específicamente para la gestión entrante de Zohran Mamdani en la ciudad de Nueva York: en nuestras ciudades existen movimientos que están fortaleciendo la capacidad para realizar movilizaciones masivas y combativas. Entre ellos se encuentran el movimiento inquilino y el movimiento obrero. Pero también incluyen proyectos innovadores llevados a cabo por grupos comunitarios centrados en la justicia ambiental, la justicia reproductiva, la agroecología y otros temas.

En otras palabras, las organizaciones comunitarias de Iztapalapa que resistieron el paso del tiempo y lograron un poder político duradero no solo lucharon por cosas como el control de alquileres y el saneamiento urbano básico, por tan vitales que fueran esas cosas. También construyeron directamente los mecanismos necesarios para, con escasos recursos, brindar atención a la comunidad  urbana, y al hacerlo se aseguraron de que, cuando surgiera una oportunidad política, sus ideas y prácticas estuvieran sobre la mesa para que las fuerzas políticas afines las aprovechen. 

Estos grupos forjaron alianzas estratégicas con personas que, con el tiempo, construirían el partido MORENA y se integrarían al aparato estatal. A medida que el partido MORENA consolidaba su poder, estos grupos se fueron incorporando a la gobernanza municipal en lugar de mantenerse al margen.

Organizaciones comunitarias existentes y la lucha por los bienes comunes urbanos

Cada una de las UTOPIAS se ubica en un barrio con una historia política y económica particular. Mientras que la Unión de Colonos San Miguel Teotongo fue una fuerza poderosa y visionaria para la organización y el desarrollo comunitario, otras UTOPIAS contaban con organizaciones comunitarias significativas, aunque menos persistentes. Muchas UTOPIAS se sitúan en terrenos y parques anteriormente abandonados. Las UTOPIAS de Tecoloxtitlán y Papalotl, por ejemplo, se ubicaron en solares urbanos baldíos que solían ser mercados negros de autopartes robadas.

Rodrigo Castellano Hernández, coordinador de programación de UTOPIA Papalotl, compartió que a finales de la década del 2000, un grupo de miembros de la comunidad se unió para comenzar a desarrollar programas para jóvenes en la zona. Ofrecían clases de artes marciales y empezaron a experimentar con la agricultura urbana. Para cuando Clara Brugada asumió la alcaldía de Iztapalapa, ya existían sólidas iniciativas comunitarias para recuperar el espacio y destinarlo a actividades comunitarias positivas y solidarias.

De igual manera, en UTOPIA Tecoloxtitlán, un grupo de vecinos aunó recursos comunitarios para crear un centro de educación especial y un centro para Alcohólicos Anónimos en el parque, organizando el trabajo comunitario para limpiar el terreno urbano deteriorado. Y en UTOPIA Meyehualco, construida en un parque que antes solo estaba disponible para los miembros de una liga privada de fútbol, ​​el gobierno municipal, junto con organizaciones comunitarias aliadas, se organizó para que ese terreno sea para uso público gratuito, a pesar de las objeciones de los miembros del club privado que buscaban mantener la propiedad absoluta del terreno.

En las ciudades de Estados Unidos, el proceso específico para encontrar espacios para proyectos como este probablemente sería muy diferente al de Iztapalapa. Si bien las ciudades estadounidenses tienen un margen de maniobra considerable en sus presupuestos municipales, las clases dominantes han logrado mantener, año tras año, la financiación de la policía en lugar de la asistencia social. Sin embargo, los movimientos radicales en Estados Unidos han demostrado que las cosas no tienen por qué ser así. Desde las huelgas de maestros por mejores condiciones durante los últimos 15 años, hasta las campañas en pro de la abolición del sistema policial que surgieron tras las protestas por la muerte de George Floyd en 2020, nuestros propios movimientos han revelado que los presupuestos municipales pueden ser espacios importantes de lucha de clases.

Cabe destacar que las UTOPIAS no funcionan simplemente como un órgano del partido MORENA y de la alcaldesa Clara Brugada. Organizaciones comunitarias radicales también utilizan estos espacios para organizar poder político independiente. En septiembre, asistí a un evento en UTOPIA Paplotl organizado por una de las organizaciones miembro más importantes de la UPREZ, la organización de Enrique. En un auditorio repleto, con cerca de quinientas personas provenientes de decenas de pequeñas organizaciones comunitarias y cooperativas centradas principalmente en temas de vivienda, los líderes de la UPREZ incorporaron formalmente a estos grupos y a sus numerosos miembros de clase trabajadora a su organización.

Uno de los fundadores y veteranos del movimiento URPEZ, Jaime Rello, describió sucintamente cómo se relacionan estos movimientos de masas con las UTOPIAS y el partido MORENA:

Camaradas, las UTOPIAS son la síntesis de toda esta experiencia y lucha de más de 57 años desde el movimiento de 1968. Nuestra camarada Clara, surgida de los movimientos populares y de la Unión de Colonos San Miguel Teotongo, aprendió bien de toda esta experiencia de lucha y ahora la pone en práctica. Pero eso no basta, camaradas, si no hay un movimiento fuerte que continúe luchando por estas causas, porque las presiones que enfrentamos, y que Clara enfrenta, por parte de la derecha, las presiones que enfrentamos por parte de los intereses del capital, son muy fuertes.

Nuestras organizaciones no las construyen únicamente los líderes. Las construye toda la sociedad. Necesitamos que todos contribuyan y antepongan el interés colectivo a los intereses individuales. Hemos llegado hasta aquí gracias a miles de activistas sociales que han dedicado su vida a transformar este país y esta ciudad.

La UPREZ y el Movimiento Popular Urbano están innegablemente aliados con el partido MORENA. La propia Clara Brugada surgió de estos movimientos obreros de Iztapalapa. Sin embargo, es evidente que estas organizaciones no se desmovilizan simplemente porque uno de los suyos esté en el poder. La relación entre estas organizaciones de masas y el gobierno de MORENA podría servir de modelo sobre cómo DSA y otras organizaciones de izquierda podrían relacionarse con la alcaldía de Zohran Mamdani o gestiones públicas similares: utilizando los espacios, recursos y plataformas que ofrece dicha administración para organizarse con firmeza en defensa de los derechos de los trabajadores y los inquilinos, construir centros independientes de poder comunitario y desarrollar una sólida red de bienes comunes urbanos avocados al cuidado, tanto dentro como fuera del Estado.

Las raíces históricas de las UTOPIAS nos demuestran que las iniciativas comunitarias de cuidado mutuo pueden ser impulsadas y ampliadas por el Estado cuando las condiciones son propicias. No es necesario crear desde cero buenas ideas para el cuidado comunitario, la agroecología urbana y el bienestar físico y mental. Muchas organizaciones ya realizan este trabajo. Con una financiación estatal relativamente modesta, pueden convertirse en programas sólidos al alcance de toda la población. En Estados Unidos, podemos encontrar organizaciones locales y regionales similares que poseen la visión y la experiencia necesarias para que nuestras versiones de las UTOPIAS prosperen.

Armados con visiones de cuidado comunitario similares a las que se han implementado en la Ciudad de México, y con el creciente poder político de DSA, estamos en condiciones de luchar precisamente por estas cosas en nuestras ciudades. Debemos aprovechar esta oportunidad, tanto en la ciudad de Nueva York como en todo el país.

Bibliografía

Además de entrevistas y observaciones de campo, este trabajo se basa en gran medida en los siguientes libros sobre la historia urbana de la Ciudad de México.

• Davis, Diane. 1994. Urban Leviathan: Mexico City in the Twentieth Century. Temple University Press.

• Gerlofs, Ben. 2023. Monstrous Politics: Geography, Rights, and the Urban Revolution in Mexico City. Vanderbilt University Press.

• Vitz, Matthew. 2020. A City on a Lake: Urban Political Ecology and the Growth of Mexico City. Duke University Press.

Faith and community advocates across Louisiana are calling for compassion, transparency, and accountability as immigration enforcement actions continue to separate families and destabilize communities.

We would like to clarify that this was not a DSA event and that Central IN DSA has absolutely no relationship with Mr. Hornedo.