High Peaks DSA voices our complete opposition to the United States and Israel’s February 28 decision to initiate an illegal war against Iran, a sovereign nation. We emphasize that this war is both catastrophic and unjustified. We stand unequivocally with the Iranian people in their fight for freedom and self-determination.   

Iran posed no imminent threat and was in the midst of negotiations when the United States abandoned any attempt at a peaceful resolution to join Israel in a war of choice. This war has only begun because of the arrogance of the Israeli government, the ignorance of the American government, and the complete collapse of the international rules-based order. 

The early attacks on Iran in the first few days of this war have already killed at least 1,800 civilians, including a horrific strike on a girls’ school that killed 168, most of them children between the ages of 7 and 12. Much of the Iranian leadership has been assassinated or incapacitated, most notably the assassination of the supreme leader,  Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. The assassination of a head of state is a dangerous precedent and a brazen violation of international law. 

A rapidly expanding war has since grown throughout Southwest Asia, as Iran is responding with an onslaught of missiles that are seriously testing the Israeli defense systems in Israel proper, along with strikes on nine other countries in the region. Iran has already attacked energy infrastructure and is greatly impacting maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor that accounts for a quarter of the world’s oil trade. Iran has also retaliated by striking several U.S. military bases in the region, resulting in seven soldiers killed at this point and many more wounded. Israel has further escalated its targets with additional attacks in Syria and Lebanon, where hundreds have been killed, and a mass displacement crisis has unfolded. Israel has also closed off humanitarian aid, again, to Gaza. 

Israel and the United States have further escalated their onslaught on the Iranian capital of Tehran, a city of more than 10 million, with additional strikes that have hit residential targets and social infrastructure, including hospitals and schools. The bombings of oil sites near or in Tehran’s city limits have covered the city in a black sky, an ecological disaster that will have alarming health ramifications for the population long after this war is over. A reminder that war itself and the United States military are one of the single greatest contributors to the worsening of the climate crisis.

Trump may have felt that Iran would be like Venezuela, a short bombing campaign, kidnap the President, and work out a deal with the Vice President to take the oil. This short-term success itself is unlikely to hold up in the long run. Iran is a vast mountainous country with a large and diverse population, and it has a substantial military that has been preparing for a war with the West for 40 years. The leadership structure is greater than one individual, and a new Ayatollah, the son of the old Ayatollah, has been selected. He is considered a hardliner and has strong ties to the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard, the state’s military body. 

Iran is not Iraq or Libya either. In each of these prior wars, efforts were made by the Obama and Bush administrations, on false pretenses in Iraq, on false promises in Libya, to sell these wars and garner coalition support from European allies. Following the approval of Congress with votes in favor from 3 of the next 4 Democratic nominees, Bush and Blair launched their illegal invasion of Iraq. The war killed at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and became an unmitigated disaster for the reputation of the United States. 

Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi ruled their countries with less public support than the Iranian Regime, and while their governments fell quickly, each war turned into a years-long quagmire. The Iranian government will be harder to topple, and the country much harder to stabilize. If regime change is successful, an outcome worse than Afghanistan is most likely, given that Iran has similar mountainous terrain and is a more important geopolitical state. 

Donald Trump, who, in part, won the 2016 Republican nomination by being seen as an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, was then able to successfully position himself on a platform of no new wars as the peace candidate when contrasted with Hillary Clinton in the general election. 

In practice, much of this perception was always false. The budgetary priorities of campaigning for massive tax cuts and large increases in defense spending inevitably would lead to direct actions taken by the Trump administration in its first term that were never going to be peaceful. The implementation of these policies contributed to the events of October 7, the ratcheting up of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank, and more than two years of genocide in Gaza that followed, and laid the groundwork for the War with Iran. 

Trump unilaterally pulled the United States out of a six-nation nuclear agreement with the Iranian government that was working to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program. Toward the end of his first term, he recklessly assassinated a top Iranian general, and we only avoided war because of Iran’s restraint with a narrow and orchestrated response. 

The annexation of the Golan Heights, the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, the implicit support through inaction on the further expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the pursuit of the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and the countries of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and later Morocco and Sudan all were major factors in the continued isolation of the Palestinians and contributed to the rationale behind the October 7 attacks by Hamas. 

A brief discussion of the historical context in which the current war arose is helpful. In 1953, the United States and the United Kingdom initiated a successful coup to oust the democratically elected government in Iran by strengthening the powers of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to stop the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. The monarchy ruled with an iron fist and an indifference to the suffering of the Iranian people. Decades of political instability in the country ensued, culminating in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The monarchy was abolished, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed, initially with popular support following an anti-imperialist revolution. 

For the last 47 years, Israel and the United States have been deliberate in their efforts to shift the Arab states from a position of adversarial opposition to the brutality of the Zionist apartheid state to client states that now consistently work for the interests of the Western powers while having to appease the sympathies of their populations, who remain with the Palestinian cause. Like the Shah’s rule in Iran, Israel has calculated that they benefit from having an Islamist opposition in Hamas, and has done everything in their power to weaken all secular Palestinian alternatives. 

Iran is viewed by Israel as one of the last remaining states in the region that is providing real economic assistance and military support to the Palestinians through Hamas. Much of this is overstated, as the Iranian regime is primarily invested in remaining in power, and like the other autocratic regimes that dominate the region, has little interest in liberation that could threaten their legitimacy if a viable democratic state were to be formed in Palestine.

The continuation of the Trump polices under the Biden administration, about Israel and its ongoing support as Israel conducted its systematic genocide in Gaza, along with its failures to adopt a more humane approach to immigration, depressed the Democratic party’s voting base and helped Trump win the 2024 election. Once again, Trump presented himself as the peaceful anti-war candidate, in contrast to Kamala Harris, who refused to distance herself from Biden on these issues. The dye had been cast, and this time, Trump retook the presidency, now having complete control of the Republican party, and surrounding himself with a cabinet of sycophants willing to go along with his worst impulses.

On immigration, he has been more draconian in the targeting of all immigrants regardless of their status, detaining many who were engaging in the legal process by revoking previous legal protections like temporary protection status, deferred action for childhood arrivals, student visas, and ignoring the international right to seek asylum. The overwhelming majority of immigrants who have been detained have no violent criminal record and are being held indefinitely amidst squalid conditions in concentration camps, awaiting deportation or court proceedings. He has used the violent arm of the state to occupy major U.S. cities, violate people’s rights to lawful protests with mass arrests on dubious charges that are almost always later dropped, and has killed protestors. 

Trump has brought the same cruelty and disregard for the rule of law he exercises domestically to the international stage, murdering Venezuelans in fishing boats without evidence to support his accusation of drug trafficking, kidnapping the Venezuelan president and his wife, and starving the people of Cuba through an oil blockade. He has also threatened to annex Greenland and Canada.

The failures of the political opposition in the United States and Israel, the absence of accountability from both the domestic and international institutions for the unlawful actions, have neutered our ability to confront the aggression and illegality of Putin‘s invasion of Ukraine, or the violent suppression of protests in countries like Iran, where a theocratic regime has been able to escape from under the boot of U.S. imperialism, only to stifle the aspirations of its own people.

For Iranians, whose liberation is long overdue after decades of oppression from both ends of the imperialist boomerang, history has shown us that no foreign military force can ever lead a people to freedom. This war is only being fought to serve the interests of capital and the imperial powers. Wars are often promoted and fought under the guise of liberation for the marginalized, but in reality, they suppress all ability to achieve social progress. For the bravery of the dissidents in Iran who have never stopped fighting for their rights over the years, only to be killed and imprisoned, this war will only make their struggle harder and the collective suffering greater. 

The oil barons of yesteryear stand in the way of a sustainable clean energy future. The tech oligarchs of today use algorithms and surveillance tools to censor our dissent and determine our fate with targeted strikes, like the one on the girls’ school in Tehran that further separate us from our humanity. These masters of war, the old and the new forces of capital, can only be defeated when the working classes, the oppressed in all corners of this world, can recognize our shared morality and begin to organize ourselves to build a better world, one without artificial hierarchies and violently enforced borders.

The post High Peaks DSA Statement on Iran appeared first on High Peaks DSA.

Previous entries — Part One, Introduction; Part Two, Electoral Politics; Part Three, Labor; Part Four, Diversity in the SPA

The 1910s were a period of opportunity for socialist organizing across the world, and represented the peak of mass membership in socialist organizations in the United States. The country’s economic inequality was becoming more salient, with the First World War exacerbating these dynamics as working people were being sent to their death for the profit of the wealthy. The SPA was able to take advantage of these conditions to build a mass socialist organization which this country has not seen before or since, but it ultimately failed in its mission to transform society. The causes of the party’s collapse are multifaceted, including its aforementioned failure to embrace the multiracial, multigendered working class, as well as state repression and heightened internal party conflict.

As the 1910s went on, the left wing of the SPA consolidated, with Ruthenberg as an important leader of the faction that would be increasingly in tension with the party’s incumbent leadership. Many left-wing leaders, such as legendary IWW organizer Bill Haywood, would be accused by fellow members of supporting violence and sabotage, implicating them in legal proceedings and removing them from party office. Despite Ruthenberg’s rejection of these tactics, he was similarly removed from state party leadership in 1912.  In Ohio, Ruthenberg and his allies still had strong support, and may have been able to defeat this motion were it not for his ongoing gubernatorial campaign. Elsewhere, however, the right wing of the party was more solidly in control. In many locals, these attacks, often on left-wing labor organizers connected to the IWW, led to a significant exodus from the party throughout the 1910s. 

However, things were different in Cleveland. From 1912 to 1919, as national membership declined or stagnated, Cleveland’s local would see immense growth. With more than 3,000 of the Ohio SPA’s 8,000+ members in 1919, they would present a major success story for the party’s left wing. The local’s internal structures were a crucial part of building this connection to the masses. They emphasized political education, particularly on Marxist theory. This ranged from establishing a Socialist Sunday School for children to speeches from figures such as Karl Liebknecht and Bill Haywood. The party also held cultural events and fundraisers for adults, while developing a Young People’s Socialist League which included bowling matches, dances and baseball games. These opportunities allowed party members to not only organize politically, but develop socialist culture and community with their comrades.

In 1917, the US formally entered World War One, despite President Wilson’s campaign promise to maintain peace. In reaction, the SPA held an emergency convention in St. Louis, where leaders across the organization, including Ruthenberg, drafted an anti-war resolution. Many workers, who did not want to be sent overseas and fight in a brutal war, were increasingly drawn to socialist politics. Cleveland’s well-organized local, with a clear left wing politics that consistently stood against imperialis, was well positioned to take advantage of this. In 1917, the Cleveland Local saw its best ever electoral results, with SPA candidates J.G. Willert and Noah Mandelkorn elected to Cleveland City Council and A.L. Hitchcock elected to the school board. Additionally, Ruthenberg’s Mayoral campaign, calling for “socialism, peace and democracy” would win close to 30% of the vote. While socialists were not in the majority, they were gaining in popularity among workers, and the ruling class was starting to notice.

Soon,  the harassment, censorship, imprisonment and deportation of socialists and the broader anti-war movement would escalate. In 1918, Cleveland’s two socialist city councilors and school board member would be removed from their positions for opposing the war. Ruthenberg was fired from his job and repeatedly arrested for anti-war speech along with many of his comrades. This culminated in the previously mentioned anti-worker judge David Westenhaver sentencing Ruthenberg to a year in the Canton work camp.

During his time in Canton, Ruthenberg was informed of the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The Cleveland local had held a 2,500 person celebration that February of the Tsar’s overthrow, and the enthusiasm continued to grow as they heard of this news. Ruthenberg himself found a lot of inspiration from the Bolsheviks and the writings of Lenin, which were at that point not very commonly read among the socialists in the US. Under his leadership, the Cleveland local would lead the SPA in becoming an outspoken proponent of solidarity with the Russian revolution, and opposition to US military intervention on behalf of the White Army.

For the next couple of years, Ruthenberg and Eugene Debs would be repeatedly imprisoned, often directly calling for the other’s release.  At the 1918 Ohio Socialist Party convention, held within view from Ruthenberg’s prison cell, Eugene Debs would give his famous Canton Speech, calling for Ruthenberg’s freedom and an end to the US involvement in the war. Debs would subsequently be arrested for this speech, and sentenced to ten years in prison by, once again, Judge David Westenhaver. Once Ruthenberg was released from detention,he would help organize multiple rallies calling for Debs’ freedom, culminating in the 1919 May Day demonstration, which would once again land him in jail.

The events of May 1st, 1919 represent the peak of mass socialist presence in Cleveland, with 30,000 workers, led by the Socialist Party and including many IWW and AFL members, marching through the streets. The demonstration called for the economic demands of work for the unemployed and an increased minimum wage alongside calls for international solidarity and opposition to war.  The workers held Red Flags and American Flags as they marched towards Public Square. This display was considered offensive by one businessman, who drew a revolver on a socialist WW1 veteran holding a red flag. Soon thereafter, the police, who had until that point been oddly absent, would descend on the demonstration, and along with other right wing members of the public, beat and arrest over 150 workers. Two workers would be killed by the police that day, and the socialist party headquarters would be ransacked.  In the next day’s issue, The Plain Dealer would describe the violence as followed:

“Mounted police at the gallop wielding truncheons on the heads of Bolsheviki, citizens and soldiers tearing red flags and trampling them in the mud, [and] tanks from the western battle front charging crowds in the front of the statue of Tom Johnson”

Today, this event is commonly known as the May Day Riot. One could embrace that term, in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous proclamation that “a riot is the language of the unheard.” Alternatively, you could describe what happened as a peaceful demonstration and a subsequent massacre. The violence was provoked by the reactionaries, and actions taken by socialists were largely in self-defense. Ultimately, while the May Day demonstration led to another round of arrests and imprisonments for socialist leaders like Ruthenberg, it also coincided with the continued growth of Cleveland local, with hundreds more joining that month.

From this point onward, the repression of socialist and anti-war organizers would continue to escalate, while the Socialist Party was facing extreme internal turmoil. Ruthenberg and others on the left wing of the party would formalize their internal faction, and win 12 of the 15 National Executive Committee seats. However, the incumbent SPA leadership refused to recognize these results, eventually leading to a mass exodus of party members, either through expulsion or resignation. What followed was a messy process which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), led by General Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg. 

This split, alongside  the continued repression of the movement, was the final nail in the coffin. The SPA would continue to operate, but no longer holding its same mass reach, with the party falling to 10,000 members by 1923. Socialist organizing would continue elsewhere, of course, including in Ruthenberg’s CPUSA. However, no US organization has since reached the peaks of the SPA’s 113,000 members in a country of less than 100 million. Learning from this period, we cannot understand the organizing of the past solely through modern lenses. The historical development of capitalism and the US political system placed 1910s SPA organizers in very different positions than DSA members in 2026. However, there are still some conclusions we can draw from the electoral and labor organizing of the party, as well as its demographic makeup and internal structures.

For both electoral and labor organizing, the conditions of the 1910s were dramatically different, but ultimately the SPA’s success showed the importance of the slow and steady work of constructing a socialist organization. Engaging the masses with a socialist vision requires a commitment to improving their lives in the short term, while maintaining our principled vision for a socialist future. This can come through electoral campaigns, and through solidarity with the workers fighting for better conditions at work. 

On the other hand, the SPA’s failures demonstrate the need for constructing a culture within our organization which is welcoming, stands clearly against bigotry, and accepts political conflict while striving for unity in action. No resolution or policy alone can make our organization more diverse, but a welcoming attitude and constant, proactive thinking within each part of our organizing work can help. Similarly, no moderation or grievance policy alone can prevent the worst forms of interpersonal conflict or political repression. These policies are the first step, which must be accompanied by conducting ourselves in a comradely way for the next thousand steps. 

Of course, there are things we cannot control – like the actions of our enemies. We do not know how or when the socialist movement will face additional state repression. But one lesson of the SPA, and any other successful socialist movement, is that our opposition will not sit idly by while we work to build ourselves up. With that in mind,  I will end with the last words of C.E. Ruthenberg, reported after his death in 1927:

“Tell the comrades to close their ranks, to build the party. The American working class, under the leadership of our party and the Comintern, will win. Let’s fight on!”

The post History of Cleveland SPA, Part Five: Conclusion: The SPA’s Rise and Fall appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Bosses and workers take on average 400 days to negotiate new contracts. The organizing challenge is significant, so how do you win?

The post How do I win a first contract? appeared first on EWOC.

by Mackenzie F

Throughout this harsh winter, we have watched the rising tide of fascism surge across our country, with trans communities squarely in its crosshairs. Kansas has revoked gender-affirming IDs with no grace period, clinics nationwide are shuttering their doors, and a myriad of anti-trans executive orders are being challenged in court. In Ohio, Republicans are working to dismantle bodily autonomy despite Issue 1 passing in 2023, and they continue to attack transgender people for simply existing in public life. Undeterred by these threats, Cleveland DSA holds the line on trans rights, maintaining our commitment to protecting the trans community.

Over the last year, we turned commitment into action.

By canvassing the city of Lakewood for weeks, building relationships with Lakewood City Council, and collaborating closely with community allies, we secured the passage of our Gender Freedom Policy. Cleveland DSA dedicated significant time and effort to developing this legislation, ensuring that it provides robust protections from law enforcement overreach for transgender and gender-nonconforming people within Lakewood, all without costing taxpayers a dime. 

Cleveland Heights and Lakewood have shown what is possible for the rest of Northeast Ohio, and other cities are taking notice. But the rest of this story is yet to be written. To win real safety for our trans neighbors, we must continue to build a strong, organized socialist movement in Cleveland. It is critical that Cleveland adopts our Gender Freedom Policy, not only to protect its own residents, but to send a powerful message: Ohio stands with the trans community.

Learn more about the Cleveland
Gender Freedom Policy here!

Cleveland DSA recognizes the power of collective action, which is why we are calling on all of our local allies to join the fight alongside us. From the AIDS crisis to every subsequent wave of government overreach, history has shown that our community survives only when we act together. This moment is no different. Pillars of our community like the LGBT Center, TransOhio, and Equality Ohio must stand in solidarity now more than ever.

The safety and dignity of our transgender neighbors rests on our shoulders. If you share our commitment to protecting this community, we urge you to take action. The legislation is written, and relationship-building with Cleveland City Council is already underway. But in order to move forward, we must gather at least 5,000 signatures from registered voters in Cleveland. While this may be no small task, we acknowledge that justice does not arrive by chance. It is built, block by block, by those who refuse to stay silent.

The state targets trans people not by mistake, but to divide us, to remind us that some lives matter more than others. We reject that logic. Trans liberation is not secondary to our movement; it is central to it. Because a world worth building is one where no one is left to struggle alone. So as the sun returns, warming both the land and our spirits, we invite you to join us in this crucial fight.

Here’s what you can do:

• Meet with one of our organizers to help collect signatures
• Attend one of our project meetings
• Contact your Cleveland City Council representative
• Talk to your loved ones
• If you haven’t already, join DSA. Join the fight.

We will not rest until we have shattered the chains that bind every one of us. Solidarity forever!

The post Trans Rights: We Will Not Rest! Sign the Gender Freedom Policy in Cleveland! appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Previous entries — Part One, Introduction; Part Two, Electoral Politics; Part Three, Labor

As we learn from the successful organizing of the SPA, we must also acknowledge the SPA’s greatest failure. At the same time reactionary tendencies dominated the AFL, bigotry also had a far too common place in the socialist movement. Many prominent SPA members held racist and misogynistic viewpoints, and the membership of the organization (predominantly white and male) reflected this. While it is accurate that socialist politicians and the party’s position tended to be more emancipatory than other political organizations of the time, the lack of a strong anti-racist and feminist culture significantly weakened it.

While many women did join the party and played crucial roles as socialist organizers, the organization never reached anywhere near gender parity, with few women in leadership positions. This occurred despite an effort by the party to take a role in the movement for women’s rights. In 1908, the SPA endorsed the women’s suffrage movement and hired a full-time staffer dedicated to the cause.  Ruthenberg himself once argued that there was “no more important cause” than bringing women into the party.  But the demographic imbalance persisted. This situation was described by Cleveland local member Nellie Zell in her article “The Lone Woman in the Local”:

“The first thing that greets her is that same capitalist mind of these Socialist men who have invited her to come. . . . Indeed, it is a very embarrassing position for both men and women. They want her there, yet now that she is there, they don’t know what to do with her. To make the matter worse, they talk about things of which she has no knowledge, and to smoke or not to smoke is the burden on their minds, while she is wondering whether she had better talk or preserve that lady-like silence so much admired by members of the old parties… I wonder if you men fully realize what that word ‘Comrade’ means to us women?”

Put simply, the party was failing to present a comradely attitude towards women who were interested in socialism. Within a broader US social culture that discouraged women from being active and vocal politically, this resulted in a failure to recruit significant numbers of women into the SPA.

The SPA did not embrace anti-racism in the 1910s in the same way it did the suffrage movement. Many locals in the South operated under segregation, and several prominent socialist leaders were open white supremacists. The Ohio Socialist Party adopted a position in 1911 of encouraging the recruitment of Black members, but there was a failure to explicitly condemn racial oppression, rather than just class oppression of Black workers. This changed over time, as discussed in Eric Blanc’s article which focuses primarily on SPA congressman Victor Berger’s shift from holding openly racist views to being praised by the NAACP.  However, this tolerance of racism was an incredibly significant failure of the organization for the duration of the 1910s, when it was most politically relevant.

On the other hand, we can take some positive examples from the SPA’s national and linguistic diversity. Cleveland was a cosmopolitan city,  and the Cleveland local represented this well, including German, Bohemian, Polish, Jewish, Finnish, Hungarian, Lettish, Lithuanian, Slovak and Italian branches.. Nationally, there were similar language-based federations, with both posing an interesting question of internal governance. These groups represented a significant portion of party membership on paper, but in practice operated very autonomously. Some SPA members, like Ruthenberg, advocated for more centralization of the language federations, bringing them closer in line with the organizing of the party as a whole. Others advocated for the autonomous model as an effective way to organize immigrant communities. Ultimately, it is clear that the party’s diversity among European immigrant groups was a strength enabled through providing spaces for socialists of the same identity to coordinate. With the language federation’s tendency to effectively act as internal factions, Ruthenberg’s push towards centralization is understandable, although such practices should be accompanied with a clear understanding that solidarity, not assimilation, is the answer to xenophobic attitudes.

In many regards, DSA has come a long way from the open displays of bigotry and predominantly white male membership of the SPA. However, there is still much to be learned from their failure to stand with the oppressed – which is both a moral disgrace and a political weakness. With a membership and mass reach beyond DSA’s today, one can imagine how much stronger the SPA would have been had it built a membership that represented the broader working class. To avoid replicating this, DSA members should heed comrade Zell’s words. Even with the SPA supporting women’s suffrage, it did not create an environment conducive for women to organize. It is easy for a chapter’s demographics to self-perpetuate, as new members do not feel welcome in a space that does not look like them or their communities. In order to change this, we need consistent and proactive effort throughout all organizing projects, and structured ways for marginalized comrades to coordinate. To do otherwise will only serve to cement Cleveland DSA’s current place – as a predominantly white organization in a multiracial city.

Please return tomorrow for Part Five: Conclusion: The SPA’s Rise and Fall

The post History of Cleveland SPA Part Four: Diversity in the SPA appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Previous entries — Part One: Introduction; Part Two: Electoral Politics

There were two different approaches to “the labor question” in the 1910s SPA. The first approach was to work within the existing unions. In the early 20th century, the dominant AFL was composed of trade unions representing workers with specific skills, did not stand up for broader working class interests, and was bigoted and exclusionary towards racial minorities and women. Many socialists sought to confront the AFL leadership and push unions in a different direction. This included Clevelander Max Hayes, who would at one point win close to a third of the vote in the AFL leadership race, and is now commemorated in a namesake West Side high school. 

Others sought to follow the path of dual unionism, which was advocated by the SLP, and organized on a mass scale following the founding of the International Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905. Wobblies, as IWW members were at times known, favored industrial unions, which represented sectors or workplaces, rather than workers with specific skills. This advocacy for industrial unionism was shared by others in the SPA (including some in the AFL), but was not reflected within the party’s platform for most of the 1910s.

Labor organizing was another topic where Ruthenberg demonstrated a commitment to unity, despite the bitter divides among SPA members. As his biographer stated, “his primary interest was in labor’s struggle, whether led by a craft union or industrial union.” This principle of solidarity came to the forefront as worker organizing escalated. In 1911, Cleveland saw the historic International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union strike, with thousands of workers participating. In his mayoral campaign of that year, Ruthenberg argued that the power of the state should be wielded in favor of the workers through the swearing in “a hundred of the coolest heads among the strikers” as special police. Three years later, Cleveland teachers organized a union, working in solidarity with a group of mothers from the school districts. Ruthenberg again supported this organizing, which was ultimately derailed by the administration’s firing of pro-union teachers. This repression of worker organizing was upheld by a frequent enemy of workers – District Judge David Westenhaver, who effectively delayed the unionization of Cleveland teachers until 1934. The same year, Ohio miners were locked out of their workplace following the passage of a new labor law, which the mine owners hoped to appeal as unconstitutional. In response, Ruthenberg called on the Ohio Socialist Party to push for immediate state ownership and worker operation of the coal mines. Later on, Ruthenberg would unionize his own white-collar workplace, and lead mass rallies of workers including IWW and AFL members.

The unity practiced by Ruthenberg and the Cleveland local is admirable, and carried on within DSA’s labor organizing approach today. While there are still contentious debates to be had within DSA regarding our approach to labor organizing, the disagreement is over narrower territory.  This is largely a reaction to the changes in the labor movement within the past century, shifting predominantly towards industrial unions which are much more willing to embrace the entire working class. This has eliminated a considerable portion of the impetus for dual unionism. Instead, DSA labor work now focuses on organizing new workplaces into unions, and bringing existing unions towards a more militant posture and political unity with our aims. As we undertake this work, as I am honored to do as Cleveland DSA’s elected Union Liaison, we should strive for the same levels of mass organizing as the SPA, bringing thousands of workers towards a socialist vision.

Please return tomorrow for Part Four: Diversity in the SPA

The post History of the Cleveland SPA, Part Three: Labor appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Before we start, we’re asking everyone to write to your elected officials to support H.794 and S.282. Tell them that you want to tax the rich for healthcare and schools!

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MONTH IN REVIEW

February was a month of incredible momentum for Green Mountain DSA, bookended by electoral victory and direct action. We are thrilled to open this newsletter by congratulating our endorsed Burlington City Council candidate, Marek Broderick, on their decisive Town Meeting Day win! Marek defeated a Democratic opponent with a strong tally of 301 to 187, securing a second term representing Ward 8. In the weeks leading up to the vote, our members made phone calls and knocked doors (again and again) across the entire ward to ensure voters had a plan. We are proud to stand behind a proven champion for renters, UVM students, and working-class Burlingtonians. Marek's leadership in passing a resolution to address deteriorating student housing is just one example of the socialist leadership we are building in Chittenden County.

At our February General Membership Meeting in Montpelier, members discussed our growing chapter-wide priority campaign, "Tax the Rich," supporting H.794 and S.282—legislation championed by our own State Senator Tanya Vyhovsky and Rep. Kate Logan that would generate hundreds of millions in revenue by making the wealthiest Vermonters pay their fair share. Green Mountain DSA organized a press conference at the State House in February and coverage by WCAX features Rep. Kate Logan detailing just how much working Vermonters stand to win by taxing the rich. The February General Membership Meeting also featured updates on our Palestine solidarity work (“No Appetite for Apartheid” campaign), and local ballot initiatives (“Proposition Zero” in Burlington). Alongside these campaigns, our chapter is deepening its foundation by launching weekly Saturday-Sunday socials to build comradeship and expanding our reach to southern counties through our “Statewide Expansion Working Group”. From electoral wins to anti-war action in coalition, your Green Mountain DSA is proving that another Vermont—one centered on working-class power and solidarity—is not only possible, but already being built. In solidarity, and see you at a meeting, social, or on the streets some time soon!

WE’RE BUILDING A FAMILY-FRIENDLY GMDSA

Green Mountain Democratic Socialists of America is working towards making our organization more accessible to parents and guardians. You can help us by letting us know if you would benefit from childcare being offered at our general meetings.

Please fill out our Childcare Needs Survey: https://forms.gle/6Mq1KHWGrc3QgLGv8 

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MEETINGS AND EVENTS

Our Labor Committee meets on the second Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom, including Monday March 9th. 

  Our Electoral Committee will meet on Tuesday March 10. The electoral committee meets at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

🌹The next May Day Coalition meeting is Tuesday March 10 at 6:00pm at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington) and on Zoom. 

Talk about your job and learn about shop-floor organizing from peers at Workers' Circle (co-hosted with the Green Mountain IWW) on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, including Wednesday March 11 at 6:00pm at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington).

💰Our Tax the Rich Working Group will meet on every Sunday, including March 15 at 6:00pm on Zoom..

Find out how you can help our Membership Committee improve recruitment and involvement in our chapter on Monday, March 16. The Membership Committee meets on the 3rd Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

GMDSA's East and West branches will come together for another general meeting on Saturday March 21 at 11:30 a.m. at TBD (Most likely the Public Library in South Burlington). Newcomers are encouraged to show up at 10:30 a.m. for an optional “DSA 101” orientation. Everyone is welcome to join for coffee hour with snacks and discussion at 11:00 a.m. prior to the start of the general meeting.

🇵🇸 Our Palestine Solidarity Committee will meet on Monday March 23. The Palestine solidarity committee meets on the 4th Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

📱Our Communications Committee will meet on Monday March 23. The communications committee meets on the 4th Monday of every month at 7:00pm on Zoom. 

📑 Our Steering Committee meets on the first Monday of every month at 7:30pm on Zoom, including Monday April 6. All members are welcome to participate in the meeting discussion, only members of the steering committee can vote. We will have a hybrid meeting this month. We will be meeting at the Queen City Lodge Oddfellows Hall. The address is 1416 North Ave in Burlington. Email hello@greenmountaindsa.org for the Zoom link if you would prefer to join online

Add our Google Calendar 📅 - Check out our website 🌐

IMPORTANT DATES THIS YEAR

• International Workers’ Day: May 1, 2026

• 2026 Labor Notes Conference: June 12-14

• Vermont Primary Election: August 11, 2026

• Labor Day: September 7, 2026

• General Election: November 3, 2026

• Next GMDSA Convention: November 2026

• Next DSA National Convention: August 2027

Years ago–during Trump’s first term–I listened as clergy colleagues addressed a committee of the Minnesota legislature in a hearing to determine how the state would respond to Trump’s harsh anti-immigrant policies. One pastor’s testimony was simply a recital of biblical passages concerning love of neighbor and care for the immigrant. Because she was allotted only five minutes, she couldn’t finish the long list of such verses.

Today, even Capitol Hill journalists have caught on that the religious chest-pounding from some in this regime stands in sharp contrast with the rising chorus of defiant activists reciting biblical verses. Earlier in February, one journalist asked the Speaker of the House to address the difference, and Mike Johnson leaped at the chance, declaring that “borders and laws are biblical.” 

What Are Walls for?

Johnson’s statement is true, of course. It’s been a go-to talking point on the religious Right ever since the first Trump administration, when some evangelical scholars rushed to defend cruel and inhumane border policies by stolidly observing that “biblical cities had walls.” 

In fact, as responsible biblical scholars can attest, the most prominent archaeological remains of “biblical” walls today are their massive gate complexes. “City gates in ancient Israel (ca. 1200–586 BCE) were fortified, multi-chambered structures serving as the primary hub for civic, judicial, and economic life. . .”

In other words, one of the primary functions of “biblical walls” and their gates was to open a city, responsibly, to the world around it, as people gathered in and moved through those gates to connect with one another. 

But Johnson’s obsession with “borders” seems to have some other focus: naked partisan ambition, perhaps. Let me stipulate that a morally responsible case can be made for open borders (just a few examples here), but no one on “the Left” is advocating letting violent men swarm into U.S. cities and rampage through neighborhoods, in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights.  That’s official DHS policy you’re thinking of. 

It bears note—again—that according to the DHS’s own records, only a tiny percentage of the people seized off the streets or out of their homes,  thrown into concentration camps, or deported are actually violent criminals—a smaller percentage than in the U.S. population generally.

Love Thy Neighbor—or Not

In contrast, Mike Johnson considers just one passage, Leviticus 19:34, supporting care for the immigrant. He sniffed that “whether [radical Leftists] know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land.” 

He apparently means that because that verse occurs before anything like a bordered Israelite state has been established, it can’t be taken seriously as relevant for actual nations today. 

“CONTEXT,” he declared in all caps, “IS CRITICAL.”

If that statement had appeared in an undergraduate’s paper, I would have circled it in red, written “exactly right!” in the margin—and then asked why context mattered not at all in the rest of his exposition. 

Come to think of it, let me take off my tweed jacket, roll up my sleeves, and spend some time with this argument.

. . . 

So, Mike—may I call you Mike? —you go on to explain that verses like that one, or the “Greatest Commandment” of love of neighbor, were “never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.” Somehow you think that lets you, and the masked brutes prowling U.S. cities, off the hook.

Actually, you might pay closer attention to the verse you just quoted, from the King James translation (of course). Note that in its archaic, 16th-century English, the verse interweaves the singular thou and the plural you: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you [plural] shall be unto you [plural] as one born among you [plural], and thou [singular] shalt love him as thyself [singular].” Note, too, that the command continues, as so often in the Torah, with a reason: “for ye [plural] were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your [plural] God.” 

It’s hard, then, to follow your insistence that this command is addressed only to the “individual.” The “thou” here is called on as a member of a people, and called to identify with a collective experience that should draw them into empathy and solidarity with the “stranger in their midst.” 

You’re right, of course, Mike, that this command doesn’t refer to the borders of a nation. In fact, all of the narrative of the Torah takes place before any of “the congregation of the children of Israel” enter the “promised land.” 

That’s really the point. The Torah reads as God’s formation of a people, independent of their dwelling within specific geographical borders. Yes, later in the story (in Numbers 34) God stipulates just what will be the bounds of the land that the people Israel will occupy. But even later, in Deuteronomy 17, God warns the people that if—in envy of the nations around them—they set a king over themselves, they will be courting danger. Not surprisingly, that’s what happens, and the text warns in anticipation that the establishment of the nation’s borders will take place only later, after the people, who are the Lord’s focus here, have taken what the Lord describes as the wrong direction. 

Even later (Deut. 28), Moses issues a lengthy warning to the people (in the future indicative, Mike, which means the warning also functions as a prophecy of what will happen). The people will turn away from the Lord and, in punishment, “the Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle.” That cruel foreign invader will destroy the nation and disperse its people. Those appear to be retrospective references to the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C.E., which allows scholars to date the main body of Deuteronomy. 

The climax of the book, toward which one could argue the whole of the Torah has been driving, is the solemn, countervailing promise that Moses gives to the assembled people (chapter 30): if—later, after their dispersal “to the ends of the world”—they will turn again in obedience, the Lord “will bring you back . . . into the land that your ancestors possessed” (30:4-5). 

Attentive readers will note some anachronism there. Moses seems to be speaking “over the heads” of the throng assembled before him on the plains of Moab, to address a later generation, living after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), when the (relatively) more civilized Persian emperor Cyrus the Great allowed exiles to return to Jerusalem. Modern biblical scholarship recognizes the anachronism and recognizes its role in the wider cultural context (there’s that word again) of the ancient near east: a later generation addresses their own situation by revitalizing older tradition and attributing the result to an ancient lawgiver. 

It’s clear from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Torah was made “the law of the land” under Cyrus’s direction. Serious biblical scholars recognize that, discussing the relationship of “Persia and Torah” and describing the final Torah as “the literature of colonial Yehud,” a phrase first popularized by the late, great Norman K. Gottwald. 

At this point, Mike, I’ll admit I don’t seriously expect you to follow this argument, because it’s so uncongenial to your commitments. You are what any contemporary Bible scholar would recognize as a literalist, probably a Fundamentalist, and not a curious one at that. We recognize your type in the classroom pretty early in a semester. You’re not really a student: you’re a provocateur, and no one is going to change your mind.

I hope I’ve not gone too far into the biblical-scholarship weeds. I just want to point out that there is a world of actual study of the Bible in its historical context, which for some of us really is critical. That means recognizing that the final form of the Torah didn’t fall from heaven into Moses’s hands; that it was created centuries later, in solemn retrospect, by people who were trying to discern the divine will in the course of their own history. It wasn’t written to speak to people living on some other continent two and a half millennia later, though centuries of white Christian Protestants have insisted that they are precisely the Bible’s long-awaited subjects. 

More directly to the point of your concern, Mike, the Torah doesn’t imagine that any people can be kept holy through strict border controls. Holiness is a matter of doing right by their neighbors—which is why the single command you discuss appears as part of what scholars call the “holiness code” in the book of Leviticus.

This is a good place to observe that the ways any of us reads the Bible always say more about us than about the Bible. You presume that the Bible provides the blueprint for a white Christian America, to which everyone else must “assimilate”—a line that received an appropriate response from Stephen Colbert. 

You present your neat division of labor as the master-key to interpreting the Bible. “The Bible,” you write, “teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority—(1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities.” All that “love of neighbor” stuff in the Bible, so popular on the “progressive Left,” applies, you insist, only to the “INDIVIDUAL” (sic); in contrast, you write, “the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).” 

It’s interesting that you don’t cite any Bible verse  that lays out that division of labor—but not surprising. No such categorization of responsibilities ever appears in scripture. You or, more precisely, the Christian Dominionists on whom you rely made it up. The reason is pretty clear: You prefer a scheme that gives you authority over the rest of us to actual biblical teaching.

Let’s give those verses in Romans more attention than you’ve managed, Mike. (Full disclosure: I’ve written two books on the Letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperialism, and an additional scholarly essay just on this passage, 13:1-7.) 

There is no divine “calling” or “establishment” or “authorization” of government in these verses; the Greek participle tetagmenai (rendered “ordained” in the King James Version, and “appointed” in the New King James Version) has a restrictive sense and might better be translated “set in rank,” the way a drill sergeant might snap unruly troops to attention. The punitive role of governing authorities is described in the indicative—as a matter of fact—and not as a positive value. 

You seem attracted to the calm assurance in verses 3 and 4 that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil”; so, the one who does right has nothing to fear. To you, as to everyone in this administration and abroad in MAGA world, that means that people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were self-evidently evil-doers, and their deaths are their own damn fault. 

Leave aside for a moment the breathtaking indifference to brutality expressed in such sentiment. Even at the level of reading ancient biblical texts, this facile moral embrace of whatever the government does fails miserably. 

The apostle Paul knew perfectly well that government authorities were lethally dangerous to innocent people; after all, he declares that “the rulers of this age” crucified the innocent Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8), and later in that letter, assures his readers that at “the end,” Christ will destroy “all rule and all authority and power” and thus put “all enemies under His feet” (15:24-25). Paul describes his own record of being arrested and beaten by civil authorities as evidence that he is a genuine messenger of God, which is the opposite of how you want us to use the Bible (4:9-13). 

Scholars more chastened by actual history know that reaching for Romans 13 to buttress government authority has been the ploy of governments that have no intention of acting virtuously: Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, any number of other brutal dictatorships since. The passage remains something of an enigma, but over the last half century, scholars have observed the following:

1. Paul thinks his hearers have good reason to be afraid of the civil authorities (the words “terror” in v. 3 and “fear” in v. 7 are the same word in Greek, phobos). That good reason is precisely that the authority “does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). (Paul wrote that line at a time when the new emperor, the teenage Nero, was requiring his speechwriters to insist that he had brought peace throughout the Empire without even touching a sword.)
2. The Roman sword remains a constant lethal danger, as Paul affirms earlier in this same letter: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36).
3. Precisely because Roman authorities had proven themselves a deadly blunt instrument in putting down tax protests in nearby Puteoli, then again in a mass expulsion of Jews from Rome in a habitual over-reaction to civil unrest, Paul knows his own people are at greatest risk if the civil authorities crack down over any disquiet. 
4. And that’s why, in unfortunately stereotyped language, Paul here urged his (non-Jewish) readers to keep their heads down and their noses clean—advice he himself usually did not practice. 

The Bible for Thee, Not for Me

All of this is relevant historical context, yet none of it seems to matter to you, Mike, so I want to ask a few more questions.

If you took seriously the division you outlined between biblical instructions for “the individual” and those for “civil authorities”—why wouldn’t you accept the first as decisive for yourself?  Sure, you’ve been elected to the House, and your colleagues have made you Speaker, but if you had known what the Bible commanded you as an individual, why would you ever have sought public office? Indeed, why would you aspire to be an “agent of wrath,” instead of a righteous lover of mercy, as the Bible does expressly command? 

It seems to me that no Bible verse or biblical commentator is quite as important for your “theology” as the logic of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, a favorite of self-styled right-wing intellectuals like Peter Thiel (and his protegé J. D. Vance). For Schmitt, what made a nation was sovereignty, and what constituted sovereignty was the power to declare a state of exception to the laws that everyone else had to follow. That’s why you want to be in government, Mike—especially in this government, where declaring national emergencies is the most convenient way to ignore Congress, the courts, and the Constitution.

And why else, Mike, would you reach for the Bible to explain your eager participation in this regime? Even if you were right about the Bible’s authorization of government as God’s “agent of wrath,”  nobody asked you to serve the Bible. 

Instead, you were asked to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

I know that’s loaded with all sorts of language you’d prefer was not there: “domestic Tranquility”? “general Welfare”? “the Blessings of Liberty”? It’s pretty obvious you would rather be doling out punishment to “bad guys,” so you prefer to think that’s what the Bible authorizes you to do. 

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan taught us to recognize how often “the medium is the message.” The principle has no more apt illustration than you addressing a roomful of journalists and, over their heads, the American people, to tell us that the Bible authorizes you and your Republican colleagues to ignore the basic morality and decency to which so many of us feel bound. That moment—the medium of your self-righteous little Bible study—is the message you find in the Bible: you and your people decide, we obey. 

Fantasies of self-righteousness and the divine power to punish wicked others, fed by apocalyptic texts in the Bible, are rife in the present regime. More attentive readers of Revelation, or the prophecy in Matthew 25, will notice that no government officials, no military commanders appear in biblical visions of heaven, or heaven on earth. It is clear enough from the Beatitudes Jesus pronounces in Matthew 5 that the blessed are not those who have used force to assert their will but the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger for justice, those who make peace.

Don’t worry, Mike–there’s still time to read up.  

The post The Bible and the Border: Mike Johnson Explains It All (or Does He?) appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.