On the national stage, Republicans are moving to secure minoritarian rule through redistricting efforts in Texas and Missouri. Through this anti-democratic effort, Republicans are poised to pick up six seats in Congress. This November, Californians have the opportunity to challenge these power grabs by passing Prop 50. If passed, the ballot measure will redraw five Republican-held congressional districts in California (CA-1, CA-3, CA-22, CA-41, and CA-48), making them more competitive and friendly to a potential DSA challenger.

Failing to redistrict in California while Republicans redistrict in Texas will cement Republican minoritarian rule in Congress for the foreseeable future and provide a blank check to the Trump administration to continue carrying out their violent and extremist policies. Further, it is likely the 2030 census and subsequent redistricting will heavily favor Republicans in the electoral college through 2040.

Socialists can’t sit this one out! As a national organization, we have a mandate to run five congressional candidates in 2028. Prop 50’s new map further opens the door for DSA challengers in the 2028 cycle. One of these five must come from the West Coast. California has been hit hard by the Trump administration through ICE raids, defunding of social programs, and attacks on healthcare and trans folks. The Golden State is a destination for people seeking a better life. It has been misrepresented by status quo Democratic Party machine politicians who seek only to secure their own power and wealth. We need a 2028 candidate who can fight the fascist right and fully expose the contradictions of the inept Democratic Party apparatus. 

California DSA and chapters endorse Prop 50

On August 23rd, California DSA voted to endorse Prop 50 and create a statewide working group charged with building a DSA canvassing and comms program around the initiative. California DSA will also bottomline a statewide public webinar providing a socialist analysis of why we have arrived at this political moment and how we can emerge from it, and coordinate a DSA Day of Action for participating chapters.

Chapters across the state are throwing down to get Prop 50 passed. Sonoma endorsed Prop 50 on August 25th and is currently looking into doing joint canvasses with their local Working Families Party (WFP). DSA-LA just endorsed the measure locally by majority vote at their September chapter meeting, and has electoral working groups spinning up for the 2026 cycle that can use this as an early exercise. San Diego and Silicon Valley DSA are also exploring endorsement at their upcoming chapter meetings this weekend. Pending endorsement, San Diego DSA is tentatively planning ten canvasses with a target of 2000 doors knocked before election day.

We are only six weeks away from election day, so this will be a relatively short campaign. Aside from passing Prop 50, the primary objective of the CA DSA Prop 50 campaign is to recruit our neighbors to DSA and strengthen our field programs. 

Fascist threat

This ballot initiative is a vehicle to have organizing conversations in our communities about the threat that the fascist right poses to multiracial democracy. As democratic socialists, we want an economy that is democratically controlled by working people and we run candidates who work to advance tenant protections, immigration justice, and the power of organized labor. 

Redistricting is a defensive tactic, and while it will reduce Republican expansion if passed, this measure alone is radically insufficient to respond to the aggregate moment. To respond at scale, we need to organize. This six-week effort gives us an opportunity to ask people to get involved in campaigns that will help involve them as agents in building collective power. DSA members can motivate folks at the doors to not only vote yes on Prop 50, but engage in a longer-term strategy to combat the right by joining DSA.

To join the CA DSA working group, fill out this interest form: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/california-redistricting-working-group-interest-form/

California DSA has recently voted in favor of supporting Proposition 50, a proposal to redraw California’s districts that is self-evidently aimed at creating enduring structural Democrat electoral supremacy in California, in the form of creating and sending materials to chapters throughout the state, and encouraging these chapters to quickly launch campaigns over the next seven weeks. We dissent from this endorsement and reject its strategy, and lay out a rebuttal to the argument for endorsement.

What Does DSA Really Stand To Gain from Prop 50?

In the piece laying out the argument for the endorsement, CA DSA and Groundwork caucus member Chris K. called Republican gerrymandering in Texas a “calculated assault on democracy” and “the Right’s most powerful weapon for locking working people out of politics.” While he claims to have “no illusions about the party establishment and what it wants out of this,” he argues that gerrymandering can be used in California as a counterweight to Republican gerrymandering elsewhere in the US, especially in Texas. This illustrates the defining political mistake of the DSA Right: mistaking the goals of the Democratic Party for the goals of DSA. 

Prop 50 makes perfect sense from the Democrats’ perspective. Of course Democrats want to minimize Republican footholds and shape the American political map in ways that maximize the electoral power of their (shrinking & demoralized) base. To lend our endorsement to a measure designed in their party’s interest, not ours, is to sacrifice our independence and organizing efforts without gaining any leverage.

Indeed, if we truly have “no illusions” about what this is, then we must admit it is very likely that Governor Gavin Newsom will use this redistricting process to engineer mid-layer support for his 2028 presidential campaign. Prop 50 provides him and his allies with another mechanism for consolidating their networks of patronage, rewarding loyalists, and structuring the political field to his benefit. Why align with that now unless we aim to be junior partners in the Democrat presidential campaign in 2028? As most recently shown in Minneapolis, it is an error to assume that the Democrat party will not strike against us as soon as we pose a threat to their capitalist base. 

In his piece, Chris K. says “this moment gives us a chance to both take a realpolitik move to reduce the GOP advantage from Texas gerrymandering and to agitate and push beyond the rigged two-party system,” but we can’t be simultaneously agitating against a rigged two-party system while supporting one of the parties rigging it. Chris also suggests that we demand more fundamental reforms in CA such as proportional representation, which gerrymandering is designed to decrease. The confusion of the author’s politics illustrates the contradictions in our endorsement, and those contradictions will not be lost on the working class of California.

But let’s also be clear on what we’re advocating for: if the DSA wants to credibly demand an expanded democracy, our demand cannot be for “fair” electoral maps under capitalism, an idea which itself is based on liberal assumptions of political rights. It must be for a new kind of political system entirely—one in which workers control their workplaces, communities, and governments directly, not one in which capitalists shuffle district lines to their advantage.

How Our Experience in the Central Valley Shapes Our Position

North Central Valley DSA (NCVDSA), a small chapter which organizes in four counties throughout rural California, has experienced steady growth since 2022, and it owes its growth to working class Californians who reject partisan divides in favor of class war. The palpable disdain for both Democrats and Republicans can be seen both within and beyond the electoral context, and there is a critical demand among rural Central Valley workers for an alternative to the capitalist two-party system. In 2024, dozens of NCVDSA members participated in the CA DSA ARCH campaign, canvassing voters who spoke of the hardships they’ve faced for generations; astronomical rent increases, abandoned public transportation projects, extreme land subsidence, unbearable drought, unbreathable air. These attacks on Central Californians are often bipartisan, conducted by politicians who switch-hit between D and R on a whim. Many NCVDSA ARCHers felt like we were fighting on two fronts: convincing our neighbors that, while not a panacea, these propositions would be an important tool to help the working class, while at the same time convincing them that we were not sent by the Democrats, which would have instantly lost us credibility.

If we support Prop 50, we will set back our own work throughout California towards showing up as an alternative to the capitalist two-party system. Rejecting Prop 50 does not mean ignoring the real frustrations people feel about Republican gerrymandering. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to connect those frustrations to a broader critique of capitalist politics. We can explain to workers why both Democrats and Republicans manipulate district lines, why neither party is truly invested in their empowerment, and why only socialist politics can deliver real democracy.

California DSA’s Fundamental Political Error: Identifying the Democrats’ Goals with DSA’s Goals

Broadly, we understand CA DSA to be operating on the notion that the current primary contradiction in the United States is Trumpism, and the primary task before us as DSA is to stymie Trump. But we cannot take such a myopic view of the struggle between capital and the people: Democratic capital cannot save us from Republican capital and we cannot organize the working class through building the personal brand of Gavin Newsom. Our organizing work throughout California’s East Bay and Central Valley regions has made it clear to us that DSA must win the support of the working class regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.

The mission of DSA as an organization is not to push the Democrats into action to defeat the Republican Party. Our class enemies are just as powerful within the Democratic network as on the Republican side, and losing sight of class antagonisms is a huge political error. Our mission is instead to organize the broad working class and win political power on their behalf. It is not possible to achieve this goal by playing by partisan rules, and only appealing to those members of the working class who are already committed to voting for Democrats.

Last year, only 34% of California’s eligible voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. If we aim for a strategy that alienates the near supermajority – 66% – of eligible voters who didn’t vote Democrat, then we will forever limit our horizon to being a minor advocacy group in the Democrat sphere. It’s our responsibility as scientific socialists to assess our terrain more clearly if we want to create a better world. DSA chapters in California and throughout the country are learning how to organize folks who do not vote Democrat, and supporting Prop 50 would present a significant setback to this work.

What Would Organizing the Broad Working Class Look Like?

Imagine, instead of endorsing Prop 50, the DSA aimed at agitating along class lines, communicating simply and clearly that both Democrats and Republicans are rigging the electoral system and disregarding their working-class base. We could point out how working-class communities of color, immigrant neighborhoods, and rural towns alike are carved up by politicians. We could argue that true representation will never be achieved through bourgeois redistricting, but through building worker power independent of both capitalist parties. We could use this moment not to strengthen the Democrat hegemony in California, but to destabilize it, and to create openings for DSA to win.

The Democratic party is the weakest it's been in our lifetimes. The working class correctly views the Democrats as failing to fight back against Trump in any meaningful way, but simply fighting Trump to gain electoral ground without actually addressing the demands of the working class will not resolve the heightening contradictions in this country’s politics. We reject the idea that aligning with the Democrats’ belated attempt to win back some of its loyalists will do anything other than undermine DSA’s principles and ideological independence, and we strongly urge California DSA to reconsider its endorsement. California chapters across the state understand that DSA must grow, develop, and thrive at the expense of the Democratic party, and we may be forced to reassess our continued support of a state organization that increasingly works against the goal of creating an independent socialist party.

Andrew T and Ian H’s argument (“Against the California DSA Endorsement of Prop 50”) showcases their disdain for our bedfellows in the campaign, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party: “To lend our endorsement to a measure designed in their party’s interest, not ours, is to sacrifice our independence and organizing efforts without gaining any leverage.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not fond of Gavin Newsom or the neoliberal wing of the DP. In this way we’re all on the same page. But understanding where and why we disagree requires a much bigger picture than T & H draw for us.

Let’s talk about bedfellows. In making their arguments against Prop 50 they line up with right wing billionaire Charlie Munger—who has spent tens of millions of dollars in California elections opposing progressive tax measures while supporting union-busting initiatives. Munger, in a New York Times op ed, acknowledges the Texas redistricting measure that gives five more Congressional seats to the Republicans is wrong. But his weak argument is that two wrongs don’t make a right, ignoring the likely outcome: Republicans will stay in control of the House of Representatives. Of course he ignores that: it’s his desired outcome—a far right billionaire who wants to keep other far right billionaires in charge. Also on the anti-50 side: the California Republican Party and former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who makes a similarly limp argument that gerrymandering is wrong anywhere and everywhere. 

No abstract morality, please

In other words, Munger, Schwarzenegger and Republican leadership make an abstract moral argument against Prop 50, masking their real motivations:  their support for the consequences of Prop 50 going down to defeat, which are concrete and political and just fine with them.

T & H tell us that California DSA is mistaken in its support for a measure that aims to offset Trump’s dangerous gerrymandering chess move in Texas. As socialists of course they offer different reasons for their position than the billionaires do. But the level of abstraction that they offer here is pretty much on the same plane. I’ll address three problems with their opposition to Prop 50.

The problem is fascism

Nowhere in the article’s 1400 words do the authors utter the word “fascism”. This is its central flaw. All the rhetoric about building socialism by winning over the broad working class, and polemicizing against working with the class-betraying Democratic Party, etc., misses a key concept: fascism is far worse for the working class—day to day, and in the long run—than a society that retains basic democratic rights. It’s the slide into fascism that’s at stake here. On this the authors have nothing to say. 

T & H want to 

…be clear on what we’re advocating for: if the DSA wants to credibly demand an expanded democracy, our demand cannot be for “fair” electoral maps under capitalism, an idea which itself is based on liberal assumptions of political rights. It must be for a new kind of political system entirely—one in which workers control their workplaces, communities, and governments directly, not one in which capitalists shuffle district lines to their advantage.

Well, OK, comrades, we’re with you there. We just fail to understand how greasing the skids to fascism now accomplishes anything on the road to socialism in the future. Please spare us the obvious: yes, it’s a capitalist society, and the Republicans and Democrats are the twin parties of capital. The Democrats are no friend of the working class, etc. We are well aware of all that. That’s not what this is about. 

These arguments read like a Maoist screed from the 1970s. In that unfortunate decade, competing left grouplets promoted slight variants on a rigid belief in their party line combined with hallucinatory expectations for revolution around the corner. This deadly combination delivered irrelevance for this section of the left in regard to actual working class struggles and ultimately brought about the implosion of the Maoist left. (If you are unaware of these events and the parallel danger now, read Max Elbaum’s Revolution in the Air.) Making this mistake today—arguing for revolution in the abstract, while stepping aside from the opportunity to block fascism and build alliances with progressive forces (and no, I’m not talking about Newsom or neoliberal Dems) is inexcusable, given that the history is available for anyone to know, should they care to.

Hidden accelerationism?

Perhaps there’s a hidden accelerationist view at work here—the belief that the worse things get, the better for the revolution. Since presumably we’re all historical materialists, let’s look at the evidence in history. In no advanced capitalist country has this ever worked out. The closest the argument comes to such a picture in the United States is the Great Depression, which eventuated in the rise of the industrial unions and the social democratic gains for the working class of the New Deal—not revolution. This occurred on the back of the strongest labor movement the country has seen. 

 At the moment we simply don’t have a labor movement like that, or anything like the balance of forces to bring about a contemporary equivalent of even this important but relatively modest advance for the working class. And no clear way to get there—unless it’s the anti-fascist movement that is cohering slowly around us. Prop 50, which may well carry all the neoliberal baggage T & H claim, is nonetheless one of the tools in that movement. 

Andrew T and Ian H say, “The confusion of the author’s politics illustrates the contradictions in our endorsement, and those contradictions will not be lost on the working class of California.”

Contrary to the authors assertions, it’s improbable that “the working class” will put DSA under a microscope and stand in judgment of our actions anytime soon. That class conscious, for-itself working class has yet to construct itself, and steps in that direction are more likely to be earned by an anti-fascist movement utilizing every reasonable tool at its disposal, including Prop 50, than by proclaiming moral purity and standing off to the side of the battle. 

 Where’s the labor movement?

That’s because there is another word missing from their argument:  labor.  It is DSA policy, and a categorical belief of most DSA members, that we stand shoulder to shoulder with unions in their struggles. We don’t do so uncritically. We enter into coalition work with eyes wide open, understanding the often rightward drag of labor leadership as well as the passivity of the rank and file in too many unions. Nonetheless organized labor remains the central tool at the disposal of the working class. Like any tool it may be used well, badly or not at all. For Ian H and Andrew T apparently the favored choice is “not at all”.

The California labor movement is all in on Prop 50. It knows that with a Congress rubberstamping Trump’s anti-labor agenda (destruction of federal workers’ collective bargaining rights, stacking the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union administrators and staff, etc.) conditions for the working class will only grow more dire. Prop 50 is a unifying campaign for labor action between now and November. That provides socialists the opportunity to work together and engage in constructive dialog with union activists as the campaign unfolds; to build mutual respect between union activists and DSA members; and ultimately, between unions and DSA—an opportunity unavailable to those abstaining from the struggle. 

What is the alternative to Prop 50 offered by Andrew T and Ian H? Their example is the organizing work done in the central valley by one of our chapters in 2024, which they describe as conducted by “dozens” of comrades during the ARCH campaign for housing propositions 33 and 5. The comrades canvassed working class voters and learned that a) they have big problems, caused by capitalism and b) they don’t like the Democrats. The chapter has grown, they say, because working class Californians “reject partisan divides in favor of class war”. With all due respect to the hard work of canvassing in working class neighborhoods, California’s central valley contains seven million people, and the growth of a local DSA chapter by “dozens” doesn’t quite get to the scale of what we are facing, nor does it allow for generalizations about what “the working class” wants or doesn’t want. Again, our analysis should be concrete, not abstract.

The outcome of Prop 50, if it prevails in November, will be to possibly prevent the Republicans from stealing the 2026 congressional elections by redrawing districts in Texas. There’s no guarantee that that will end the matter; other factors will be in play. But without Prop 50 the fascist Republican Party will more than likely stay in control of Congress. Don’t like neoliberal Dems? Neither do I. Don’t like progressive tax-averse Governor Newsom? Neither do I. Don’t like gerrymandering? Me neither. I’m voting and working for Prop 50 because I like fascism even less.

Finally, T & H are factually wrong about Prop 50’s content, which, they assert, is “self-evidently aimed at creating enduring structural Democrat electoral supremacy in California”. Well, no, it expires in 2030. It is a temporary tactic (not a “strategy” as T & H would have it) to forestall a manipulated outcome on behalf of fascism while Trump is in power. T & H’s arguments are wrong on fact, wrong on the way forward. Please follow the lead of California DSA’s State Council and support Prop 50.

In this conversation, iconographer Kelly Latimore talks art, flourishing, protest, and spirituality, naming some practices for nourishing our spirits as we pursue justice in a toxic and demoralizing political climate. Check out his art at https://kellylatimoreicons.com

Note: posts by individual GMDSA members do not necessarily reflect the views of the broader membership or of its leadership and should not be regarded as official statements by the chapter.

GMDSA Co-Chair Joe Moore on the recent B-2 flyover. Photo Credit: Northrop Grumman/U.S. Air Force

---

On the afternoon of Saturday, September 20, a B-2 “Spirit” stealth bomber flew low over Montpelier on its way to Norwich University. The 2 p.m. flyover was scheduled to coincide with the kickoff of Norwich’s homecoming football game. 

The B-2 is a heavy bomber designed to carry a large payload, including up to sixteen 2,400 pound B83 nuclear weapons - each one with a potential yield 80 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. At about $2 billion per plane, the B-2 is the most expensive military aircraft ever produced. In terms of both cost and destructive capacity, the F-35 pales in comparison. 

I happened to be standing in the parking lot behind Montpelier’s Christ Episcopal Church when I heard the low roar of the B-2 overhead. It was a terrifying sight to behold from directly below. Its unique angular profile makes it immediately recognizable as a nuclear-capable stealth bomber. With only 19 in existence, the B-2 is a rare sight in most places, not to mention the skies over Vermont’s capital.  

A deep sense of unease at finding myself directly below a weapon of mass annihilation quickly turned to anger. At that moment, I was surrounded by the tents and canopies of Montpelier’s unhoused population. Dozens of Vermonters were forced to seek refuge in the Church parking lot following the end of the state's motel housing program on July 1 and Montpelier City Council’s ongoing ban on camping in “high sensitivity areas.” The juxtaposition of the $2 billion B-2 flying low over a cluster of makeshift shelters erected on parking lot asphalt could not have been more stark.

This one plane alone could have paid for the construction of 10-20,000 additional units of housing – not to mention clinics, schools, childcare centers, and other socially useful infrastructure. At $2 billion, one B-2 represents just under one-quarter of Vermont’s entire state budget. Its presence in the skies over our communities is both an affront and a timely reminder that the existence of poverty and homelessness in America – the wealthiest county in the history of the world – is not an inevitability. It is a social choice. 

While gratuitous displays of military power have become commonplace at U.S. sporting events, we should remember that those machines that inspire feelings of awe and pride in many Americans are weapons of mass destruction that inspire terror in most other places around the world. For the thousands of refugee families who have resettled in Vermont after fleeing wars abroad – including U.S.-launched wars – low-flying bombers are not associated with patriotic pageantry. They are associated with death and devastation. 

Norwich University is a private military college, but its leaders should consider its responsibility to the community and region in which it is embedded. Football is enjoyable on its own. The University doesn’t need to subject Washington County residents to the presence of weapons of annihilation for the purpose of “entertainment”. 

The Brach’s factory closure hit working families in Chicago. To fight back, these families took the struggle from the shop floor and made it international.

The post Chicago labor’s fight against child slavery in Côte d’Ivoire appeared first on EWOC.

We don’t have to do this alone. We don’t have to FEEL alone. Socialize and organize because we’re in this together, fighting for a better world!

The post Fighting apathy and algorithms appeared first on EWOC.

[[{“value”:”

By: Zac Bears and Jessica Farrell

This article was originally published in Convergence Magazine in 2024.

MEDFORD, MA – For decades, residents in Medford, Mass have voted many of the same people into office time and time again. City politics was, and in some ways still is, defined by long-standing conflicts between individual elected officials and their supporters. Political leadership roles were passed down to family members across multiple generations. Important proposals were approved or denied for who was supporting them just as often as they were for their merits. Facing the dual impact of incredibly restrictive state laws on municipal finance and lack of comprehensive planning and growth of the city’s tax base, Medford’s public infrastructure crumbled and the local government provided fewer city and school services. 

After the Great Recession, the public schools cut dozens of positions, many of which never returned. Huge staff cuts in the Department of Public Works means the city outsources basic maintenance of streets and sidewalks. Many of our recreation, school sports, and arts programs are entirely funded by fees or managed by private nonprofits and donors.

All of this in a city where residents were voting for more progressive officials at the state and national level, where residents were seeing our neighboring communities improve far more rapidly, and where more residents were demanding the basic services, support for public schools, and the safe, well-maintained infrastructure they deserved.

These were, and still are, conditions where a movement for change can grow. Does this sound similar to your community? If so, the potential for change may be closer than you think.

Where We Live

Medford’s nearly 65,000 residents reside on both sides of the Mystic River five miles from Downtown Boston in a historically middle and working-class community. The city has one of the country’s oldest historically Black neighborhoods in West Medford, and a strong immigrant history with large Irish and Italian communities putting down roots here in the mid-20th century alongside fast-growing Haitian and Brazilian communities today. 

Unlike neighbors in Cambridge, Somerville, and Everett, Medford has not grown a large commercial tax base to support city services or public schools and is largely dependent on residential property taxes to fund the city budget. Today, residents face skyrocketing housing costs and decades of underinvestment in streets, schools, and city staff. Hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance is now coming due, and because of Proposition 2.5, a 1980 MA ballot question that limited municipal property tax authority, high property values don’t equate to more tax revenue to fix these major problems.

Starting from the Bottom

Galvanized by the far-right victory in the 2016 national election, a small group of progressive residents founded Our Revolution Medford (ORM) in early 2017 to take action for progressive change at the local level. We developed our own local platform based on city issues, and while we occasionally share invitations and information for statewide and national Our Revolution events, the movement is entirely locally grown and directed and receives no outside funding. Eight years later, ORM has grown from a small backyard gathering to a citywide movement that elected majorities on both the Medford City Council and Medford School Committee.  

Our initial conversations in 2017 quickly turned to the need for political analysis, desire to see candidates commit to real policies, and to fill in massive information gaps in a community with little-to-no local news media and scant public space for pre-election discussion and debate. We asked: who can we trust? Who can we influence? We brought together a group of people who could build trust and share the burden of paying attention to city government to help each other analyze what’s going on.

We reached out to lists of local residents we knew supported the Bernie Sanders campaign and movement, community organizations focused on change, and candidates for local office in the 2017 municipal election who seemed to share our values. Our initial membership was deeply intergenerational, from college students to retirees, and stretched across ideologies, including long-time local progressives, young socialists, frustrated parents, people facing housing displacement, and everyday folks who shared our values but didn’t choose a political label.

Three major strategic values soon followed from those meetings: (1) a clear focus on building power, (2) making the necessary preparations for successfully wielding power, and (3) growing our capacity through relationships and trust across the community.

Before 2017, many candidates for local office ran on city pride and local social and family connections. Their campaigns lacked specific policies or opinions on policy. Few discussed strategies to address major long-term fiscal and economic challenges.  Our initial efforts to shift power were grounded in information-sharing and transparency, staking out clear policy positions and informing voters about what incumbent candidates believed and supported based on their votes and comments in Council meetings.  

Strong support for progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey in our community showed us that the majority of residents wanted to see progress and transformative change. We decided early on that the best way to build power was to focus on organizing residents around city policy and government by creating grassroots policy campaigns and having a laser-focus on electing new members of the School Committee and City Council so that we could put those policies into place.

We decided early on that the best way to build power was to focus on organizing residents around city policy and government by creating grassroots policy campaigns and having a laser-focus on electing new members of the School Committee and City Council.

These two tactics took on specific forms. For grassroots policy campaigns, we held public events to educate residents about specific issues (for example, pushing to increase the low Payments in Lieu of Taxes or PILOTs from large tax-exempt institutions like Tufts University), discussed topics in ORM meetings, and held city council watch parties over a group chat. The chats help mobilize residents to reach out to elected officials and attend city meetings and connect residents’ everyday experiences to the actions of local government.

Our direct electoral work was even more focused and ambitious. Adapting a model successfully used in Richmond, CA and popularized by the Incorruptibles, we ran a “candidate slate” to help us overcome the financial and structural barriers progressive candidates face.

In Fall 2017, we formed a slapshot slate of candidates who were already running, pitched in personal funds to get some palm cards printed, canvassed a couple of times, and then stood at the polls on Election Day. Four of five of our endorsed candidates won, including one whose narrow majority survived a recount. This showed us that every single vote really mattered and gave us a wedge to grow in the subsequent years. Start small – with discipline and building a culture of organizing, there’s always room to grow.

Building Cycles of Organizing

Each win built on the ones before, with three School Committee Members and two City Councilors winning in 2019 (one of whom is Zac Bears, co-author of this article and ORM’s first member-turned-candidate), and eight out of nine endorsed candidates winning in 2021, including the first Asian-American person to serve on the Council, and securing majorities on both the City Council and the School Committee. Opponents who didn’t see us coming were surprised. Ten of 11 endorsed candidates won in 2023, including six of the seven who ran for Council seats. Several ORM-endorsed candidates won more than 50% of the vote, a rarity in the past even for long-time incumbents, and the top vote-getters for both Council and School Committee received more votes than the re-elected incumbent Mayor and the most votes for either office in at least 20 years.

While the idea of the platform and slate began with the Richmond Progressive Alliance model, we have greatly expanded it over the past six years. Each election cycle, we conduct an extensive community outreach and editing process to revise the Medford People’s Platform (MPP) and update the endorsement process we launched in 2019. We reach out to dozens of community organizations and major stakeholders, engaging hundreds of residents with surveys and public forums. We hold community workshops on the questions of who is included in decision-making, what are our core values, and what policies we want to see implemented in our city. 

The result? A platform that we all agree to work towards, even though most members do not agree 100% with every point. Each successive election, we have expanded the process, engaging more residents and updating the platform to address changing conditions and celebrate hard-won victories. Candidates endorsed by Our Revolution Medford commit to support the platform; the platform shapes messaging and outreach for our coordinated electoral campaigns and provides the basis for a clear understanding of success and accountability after candidates win. 

Now in its third iteration, the 2023-2024 Medford People’s Platform is focused on housing justice, racial justice, public health, and a shared vision for a welcoming, vibrant, and forward-looking local government that provides residents with the city and school services they deserve. The two biggest priorities are raising revenue to invest in a new Medford High School and Fire Headquarters and implementing transformative housing production, zoning reform, and economic development plans to fight housing displacement, grow the city’s commercial tax base, and build more vibrant local business and cultural districts. 

Our work is purposeful and committed but joyful as well. We have consistently placed a high value on community-building. During each local election cycle, we grow the movement by building stronger relationships and growing our capacity to organize. Each non-election year, we sustain that movement-building through virtual city meeting watches and discussion spaces, and we hold regular general meetings. We focus on city government actions to hold elected officials accountable while supporting the good work done, and we hold social events to be in community with each other.

Historic Challenges

Inauguration day in January 2020 was a celebration of our successes. The months that followed showed the limits of our power, and then the limits of government and society. The COVID-19 pandemic struck Massachusetts and Medford hard. After just two months of Council meetings, we were in lockdown and dozens of Medford residents were getting seriously ill and dying, especially in our senior housing facilities. Shock pervaded the community, with highways and skies quieter than anyone had ever experienced. But in less than a month, Medford was able to implement videoconferencing for public meetings and the City Council began to meet again.

ORM-endorsed elected officials pushed hard for state and federal support, implementation of strong pandemic responses to protect residents from serious illness and death, resources and training for online learning to minimize the unimaginable disruption of the pandemic on kids, protection for residents facing housing displacement, and provisions for public meetings to continue to occur in a safe manner. 

From 2017 to 2021, serving in the minority or with a slim majority meant we needed to build coalitions and consensus within the City Council and School Committee, and many of our more ambitious and long-overdue policy proposals were stymied before reaching passage or rejected as too ambitious by the mayor or city and school administrators who hold outsized power compared to the elected legislative bodies under our city charter. 

With many progressives now in elected office, we see conflicts between people fighting to maintain the status quo and people who want to see the city grow and change play out constantly, with persistent arguments that people who have lived here across decades and generations and those who own property have more of a right to the city than residents who arrived more recently or who rent. 

Transformation is in the Details

The progressive majority elected in 2023 has brought a major change in the tone and approach of the City Council. For the first time ever, the Council has created, voted on, and published a governing agenda for the 2024-2025 term that outlines major initiatives. A new Council committee structure helps clarify when and how the Council develops ordinances and conducts administrative oversight. Meeting agendas, schedules, and files are published through a new online portal. Updated Council rules contain a table of contents, guarantee remote participation by members of the public through hybrid meetings, and no longer contain arcane language to make the rules clearer and more accessible to the public. 

Transformative initiatives and ordinances are moving quickly, with the Council voting to create an independent Department of Elections, passing the first Zoning Ordinance Recodification in 60 years, as well as passing ordinances updating snow removal policies to improve sidewalk access, several environmental and civil liberties ordinances, and a new budget ordinance that formally establishes an open and transparent budget process as city law.  

We’ve also faced new, unexpected barriers. Our budget cycles lay bare the major short-term and long-term budget crisis facing Medford. Prior to 2023, budget cycles had a similar rhythm. Mayors would submit a proposed budget close to the June 30^th deadline, some years riddled with errors. Councilors would demand accountability and attempt to set the facts straight during budget hearings held with less than ideal information to make decisions. Councils would attempt to hold strong and often would win small improvements, but year after year, residents would see service cuts to city departments and Medford Public Schools. 

In FY24, the Council once again had serious concerns about the use of one-time federal funds for permanent operating budget positions as well as the lack of a long-term plan to fund the giant liabilities the city faces for school buildings, city facilities, streets, sidewalks, and our water and sewer infrastructure. While a budget plan released by Councilor Bears and supported by Councilors Collins and Tseng did not move forward in its entirety, major pieces were secured by an agreement reached between Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Council President Nicole Morell, and Councilor Bears and ratified by a June 2024 Council vote to approve the Mayor’s budget. 

Since then, the City Council passed the city’s first-ever budget ordinance and in collaboration with the Mayor and School Committee leadership placed three referendum questions on the November 5, 2024 election ballot to raise revenue for the first time in the city’s post-Proposition 2.5 history. If voters approve these anti-austerity ballot questions, they would enable the city to raise revenue necessary to increase funding for the Medford Public Schools, build a new Fire Headquarters, and fund an in-house sidewalk and pothole repair crew in our Department of Public Works.  

Planting Seeds of Change in Your Community

You are reading an unfinished story. We have won great victories by bringing together residents in a collaborative, joyful, and values-based political movement, and we also understand that single victories will not automatically create the positive change we want to see in our community.

We hope our model can help you build the progressive community you want for yourself, your family, your neighbors, and your friends. Please don’t hesitate to be in touch with us so we can fill in the gaps and help you learn more about what we’ve built here in Medford.

Zac Bears is a lifelong resident of Medford, MA and a graduate of the Medford Public Schools and UMass Amherst. Public education and the labor movement have been the foundation of Zac’s life–including transformative experiences as a student activist and opinion journalist at UMass Amherst, director of the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM), and as a member of AFGE, union staffer at AFSCME, and staff member at Massachusetts Jobs With Justice. Zac has been a Medford City Councilor since 2020 with a key focus on funding public services and supporting working families.

Jessica Farrell is an organizer and archivist. She worked in libraries, archives, and nonprofits for 15 years. Since 2024 she has owned and operated Redstart Works, consulting on library and archives projects that expand the commons. Her commitment to free access to information compels her to fill civic information and data gaps in her communities. Her commitment to the commons compels her to advocate for the expansion and funding of social services, including libraries.

The post Step By Step, We Built a Movement to Transform Our Local Government appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

Enjoy your September National Political Committee (NPC) newsletter! Our NPC is an elected 25-person body (including two YDSA members who share a vote) which functions as the board of directors of DSA. This month, hear from the Mexican left, help stop deportation flights, and more!

And to make sure you get our newsletters in your inbox, sign up here! Each one features action alerts, upcoming events, political education, and more.

• From the National Political Committee — Amid Hard Times, Democratic Socialism Goes Mainstream
• Live from the Global Sumud Flotilla — Humanity is on Board to Stop the Genocide! Join Us Friday 9/19
• RSVP for DSA Political Exchange Call with MORENA Starting Saturday 9/20
• Spanish Speakers: Housing Justice Commission Weekly Spanish Practice Beginning Tuesday 9/23
• Sign Up for Stop Avelo Power Mapping Workshop Tuesday 9/30
• Join Our Growth and Development Committee’s Membership Drive!
• Apply to Join the Democracy Commission (DemCom) 2025–2027! Deadline Saturday 10/18
• Apply Today to Become a Discussion Forum Mod!

From the National Political Committee — Amid Hard Times, Democratic Socialism Goes Mainstream

“Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter.” — Rosa Luxemburg

As Trump’s administration accelerates its attempted crackdown on dissent — demanding the deportation of Palestine solidarity activist Mahmoud Khalil and others, using economic threats to force TV networks to silence even mildly-critical hosts like Jimmy Kimmel, allegedly planning a broad-based “crackdown” on liberal and left wing organizations, and whatever fresh fascist schemes appear in their alphabet soup — we stand proud and firm knowing that we, as democratic socialists, are not only on the right side of history but the popular side of the present. 

As democratic socialists, we are on the side of and among the people. And we’re not just saying that because it’s a cool-sounding socialist slogan — we have evidence! A new national poll from Jacobin and the DSA Fund finds that democratic socialist leaders and left-wing policies are broadly popular. More and more Americans are not just seeing what we stand for as radical — against an economic system rigged in favor of corporations and the wealthy, it’s practical!

That confirms what many of us know as DSA members. From years of knocking doors for campaigns, tabling, and talking to people in our communities about the projects we’re taking on collectively, we know from firsthand experience that working class people are hungry for an alternative and very receptive to ideas about how we make it happen. When we communicate plainly and lay out organizing plans together that people can believe in, it can powerfully cut through all the noise from a ruling class that wants to keep us divided and distracted while they plunder our planet and pick our pockets. 

As DSA member Zohran Mamdani gets closer to the mayorship of the wealthiest city in the world, DSA chapters around the country are running candidates to expand socialist power on city councils and in state houses, and through our work in housing justice, labor organizing, and campaigns grounded in ecosocialism, socialist feminism, abolitionism, trans and queer liberation, and more. As we keep raising expectations and winning power with the strength of our organization, we’re reaching millions of people to see that a better world is possible — and that DSA is building the organization that they can join to build it together. 

The crackdown on dissent is genuinely scary, but we won’t let it stop us. We believe in a path to socialism, even inside the belly of the beast, that comes from collective mass action — like labor and rent strikes, peaceful public protests, community-powered elections and ballot initiatives, and economic pressure campaigns like Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) in solidarity with Palestinians, to end our government’s support for apartheid and genocide. 

When the ruling class’s greed and incompetence opens up a power vacuum, like when the New York City establishment decided to run two corrupt machine Democrats against each other, they leave a lane wide open for organized socialists to move in. DSA was ready for this moment after years of steady organizing to build an electoral bloc of Socialists in Office in New York, who aren’t there to simply advocate for bills in government and let us hope for the best from the outside — they organize with us and show up with us on the streets to stand up for justice for us all. We will continue to be ready. Keeping on with our organizing work is how we build our organizing chops, expand our base, and be ready when those moments come — which is to say, it is the most powerful thing we can do right now.  We continue to march forth with things like a mobilization call to support the Global Sumud Flotilla (scroll down for info about an exciting live stream!), organize together to defend our immigrant neighbors, increase support of Starbucks worker organizing, support our nationally-endorsed electoral slate, and so much more.

We are in DSA because we believe in a better world, one in which people’s basic needs are met, where we make decisions democratically about our living and working conditions, where the violence of bigotry and division are no longer a subject of debate, but simply a thing we remember from the darker days. 

This is an important time to continue bringing new people into our organization, and to motivate our members to keep building working class power together in our communities. We’re safer and stronger when we are pulling together toward our common goals. We’re about to ramp up a big fall recruitment drive — now’s a great time to make the ask of people in your life to join DSA! Dues are one of our collective resources (consider raising yours today!), our experience and skillsets as organizers are also, the power that comes from moving in unison with hundreds and thousands of people is another… and courage is too. Pool that courage together and we will not fail.

Solidarity Now and Always,

Megan Romer and Ashik Siddique
DSA National Co-Chairs

Live from the Global Sumud Flotilla — Humanity is on Board to Stop the Genocide! Join Us Friday 9/19

The DSA International Committee will be hosting an important conversation with some of our global movement partners, livestreamed directly from the decks of the Family, one of the ships on the Global Sumud Flotilla, in order to find out more about the goals and strategies of the Flotilla itself, as well as to help build a solidarity network for Flotilla participants, who are being actively targeted by the Zionist state for their humanitarian work.

Come join us tomorrow, Saturday 9/19 at 12pm ET/11am CT/10am MT/9am PT to hear first hand about what is going on with the Flotilla, and to share ideas about how to continue to strengthen international solidarity against the genocide in Gaza and in support of Palestinian liberation. DSA members in good standing are invited to register here.

RSVP for DSA Political Exchange Call with MORENA Starting Saturday 9/20

Saturday 9/20 and 9/27, we’ll be participating in our first ever political exchange with the Mexican left political party, MORENA! Both events will start at 12pm ET/11am CT/10am MT/9am PT, and will run for two hours each.

Part 1 (Saturday 9/20) will focus on the histories of both organizations and organizing conditions in their respective countries. RSVP here!

Part 2 (Saturday 9/27) will focus on members in office. You can sign up here. We will have 3 very special guest speakers for DSA, including Rashida Tlaib! Don’t miss out on this very special occasion!

Spanish Speakers: Housing Justice Commission Weekly Spanish Practice Beginning Tuesday 9/23

Practica tu español con la Comisión para la Vivienda con Justicia (CVJ)!

Aprendiste español en el colegio o en el trabajo y quieres mejorar? Unete los martes a las 9pm ET/8pm CT/7pm MT/6pm PT para practicar con la CVJ. Te pondremos en un cuarto de Zoom con otra persona para que practiquen juntos. Si quieres también tenemos guiones si necesitas ayuda!

Sign Up for Stop Avelo Power Mapping Workshop Tuesday 9/30

Avelo Airlines is profiting from deportation flights, tearing our communities apart. We need good strategy to make sure we can affect their bottom line while making it clear that any airline that deports our people cannot continue to operate. Are you wondering how your local chapter can join the fight to tell Avelo Airlines that we won’t stand for this?

Join us Tuesday 9/30 at 8pm ET/7pm CT/6pm MT/5pm PT for a 1.5 hour power mapping strategy session! On this call, you’ll learn the best strategy for your chapter to force Avelo to drop their contract with ICE.

Join Our Growth and Development Committee’s Membership Drive!

We’re in the throes of fall, and that means it’s time for a Fall Membership Drive! With us approaching election day for some extremely exciting DSA Campaigns (wink wink), we want to make sure we are turning DSA’s campaigns into hotbeds to recruit new socialists and organizers/soon to be socialists.

But to build off the momentum of our work, we will need everyone’s help making this drive as successful as possible! Fill out the form here to get involved.

Apply to Join the Democracy Commission (DemCom) 2025–2027! Deadline Saturday 10/18

Authorized in 2023, the Democracy Commission (DemCom) developed reforms to strengthen democracy across DSA. Its proposals were overwhelmingly adopted at the 2025 Convention, and the body has now been reauthorized to support chapters and the NPC in implementing them.

DemCom will assist with chapter rechartering and bylaws review (2025–2027), visit chapter meetings to support implementation, report regularly to members and the NPC, develop best practices in tandem with chapters, and promote democratic governance. 

There are open seats on the Commission. Please fill out the form here to apply. The application deadline is Saturday 10/18. Commissioners are expected to attend regular meetings (8PM ET, Monday evenings, plus some weekends), work with chapters to implement reforms, and report on progress and challenges.

Apply Today to Become a Discussion Forum Mod!

The Discussion Forum Moderator Council wants YOU to apply to be a forum mod to help build out forum use, ensure constructive and generative discussion and debate on the forums, and lead the way for keeping our internal communication platform representative of the big tent! More details can be found in this forum topic, which also includes the link to apply!

The post Your National Political Committee Newsletter — Amid Hard Times, Democratic Socialism Goes Mainstream appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

By: Rob Switzer

The following is a post I made on Facebook that was not intended to be published. It was mainly written to vent and just to show friends the kind of things I deal with as union steward at my workplace, which is a Food and Commercial Workers meat market where I have been working for five years as a butcher.

Someone suggested this piece would work as a demonstration of how power functions in the workplace. Note that the stories included are not official union activities and could theoretically be accomplished in any workplace. However, it is worth noting that the union-provided protections we have and my status as a quasi-authority figure very likely embolden my coworkers and me to assert ourselves in ways that we otherwise might not.

A couple of weeks ago, I was informed that a coworker of mine was sent home, suspended, and written up. He had allegedly gone shopping, prepared a lunch, then had his lunch, all on the clock. He was being accused of deliberate and extended time theft, which of course is a fireable offense.

Coworker said this was not true, and I asked him to send me a screenshot of his punches on the time-keeping app we use. He did so. Upon cursory inspection, it was obvious that he had in fact neglected to clock back in from his early break, and was therefore actually off the clock during these events.

We had a meeting with the store manager, and Coworker brought the write-up itself, which included the clearly false accusations, and even had his receipt stapled to it, showing what he bought and when he bought it (while he was off the clock, remember). The store manager saw my point and understood, but told the worker that he had to be more careful about punches; this time it wouldn’t be held against him.

But I wasn’t satisfied — the shift manager who had originally made these accusations was still operating under the belief that my coworker was a time thief. So I informed him the next morning that the worker wasn’t on the clock. “Yes he was!,” he told me. “No he wasn’t!,” I retorted. “Yes he was!” he shouted back. He agreed to let me show him the screenshot. We walked to my locker to see my phone. The shift manager looked at it and I could see his mind spinning. He exclaimed something like, “Well, he probably would have done it anyway!”

About ten minutes later he approached me and apologized, admitting he was wrong and that he should have investigated better. He seemed to hide for the rest of the day; other workers noticed and told me. I made sure everyone was aware that someone had just been written up and suspended for something he demonstrably did not do. Someone chanted, “Steward! Steward! Steward!” which was pretty amusing.

Fast forward to today. We had about six first-shift meat cutters/handlers working. It was getting close to 2:30, our usual out time. But overtime was posted, meaning management can hold us later if they want to.

We had ten cases of bacon that had to be bagged and vacuum-sealed. No one likes doing this; it’s tedious. But it’s part of the job. So when I was done with my other work for the day, I took it upon myself to start.

Right around this time one manager came into the cutting room and said, “We’re getting ready to prep up!” That basically means we’re being cut loose as soon as we clean up. Two of the cutters promptly left, leaving four of us behind. We finished the bacon; we were all getting ready to leave.

Then a different manager came in and said he wanted us to make sure the bacon got vacuum-sealed before we left. Usually what we do is bag it all and let one of the afternoon-shift cutters handle the sealing. There were four of them there today. Why couldn’t one of them do it? We all were ready to leave, and had already been told we could leave.

I told the manager I thought this was bullshit. That’s literally a one-person job. Are you actually asking three of us to stand around and watch someone vacuum-seal 10 cases of bacon? In so many words, he said that yes, yes, he was asking that.

I talked to the other three workers individually. Everyone agreed they were ready to leave. So let’s leave, I told them. I went and talked to the manager, and we had a little argument. “I have other stuff for them to do; I want you to seal the bacon, blah blah blah.” He stormed off and said something like, “Just get it done and you can leave.” I don’t think he understood; I was telling him we had already decided we were leaving.

We rolled the sealer machine into the cutting room, and one of the second-shift cutters started sealing. He was clearly free to do this. I checked in with everyone to make sure we were all walking out in solidarity. And then we did. It will be interesting to see if there are any consequences tomorrow.

Epilogue: There were no consequences, other than a manager mentioning it to me in disapproval. I hope our action stands as a lesson to my coworkers that we have power when we take actions in solidarity.

---

Adventures of a Union Steward was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.