Wednesday, July 8 at 6 pm

A political storm has been sweeping through the Golden State for the past half year. It’s called “The Billionaire Tax”. Its detractors, until now, have mostly been a handful of the ultrarich conservatives targeted by the proposed tax itself, and their ostentatious shoveling of tens of millions of dollars into a “No” campaign has helped buy them the public anger that these sociopathic tech bros so deeply deserve. 

On the other side, along with SEIU-United Healthcare Workers (sponsor of the measure), were to be found progressive stalwarts like California congressman Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders, and several unions. To all intents and purposes—at least from the outside—it had the look of a class struggle in political form.

But with the elimination of the lone gubernatorial primary candidate who supported the measure, Tom Steyer, from contention in November, things have pivoted quickly, revealing complex dynamics largely unseen in public view until now. In the past couple weeks, unions and progressive organizations have joined the opposition; and under pressure, the SEIU-UHW is now offering to withdraw the ballot measure if the governor and Legislature agree to back a smaller but still substantial tax on the state’s billionaires.

Two tax the rich measures

There are in fact two ballot measures seeking to raise state revenues via progressive taxes in November: the Billionaire Tax (a wealth tax), meant to fill the massive budget hole created in the state’s Medi-Cal system due to federal funding reductions, and the Education and Health Care Act (an income tax), which already exists, but is a temporary tax, the revenues of which go to schools and services. Its principal backers, public education unions, are seeking to make it permanent. 

You might think that it would be a no-brainer for unions to stand united on these measures. The Billionaire Tax would affect a grand total of 250 people in the state who collectively hold two trillion dollars in wealth. They would pay out five percent of their hoard over five years, and then the tax would sunset. This would amount to one hundred billion dollars, or twenty billion dollars a year, so that millions of working class Californians, mostly children, would keep their access to health care. 

The initial proponent of the Billionaire Tax, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers, was joined along the way by AFSCME California, the California Council of Teamsters, and UNITE HERE Local 11 in Los Angeles, among others, because they recognized that the outrageous economic inequality symbolized by the growing wealth of a tiny fraction of the population, making Gilded Age inequities of yore seem quaintly egalitarian, contained the seed of a solution. More importantly than the symbolism, they also understood that many of their own members’ families are served by Medi-Cal, which covers close to 15 million state residents.

The Education and Health Care Act is likewise a progressive tax. Since its enactment as Prop 30 in 2012, and renewal as Prop 55 in 2016, it has raised over one hundred billion dollars for the state’s general fund through its creation of three high end marginal income tax brackets, affecting roughly the top two percent of income earners. Last year it brought in 14.5 billion dollars, or six percent of the state general fund. Here the charge is led by the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and the SEIU State Council, all of whom have been involved in a progressive tax advocacy coalition since the 2012 campaign. The Secretary of State’s office has recently announced that it has validated the signatures for ballot qualification of both measures. 

Strange bedfellows?

Last week CTA came out against the Billionaire Tax. So did the state Building and Construction Trade Council, the umbrella organization of construction unions. What was their reasoning? For CTA, the opposition was not entirely surprising. The Billionaire Tax represents a violation of their prime objective: defense of Proposition 98. Passed by voters in 1988, it sets aside 40% of the state budget for K-12 schools and community colleges. The 300,000 member association considers this a bright red line and marshals its considerable resources every time legislators or opponents seek to cross it. As written, the revenues of the Billionaire Tax are tightly aimed at saving Medi-Cal, with just ten percent allocated to education.

Fair enough. There is principle involved here for CTA. Not so much with the building trades, as far as I can tell, whose public justification echoes the transparently false propaganda of the right wing billionaires opposing the Billionaire Tax, i.e., that all the “job creators” will flee California and take all the jobs with them in their gold-lined suitcases. This was the argument offered by opponents of Prop 30 in 2012. It is, in fact, always the first line of defending ultra-privilege every time any progressive tax is ever offered anywhere. Copious research has shown this to be untrue. Here in California by 2015, three years after passage of Prop 30, 1.5 million new jobs had been created, and tax records demonstrated that ten thousand new millionaires had been minted. (Let’s set aside for now the question of what the current California “job creators” are actually creating: AI, which destroys more jobs than it generates.)

But as one of the big dogs in California politics, CTA’s position also merits a deeper look. The union claims it opposes the Billionaire Tax because “this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve”, i.e., it is temporary. Ahem, so was Prop 30 and 55, which didn’t stop CTA from supporting the earlier temporary iterations of the measure it’s backing to make permanent now. 

Worse, and bizarrely, the only visible sign on CTA’s website about its position on the Billionaire Tax is to be found in its November election recommendations, where alongside the “Oppose” notation, a link is posted to the “Building a Better California” website, which nowhere says anything directly about the Billionaire Tax, but happens to be the web footprint of a front for the right wing billionaires dumping their couch cushions into the anti-Billionaire Tax campaign, a PAC whose contributors are headed up by tech bros Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel. Strange bedfellows—along with Governor Gavin Newsom, who has never met a progressive tax he likes.

So what’s really going on? Before SEIU-UHW launched the Billionaire Tax its leaders briefly consulted with the members of the progressive tax coalition. That coalition had a plan: get Prop 55 renewed and made permanent in 2026 before it expired in 2030, and then go after a wealth tax or take another swing at commercial property tax reform (narrowly lost due to COVID in 2020) in 2028. This plan was disrupted by the UHW, leading to the fear (plausible, but debatable) that another progressive tax on the ballot would muck up the works. Even SEIU State Council, the parent organization of UHW, isn’t on board the Billionaire Tax. When UHW went ahead on its own, nearly every member of the coalition that had been doing this work for fifteen years was pissed.

But alongside the fear of voter confusion over the two measures lurked another potential issue, one that has now been revealed as a valid concern. UHW leader Dave Regan has a well-known history of running state ballot measures as bargaining chips to gain traction in the state legislature. One example: a proposal to require higher minimum staffing levels in dialysis clinics, which lost on three separate occasions. Queried opponents and supporters alike, was the Billionaire Tax real or legislative leverage?

With the offer to withdraw the ballot measure if the legislature acts to find some significant funding for Medi-Cal, that question has regained life—although the governor’s office, which solicited the late-in-the-day negotiations with UHW, hasn’t made a substantial proposal, according to UWH sources. Thus at this point it appears likely the measure will go to the voters.

Where is an alternative solution?

California DSA, a small mammal scurrying around the ankles of the dinosaurs duking it out, and supporting both measures, is one of the few exceptions to the side-taking (AFSCME California and the California Teamsters Council are others), which has now become increasingly contentious. 

The Billionaire Tax was addressing a problem no one else was: a gutted Medi-Cal means people will get sick and die. The CTA in its opposition statement remained silent on this end of things. As communications director for the California Federation of Teachers, sometimes rival and sometimes partner with CTA, through a fair amount of the earlier history, I can attest that this is not new. The fierce defense of Prop 98 guarantees tended, for CTA, toward rigidity, while CFT, part of the AFL-CIO, and likewise a strong defender of school funding, nonetheless always bent one principle against another, acknowledging at moments like this, “We can’t teach children who come to school hungry or sick.”

In fall of 2011 and 2012, CFT was leading a labor-community coalition effort to get a Millionaire Tax on the ballot to address the giant state budget deficit left in the wake of the housing crash and Great Recession. Governor Jerry Brown, with a competing ballot measure, a mix of progressive and regressive taxes, refused CFT’s offer to come aboard the millionaire tax. Instead, he stripped away the other unions in the coalition (including CTA) by threatening to withhold his signature from their legislative programs. The pressure on CFT was enormous to cave, much like what UHW is undergoing right now. 

But CFT prevailed, due to its careful coalition building over several years. It had solid allies in the community who weren’t stepping away. Many union leaders told us in private that while they couldn’t publicly resist Brown’s blackmail, they were with us in spirit. After a half dozen straight opinion polls showed the Millionaire Tax likely to win, and following a massive rally in front of the state capitol, Brown capitulated, merging his measure with CFT’s, which became Prop 30, the largest bump in state income taxes on the rich since World War 2.

The same gubernatorial agreement is unlikely for UHW, both because of the transparent desire of Gavin Newsom to keep billionaire pocketbooks within reach for his presidential run, and because in place of the spadework of coalition-building over time that builds trust and loyalty, UHW leadership accomplished precisely the opposite, alienating its most likely progressive tax partners. Let’s sum up: good cause, bad process. And now we approach midnight.

Possible outcomes

All might not be lost for the Billionaire Tax. If its proponents and the governor and legislature are unable to reach a deal, it’s still possible to win at the ballot box. Yes, there will be a hellstorm of billionaire opposition funding. We won’t be able to watch TV or surf the web or go on social media without popup ads telling us that sad billionaires are taking all of California’s jobs with them when they move to Texas.

But billionaires are not exactly popular at this historical moment. Even with a hundred million dollars already spent by the opposition before the measure qualified, the most recent polls show the Billionaire Tax with a 20-point lead, with 23% undecided. There might just be enough voter animus for the richest Californians—especially the ones that have publicly embraced Trump, who happen to be the ones making all the noise about the Billionaire Tax—that pitchfork fever could carry the measure across the finish line. 

The California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO hasn’t weighed in yet. This is an important factor in how things will play out. The CTA’s opposition, while significant, is not the final word. As an independent union outside of the labor federation, it has no direct say on Labor Fed policies. The Building Trades’ votes are more to the point here. But if the UHW can rally an endorsement from the fed there will be new life in the measure. The CFLU convenes in early August. 

One of the arguments that makes the Billionaire Tax a problem for the usually progressive groups like CTA is also why they should let it go: it’s temporary. True, if pieces of the budget are carved away for more health care, that will not help education’s forty percent. But the tax as written does not compete for state budget dollars—it augments them with a five-year tax on billionaires that will expire after Democrats are in control of Congress and the White House, and the federal government will be able to resume paying its way in California. 

That’s a pretty big assumption, you might say. My answer is that if it’s not the case, and the fascists are still running the federal government in 2030, we will all have bigger problems than preserving Prop 98.

BOOK REVIEW

Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See (Second Edition)

Mike Davis, Kelly Mayhew and Jim Miller

Seven Stories Press, 2026

Beyond the Theme Park: Struggle and Solidarity Under the San Diego Sun

Interviews by Kelly Mayhew and Jim Miller

Center for Policy Initiatives and American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931

This year’s republication of Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See has been anxiously awaited by San Diego progressives and leftists. A master work by the late Mike Davis and his co-authors Jim Miller and Kelly Mayhew, Under the Perfect Sun went out of print only a few short years after its original publication in 2005, and has since then been passed around, checked out via interlibrary loan, and transmitted via PDF among organizers and activists hungry to learn about a city that hardly seems to know itself. Yet the new edition means more than an opportunity for San Diego leftists to finally have and hold their own copy—it’s an opportunity for our comrades across California and beyond to understand how one city’s development shaped the contemporary forces we must map, move and overcome in our quest for working-class rule.

Under the Perfect Sun stands alone as a record of San Diego’s left and labor history, but it’s also distinguished by the structure of the collaboration. The book is made up of three main sections, separately authored or, in the case of Mayhew’s contribution, curated. Following an introduction by journalist David Reid is a political and economic history by Mike Davis, then a chronicle of insurgent fights by Jim Miller, and the book concludes with a compendium of oral histories gathered by Kelly Mayhew. The new edition includes a sampling of contemporary testimonials gathered by Mayhew and Miller to accompany this year’s republication; available in full free and online as the companion publication Beyond the Theme Park (download available from the Center for Policy Initiatives website). (Full disclosure: I am one of the activists interviewed for that book.) 

Structuring opportunity

Flipping the order, let’s start with the oral histories. And what a start. In both Under the Perfect Sun and Beyond the Theme Park, Mayhew opens with leaders in San Diego’s civil rights fights – Harold Brown in the former, Shirley Weber in the latter. I want to be very clear: DSA members and other leftists who only know Shirley Weber as California’s current secretary of state nonetheless need to read her story. It reveals what is possible once a structure is changed to unblock opportunity, and consequently how crucial it is to examine and understand structures at all levels. From Harold Brown, you’ll learn the lonely experience of fighting for economic parity and how that focus determined agendas of the early 2000s. Also in Beyond the Theme Park is Center for Policy Initiatives’ executive director Kyra Greene, who at the launch event for the new edition noted that the comparatively small civil rights movement in San Diego factors into the persistent struggles of the left today.

Also featured in both books are many of the area’s most significant labor leaders, movement organizers, nonprofit directors and politicians. As Mayhew put it at the launch, what you get from oral histories rather than third-person narratives based on newspaper articles and other archives is an understanding of experience. It matters to know what moved Lorena Gonzalez and Sean Elo-Rivera into their current positions and commitments (Beyond the Theme Park), just as much as it matters to see how binational activist Enrique Davalos ended up choosing San Diego, and what working for the Environmental Health Coalition looked like for Sonia Rodriguez, who lived the toxicity of Barrio Logan firsthand (Under the Perfect Sun).

Repression and amnesia

Jim Miller’s episodic journey through San Diego’s left struggles changed my perspective utterly when I first read it 7-8 years ago, newly activated and unsure why everything in San Diego’s mainstream political life seemed so remote. Though I am myself a transplant, San Diego was always a fixture in my life as the birthplace of my military-family parents, who continued in that tradition. They graduated from UC San Diego’s first bachelor’s degree cohort. They grew up with the city as it boomed through the Cold War years. Yet I never learned anything from them about San Diego’s political life, and in the truest sense possible, San Diego hid itself from many of its own children. As Miller writes, struggles beginning with the Free Speech Fight in the early 20th century onward were dealt with by both repression and amnesia, summarily dismissed or distorted beyond recognition by credulous historians drawing exclusively from tilted accounts.

What’s so significant about memory? After all, capital manipulates government and its aligned institutions everywhere; newly developing leftists might understandably believe that since the factors of capital control are continuous, the dynamics of contesting them are transferable from one place to the next. What is so critical about Miller’s history, though, is learning about the victories alongside the setbacks. While the Magonista revolt was a rout and Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) organizing was effectively suppressed by vigilantes in the early twentieth century Free Speech Fight, the establishment of Third College at UC San Diego and the creation of Chicano Park are examples of community interests consolidating as exercised power. What’s so significant about erasure? Last year I walked my elderly parents around Chicano Park – the largest collection of public murals in the nation, and extraordinary in their virtuosity – and told them the story of its founding. They had no idea. Not even that it exists.

Completing the flipped order, Mike Davis’ history of political and economic power in San Diego visits many of the themes in his Los Angeles histories, such as City of Quartz (1990) and his last-published book, Set the Night on Fire (2020). While Davis is recognized as one of the last century’s most influential Marxist authors, many DSA members may be new to his work. Under the Perfect Sun is a fantastic start. The section asks who rules San Diego, answered by the overriding contest of “smokestacks” versus “geraniums.” With smokestacks understood to be the faction driving for infrastructure that could enable large industry, the geraniums of San Diego’s past and present generally prevailed, focused on slow urban growth and economic sectors that alienated mass organizing and working class consciousness by their very nature – tourism and the military. 

Davis’ thesis is that through these competing capital factions, San Diego’s power has oscillated between what can be thought of as private governments, with the government of publicly elected officials acting primarily for those interests. As this history progressed beyond the publication of Under the Perfect Sun his thesis and indeed the center have held: first Republican, now Democratic, San Diego’s officials stand on a continuum of stewardship for private elites. Without working class institutions effectively contesting for power, that center has reconstituted in the last 20 years to include the racial, ethnic, gender and sexual orientation minorities rebuffed by a myopic GOP. At a time when parties are first and foremost brands, the center-right now makes its approach through campaigns formally unaffiliated with the GOP like Larry Turner for mayor in 2024 and now Richard Bailey for city council, who adopted Zohran Mamdani’s design palette for his primary campaign.

Look beyond slogans, follow the money

Tracing how these fights have articulated is critical for leftists across the U.S. as urban politics are gripped by the polarity of “YIMBY” versus “NIMBY.” As climate change advances – a key concern of Davis in his later years – leftists, unions and working class communities of interest draw factional lines around what is to be done about unaffordable housing, the unequal and unjust distribution of pollution, rapid transportation and the U.S.’ overreliance on home ownership to build social security. Reading about the stratagems of San Diego’s smokestacks and geraniums illustrates just how handily working class anxieties can be manipulated to serve masters we did not choose – even to the extreme of surrendering public resources to a power as remote and impervious as the U.S. military. Look beyond the slogans and follow the money.

In the 2026 coda, Jim Miller reflects on the changes in San Diego in the last 20 years and narrates some of the most significant events since Under the Perfect Sun was first published. While the cost of living is now driving workers out, the representation of historically marginalized groups in office is marked as a welcome change. A recent win is the reversal of bans on project labor agreements (PLAs) by municipalities across the county and the commitment by the City of San Diego to adopt PLAs going forward. Often, labor in San Diego now leads where our politicians falter, and the closer cooperation between unions and community organizations like DSA gives hope that someday we’ll escape the recurrent corruption dogging San Diego as Enron-by-the-Sea.

Under the Perfect Sun gives a view of collaboration as process and praxis, with each author bringing to the book a life of service in its different forms. Mayhew and Miller have both served as leaders in their local AFT chapter, bringing their San Diego City College students into organized activity through the AFT internship program they launched as a pedagogy of experience. Together they founded City Works Press and with it the San Diego Writers Collective, and with journalist Doug Porter publish The Jumping Off Place, an online platform for independent writing. Their legacy is still evolving, and humbling in its scope. The presence of Mike Davis the organizer and working class son in his writing gave us one of the clearest voices in a quintessentially American Marxism, and a view to how the natural riches of Southern California can be ours when we fight. Elbows up and solidarity bound, let’s carry his spirit on.

The top of the ticket statewide races and big city primaries grab the headlines, but at the local level and in smaller municipalities DSA members have been working hard to elect working class champions as well. In some cases the reward was winning outright or landing in the top two for the November 3 election runoff. In others our DSA candidates didn’t get there, but working on their campaigns strengthened the infrastructure of the chapters for next time. Here is an example of each: the mayoral race of Claudia Jimenez in Richmond, and the longshot lieutenant governor campaign of Oliver Ma as it played out in Orange County. 

Claudia Jimenez for Richmond Mayor!

The stakes have never been higher in Richmond, California. Chevron recently agreed to a $550 million dollar settlement with the city and the race is on to see if that money will be controlled by progressive politics or conservative business politics. The Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) endorsed Claudia Jimenez as their candidate for mayor: she is a proud Colombian immigrant, community organizer, city councilwoman, and political mentor to many of us who live in Richmond. East Bay DSA, often perceived as an Oakland-heavy organization, endorsed her mayoral campaign this year and members devoted significant people power to assisting her throughout the primary. 

Up to twenty EBDSA members showed up to the widely promoted canvasses. A core group of DSA members also attended weekly canvasses and phonebanks in the months leading up to the primary. Claudia has spoken at membership meetings and participated in debate at our convention. Our chapter’s monthly “Socialism Beats Fascism” event dedicated its May meeting to promote Claudia’s campaign and helped plug new members into volunteering with her. This is EBDSA’s best support so far for an RPA candidate and we are exploring more ways to support Claudia heading into the fall, such as organizing fundraisers and putting together a policy research team. 

DSA members are attracted to the RPA’s principled and highly successful track record in city government. Richmond currently has the lowest homicide rate in city history, a million-dollar legal defense fund for immigrants targeted by ICE, a mental health crisis response team (ROCK) that assists in emergency calls alongside police, and the city has extracted itself from high-cost debt swap investments that kept us in financial peril for decades. However, not everybody is a fan of such progress. Claudia’s opponents include Chevron, which doesn’t like being held accountable; the local police association, which thinks all settlement money should be used on overpolicing; and groups associated with AIPAC, who didn’t like Richmond leading a wave of municipalities calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza. All have deep pockets which is why fundraising for the November election is going to be key for Claudia victory! You can donate now at www.claudiaformayor.com! 

Oliver Ma Campaign a shot in the arm for OCDSA

It is June 2nd, the primary election night, in a crowded brewery in Santa Ana, California and conversation is flowing while televisions on the wall show the current state of each race. The room is filled with comrades from the Orange County Democratic Socialists of America (OCDSA) and the United Auto Workers union, Local 4811 (many of whom are in both organizations). Everyone here has spent the previous months canvassing their neighborhoods, phone banking, text banking, and even hand-writing postcards for Lieutenant Governor candidate Oliver Ma. When Ma, who actually grew up in Orange County, comes into the bar everyone starts chanting his name as he passionately starts a speech about how we collectively ran a grassroots campaign to be proud of.

Oliver Ma did not end up getting enough votes to move forward to the November election, receiving nearly 620,000 votes, or 7.3%. But the campaign was a shot in the arm for Orange County DSA. The campaign came at the opportune moment when the Electoral Committee of the chapter needed direction and revitalization. Since the conclusion of the Oliver Ma campaign the committee voted through new guidelines and expectations for the endorsement process, as well as helpful tips for those looking to apply for OCDSA endorsement.

During an open call with California DSA earlier this year, Oliver Ma described his intentions with the campaign. He described a campaign that would ideally uplift, train and funnel the people working on his campaign into DSA, whether or not he won the election. From the perspective of OCDSA this plan worked. We had current members who had their first canvassing experience for a democratic socialist candidate they actually wanted to endorse instead of a corporate Democrat. We have had new members come in from the campaign, energized and ready to move towards the next committee project. Just like any socialist project, we will learn, train, and do better next time.

On Thursday, May 21st around 3:30 p.m., a hazardous chemical leak was reported from a GKN Aerospace plant in Garden Grove, California. The chemical leak was caused by an overheating storage tank for methyl methacrylate, a toxic chemical used in the production of plastics such as those in airplane canopies. The failure was caused by a faulty valve in the tank’s cooling system leading to a rise in tank temperature and pressure. Additional safety mechanisms from GKN to halt the reaction on May 21st also failed. As a result, the GKN tank threatened a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE), endangering the lives and homes of thousands of Orange County residents.

Located in the middle of a working class neighborhood, the emergency prompted an evacuation order from city officials which displaced approximately 50,000 residents for five days before being lifted on May 26th. The threat was resolved with emergency response from OC Fire Authority to cool the tank as well as a partial crack which relieved tank pressure and heat gradually.

Major hub for military contractors

GKN Aerospace, a subsidiary of the British-based Melrose Industries, is an aerospace parts manufacturer serving contracts for plane engine parts and airframes with private and public sector clients. A 2025 report shows that 35% of Melrose Industries’ revenue from airframe sales comes from defense contracts, such as the contract for canopies for the F-35 fighter jet produced by Lockheed Martin. Currently, 48 of these jets are in use by the Israeli military to facilitate genocide in Palestine. GKN additionally serves contracts producing military parts for BAE, Leonardo, Airbus, other Lockheed Martin projects, drone projects for Anduril (an Orange County-based defense contractor), and direct government defense contracts. The GKN Garden Grove plant began operating in 2004 according to reporting from the LA Times.

The GKN Aerospace emergency highlights the glaring contradictions in the political economy and developmental priorities of Orange County. Southern California has been a major hub for defense contractors since World War II. Its location provided proximity to many of the largest military bases in the US, ideal geography and climate for weapons testing, and a massive supply of white- and blue-collar labor already trained for weapons production fueled by immigration waves and federal investment. The resulting economic development empowered a growing class of white suburban defense industry executives who relied on extracting the labor of Southern California’s diverse working class in urban manufacturing for private profit. 

The organization of Orange County’s military-industry class went beyond economic interests, becoming the epicenter of the Cold War counter-revolution in the US and generating political machines which led Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to the presidency. Decades of deindustrialization have since destroyed most of the manufacturing base of Orange County. However, toxic plants remain siloed in marginalized communities like Garden Grove, threatening the same workers on whose backs Orange County’s capitalist class arose in the first place. After intervening years of capitalist deregulation, we are left with a harrowing chemical emergency created by a system of interconnected political and economic interests hostile to workers in Orange County and abroad.

Community response

In response to this emergency, the Orange County community has shown an inspiring dedication to direct mutual aid, with volunteer organizations including Orange County DSA, 714 Mutual Aid, Costa Mesa Mutual Aid, Orange County PSL, World Central Kitchen, and many others helping organize the delivery of food and essentials to sheltering Garden Grove residents. Our community understands what our politicians do not: we protect us. In the absence of a political infrastructure committed to the needs of the working class, we must continue to build networks of solidarity, mutual aid, and community defense capable of supplanting our atrophied state capacity.

Garden Grove residents are still struggling in the wake of the evacuation. Workers in Garden Grove are facing missing paychecks, unreimbursed hotel stays, and the stress of a narrowly avoided environmental catastrophe. Predictably, most insurance companies are refusing to pay out on claims for these losses. As capitalism repeatedly fails to provide care and safety for the working class, Orange County DSA remains committed to supporting the needs of Garden Grove workers and opposing the interests of the military-industrial complex in Orange County.

As the Trump Administration continues to blame its failures on anyone left of the far-right, the federal Department of Education (DoED) has just taken another step towards what can only be called a new Red Scare.  In late May, the DoED unveiled a press release that proposed several critical changes to how institutions of higher education are accredited. If implemented, these reforms would force universities to, among other mandates, hold “policies that support, promote, and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity” and implement “academic freedom protections.” 

The overwhelming majority of universities already insure intellectual diversity and academic freedom. Conservatives just want to use universities as platforms to push their anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-democratic, and socially backwards ideas to the next generation. They despise these “woke propaganda factories" because they promote critical thinking skills and intellectual diversity which empower students to question the systems and ideas their ideology relies on.

DSAers must acknowledge that these reforms will not just be used to deny funding from universities who refuse the DoED’s demands, they will make campus organizing much harder. As the largest and most successful socialist organization of the century, we cannot pretend that these developments won’t affect DSA and the broader left. 

The last two administrations have had mixed success legally compelling colleges to bend the knee to its policies. Some colleges like Brown and Columbia have capitulated while others like Harvard and UCLA are still resisting. At the state level, MAGA activists have been increasingly hacking away at public education, with some states funding “hostile takeover[s]” of entire universities.  The Trump White House is now looking to change the rules completely (again), and (Y)DSA must be ready to organize with students and faculty against them, or risk losing momentum.

Not Out of Nowhere

These proposed reforms did not come out of nowhere. Far-right discourse around higher education has saturated social and national media for decades. Conservatives have long tried—and failed—to build institutional power from within public universities. In recent years, the rapid spread of Turning Point USA has created magnets for the most racist and hateful students on campus; even without Kirk, they remain one of the fastest-growing fascist youth orgs in the country. 

However, astroturfed campus organizing hasn’t afforded conservatives much institutional power inside higher education. Many of the noted Youtube college campus crusaders have burned out—or gone cold—since the first years of Trump 1.0. Now with unchecked power over the government, conservatives are opting for a sweeping, top-down approach to higher education reform.

This is a scary reminder that the long held conservative tradition of discrediting and dismantling higher education never truly dies. With the certainty of capitalism’s boom-bust cycle comes the recurring fear of its logical solution. When we look at the history of Red Scares in the United States, it can be hard to tell when one begins and one ends. Historians are undecided on exactly how many distinctive Red Scares there have been, but there can be no doubt that the current scare we face has the potential to be more consequential than that of the McCarthy-era.

The chill of McCarthyism

During the Red Scare you probably learned about in school, the chill of McCarthyism was felt across many industries, especially in higher education. The general anti-communist paranoia amongst post-WWII U.S.A. was exploited and catalyzed by McCarthy and the Eisenhower administration. McCarthyism would go on to plague leftist organizing in the United States for generations.

But even McCarthy’s Republican party eventually turned on him when they grew tired of his aggressive rhetoric and interrogation tactics. His reign ended with a whimper because the president was forced to step in to save the “decency” of the Republican party. But what about the GOP of today? They’re in a much better position to engage in McCarthyism than McCarthy. Trump 2.0 has a trifecta control over the government, with his cult following stretching across his cabinet, congress, and supporters. McCarthy was lambasted by his party for having “no sense of decency,” but the MAGA movement has proudly solidified itself and the GOP as ardent defenders of pedophilia, abuse of power, and treasonous corruption. Let's be real: do we expect the feckless Democratic party to step in and defend higher education?

DSA demographics

DSA appeals heavily to the working class, but an overwhelming majority of our membership still comes out of higher education. In a 2021 Growth and Development Committee survey, a resounding 80% of members held a bachelor's degree while one of every ten members worked in academia. This correlation between attaining higher education and holding more progressive views has not only been known for decades, it is increasingly getting stronger. Conservatism relies on servile minds that are unwilling to question boogeyman narratives, and willing hold multiple contradicting positions. Leftists, and even progressive liberals, are more often skeptical of systems and the status quo in large part due to their critical thinking skills. This is not to say that uneducated workers are not or cannot become leftists, but data consistently shows they are not flocking to the cause. 

Even among our most recent growth spurts, new membership continues to be young and educated. DSA Ventura County doubled their membership during the 2025-26 academic year after committing to a college campus recruiting campaign; this resulted in a radical revitalization of the chapter and the sprouting of at least one YDSA club. With over 150 YDSA chapters currently leading campus organizing efforts, it is safe to say academia remains one of the most reliable pipelines for DSA growth. 

These campus organizers have already demonstrated their importance in recent electoral campaigns, providing volunteers, chapter leadership, and long-term organizational capacity. Recent electoral gains—including multiple citywide wins in L.A., and mayoral wins in NYC and D.C.— underscore the growing organizational capacity of DSA across the country. These victories would not have been possible if not for the thousands of volunteers who were recently activated and empowered by our growing coalition of lefty organizations. 

College students have far more free time than other demographics, especially if they are privileged enough to remain solely focused on school. As they contend with the uniquely bleak country they are inheriting, several political avenues beckon to them at the crossroads of alienation, disenfranchisement, and radicalization. They can keep their head down and hope the world fixes itself, join a democratic club and hope the status quo prevails, succumb to fascist grievance politics, or courageously believe a better world is possible. 

The proposed accreditation reforms are more than another policy dispute. If passed, they would inflame a new Red Scare that would threaten the left’s most effective recruiting and organizing institutions. If DSA chapters want to continue building on our current momentum and build capacity, defending higher education cannot remain a secondary concern.

The histories of religion and empire are intertwined, and for that reason, socialism and religion have had a contentious relationship. Whether it is the Roman Empire’s slaughter of pagan peoples or various empires’ use of religious texts as a moral justification for colonization, religion and the state apparatus have maintained a symbiotic relationship of control. At the same time,  religion and spirituality have been at the root of resistance movements for social justice throughout history. Dialectically, religion can liberate or subjugate, but it is nearly never a harmless tool.

Because dominant religious structures have often led to the oppression of the lower classes, some socialists have discarded liberatory spirituality. As a socialist, I believe that religion and spirituality can be just as liberatory as Marx’s work. For one of many prominent examples, I turn to Wat Tyler’s Rebellion, also known as The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. 

In 1377, forty years into the “forever war” that would later be called the 100-Year War, a ten-year-old Richard II inherited the kingdom of England and a costly war with France. England had been ravaged by the Black Death, a pandemic that killed up to 50% of Europe’s population from 1346 to 1353. It caused widespread hardships, mostly suffered by the lower classes, that included food scarcity, collapsing social structures, and, of course, a labor shortage.There were fewer workers and no one to replace them. Essentially, all living members of the underclass had work and were necessary to produce the wealth needed for the ongoing war with France. 

However, the English lower classes had their own wants. With fewer people working the land and the monarchy increasingly dependent on peasant and serf labor, peasants and serfs sought appropriate compensation for their work. Instead of compensating them more equitably for their work, Richard II implemented a “poll tax.” This was a flat tax applied in 1377 that each subject over the age of fourteen would pay one groat (four pence) to the Crown. 

The justification and ideological enforcement of the poll tax came from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury. A longtime leader of the Catholic faith who advocated England’s control of the French Crown, he instructed church leaders to emphasize the importance of people submitting to the poll tax. For the serfs and peasantry, participation in faith required ideological adherence to the kingdom and to the ongoing war. And they weren’t happy about it. Two more poll taxes followed quickly, and the spark for the largest peasant revolt in history was lit.

The ideological groundwork had been laid by the Lollard movement of the 14th century. While the church was busy justifying taxes, war, and obedience to the Crown, the Lollards translated the Bible into English and advocated a direct relationship with God, not one mediated by the Church. John Ball, an excommunicated priest, preached an early form of socialism. Ball’s teachings were simple: each toiler, each tradesman, was entitled to the world they created.  Ball saw the church as a means of appropriating and distorting the goodness and holiness of Christ. For him, the war in France was not blessed by God but a cruelty forced upon the people by the greed of the Crown. 

Ball’s words resonated with the people, and the spirit of the Lollards spread throughout England. Though we can’t attribute every act of resistance by the peasantry in 1381 to Ball and the Lollard movement, they provided the revolutionary ideas, giving peasants an ideological justification for the rebellion to come. When royal officials and tax collector John Bampton attempted to collect taxes in Essex and met resistance from a peasant baker known as Thomas Baker, Bampton ordered  Baker to be arrested. A fight broke out, and peasants seized three of Bampton’s clerks, who were later killed. Bampton managed to retreat to London. 

The news of the revolt spread quickly. Wat Tyler, a blacksmith, roof tiler, and former soldier, proved to be a great revolutionary leader. Armed with intelligence and an unbreakable spirit, Tyler helped channel the peasants’ outrage against the ruling class. He also seemed to deeply understand that the conflict facing the peasants would require a well-organized set of demands. 

Tyler led thousands of peasants to London, with several acts of rebellion along the way. He freed John Ball from Maidstone prison and took Canterbury, where they deposed the archbishop and destroyed tax records. On the way, Tyler proved himself a skilled strategist and leader capable of channeling his fellow peasants’ outrage against the crown and religious institutions. Estimates of those who joined the rebellion range from 60,000 to 100,000.

In Blackheath, just outside London, the peasants camped. It was here that the uprising took its true revolutionary form. John Ball stood among groups of peasants and delivered a speech that captured their egalitarian imagination. Ball’s words resonate through the years:

“When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men.” In other words, the first man dug in the soil as his work and the first woman spun thread. There were no class distinctions.

No longer were the rebels marching just to end the poll tax, but for a world free from the Crown’s domination and hierarchy, and for a society in which people cooperated and hierarchy among the people was eliminated. 

In London, the peassants ransacked Crown institutions and burned the Savoy Palace, the personal property of John of Gaunt. Archbishop Simon of Sudbury was killed and his head  placed on a spike and displayed on London Bridge. 

With most  of his armed forces in France, Richard was forced to meet and negotiate with the peasants. Tyler had an initial meeting with him in which the king gave in to all the peasants’ immediate demands. Richard declared that  the poll tax would be lifted, he would abolish serfdom, and the wage cap on workers would be removed. However,  Tyler and the rebels saw no concrete evidence that  Richard would follow through on his promises. They demanded another negotiation. During this negotiation, Tyler was attacked and killed. Somehow, Richard  was able to subdue the peasants, promising that their demands would be met. A majority of the peasants believed him and left London. 

However, the demands were not met. Instead, many participants were tracked down and killed.  Ball was publicly hanged, and his head  placed on London Bridge. 

However, one promise was kept. The Crown would not levy another poll tax for 300 years. The Wat Tyler Rebellion would go on to become a symbol for radicals. The 19th-century socialist William Morris would write about Tyler in his famous science-fiction novel A Dream of John Ball. Sculptor Emily Hoffnung created a Peasant Rebellion memorial, which was unveiled by the socialist filmmaker Ken Loach. 

In this country, as we fight our own forever wars, a coalition of right-wing “Christian” nationalists is following in the tradition of the 14th-century Roman Catholic Church. That tradition can be defined as the appropriation of people’s faith and spirituality to reinforce a state apparatus that is actively harming the people who support it. As for strategy, I doubt that we will get the religious and spiritually minded working class to abandon faith. And why would we want to do that? Faith can fortify the spirit of working people and give strength in the fight against injustice. 

It is not the mission of socialists to persuade people to abandon their faith but rather to decouple people’s faith from state institutions. The Wat Tyler Rebellion shows us that when faith is in the hands of working people, free from the interference of the bourgeoisie, class struggle flourishes. In the name of our God or faith, we can tear down the machinery of torment known as capitalism.

Sources: 

https://theconversation.com/who-were-the-peasants-of-the-1381-peasants-revolt-new-database-has-answers-278011

https://data.1381.online

https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/how-medieval-revolts-help-us-understand-modern-mass-protest/

The post What Socialists Can Learn from the Wat Tyler Rebellion appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

In 1886, after an unknown person threw a bomb in Haymarket Square, Chicago, police assumed it was the result of a radical conspiracy. They raided the homes and businesses of anyone with even a tangential connection to people who were at the rally. 

Seven people were sentenced to death, only two of whom were even present at Haymarket Square at the time. Police only cared that these radicals wrote, distributed, or possessed anarchist literature, and convicted them of no other crime.

Thirty years later, as Europe had devolved into war and America looked primed to enter as well, it was organized American socialists like Eugene Debs, Kate O’Hare, and the Industrial Workers of the World who led the anti-war movement, arguing that the war in Europe was nothing but another conflict born of capitalist chaos and a new era of imperialism. 

For their moral clarity and conscience, these organizers were immediately made targets of the federal government. They were systematically censored, indicted on unconstitutional charges, and sentenced to prison. This same cycle of squashing and punishing dissent would play out again a half century later, during the anti-war actions surrounding the Vietnam War. 

Now, 140 years after the Haymarket Affair, and just over 100 years since Eugene Debs was sent to prison for a decade for simply giving a speech, we are seeing the federal government similarly clamp down on our right to protest. 

Despite the United States’ long history of propaganda painting it as a bastion of free speech in the world, we socialists know too well that we have never held the freedom to speak out for what we believe in within this country.

When the Trump administration began filling American streets with violent, armed, and unidentifiable thugs tasked with kidnapping our neighbors, many community members rightly began to organize against these injustices. 

Just a year and half into Trump’s second term, we are now seeing how his regime intends to squash dissent and punish those who dare to push back against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. 

Today in Texas, a group of anti-ICE protesters were given sentences ranging from 50 to 100 years in federal prison for taking part in a protest outside an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. 

Some of them, just like the Haymarket martyrs, are being persecuted for nothing more than possession of anarchist literature. These outrageous sentences dwarf even those handed down to several anti-ICE protesters in Spokane earlier this year.

While the Haymarket Affair led to the unjust execution of seven anarchists, it also led to the creation of May Day, the International Workers’ Day. 

Eugene Debs and Kate O’Hare were prosecuted in their time for their anti-war stance, but proven right by history. The same would happen with opponents of the Vietnam War. 

We already know what the history books will say about this time period: that Trump and his fascist regime are terrorizing immigrants, that this is a gross injustice, that those who were brave enough to stand up to fascism are the true heroes, not the cowards persecuting them.

The charges leveled against these protesters, which include terrorism and conspiracy, are without question an attempt by the federal government to intimidate organizers from pushing back against the inhumane and cruel treatment of our immigrant neighbors. 

The Seattle Democratic Socialists of America will not allow the authoritarian and fascist actions of our government to scare us away from organizing to protect and fight for our communities. 

Trump is intending to scare us into inaction. We choose to instead take inspiration from our heroes, past and present, and organize even harder.

No justice, no peace.

Solidarity forever.

Events & Actions

Wednesday June 24 (12:00 PM – 1:00 PM) Mass Mobilization for Environmental Justice @ City Hall (in person at 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl)

Wednesday June 24 (5:30 PM – 7:30 PM)  Guarantee Act Phone Banking (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Wednesday June 24 (6:45 PM – 8:30 PM) Tenant Organizing Working Group Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Thursday June 25 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) Public Bank Project Meeting (zoom)

Friday June 26 (9:30 AM – 10:30 AM)  District 1 Coffee with Comrades (in person at 2 Clement St)

Friday June 26 (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) Guarantee Act Petition Dropoff/Pickup @ Horsies (in person at 3368 19th St)

Friday June 26 (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM) Maker Friday (in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Saturday June 27 (10:00 AM – 2:00 PM)  No Appetite For Apartheid Store Canvass (in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Sunday June 28 (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM) Guarantee Act Mobilization at Clement Street Farmers Market (152 Clement St)

Sunday June 28 (1:00 PM – 2:30 PM)  What Is DSA? (in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Monday June 29 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Labor Board – New Union Organizing (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday June 30 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) Ecosocialist Bi-Weekly Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday June 30 (7:00 PM – 10:00 PM)  Tenant Organizers Social (in person at 1600 17th St)

Thursday July 2 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM)  Education Board Open Meeting  (zoom)

Thursday July 2 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Immigrant Justice Regular Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Monday July 6 (6:00 PM – 7:30 PM) Labor Board Meeting – Office Hours (zoom)

Monday July 6 (6:30 PM – 8:00 PM) Homelessness Working Group Regular Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

---

Ways to Support Affordable Housing Guarantee Act

The Affordable Housing Guarantee Act is officially accepting contributions! This is a grassroots, community-led campaign, and we need whatever you’re able spare to help us protect our affordable housing funds and tax the rich! Head to fairhousingsf.com/donate to donate!

If you’re not in a position to donate at the moment, we can still use your help gathering signatures. Head to fairhousingsf.com/events to find a volunteer event near you!

---

Mass Mobilization for Environmental Justice

Mass Rally! Today, Wednesday, June 24 at 12:00 PM @ the steps of City Hall. 

For decades, the people of Bayview-Hunters Point have lived in the shadow of one of the most contaminated former military sites in the United States: the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site. The Marie Harrison Community Foundation and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, as well as DSA SF and 20+ endorsing organizations, are calling on concerned residents to stand with Bayview-Hunters Point in a united public demonstration for environmental justice. We demand that the Mayor reject the transfer of contaminated land for development. Join us and look out for the DSA SF banner! RSVP here.

---

Guarantee Act Phone Banking

Come help us phone bank supporters of the Guarantee Act from 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Today, June 24 at 1916 McAllister St.

Can’t make it to the office? No problem! Join our virtual meeting here.

​No experience necessary!

---

No Appetite For Apartheid Store Canvass

Come join us for our next NA4A store canvass on Saturday June 27 at 10:00 AM! We will be meeting at the DSA office and canvassing stores in the Japantown / Pacific Heights area. 

Let’s keep the momentum going for an apartheid free Bay Area and connect with small businesses in our local neighborhoods! RSVP here!

---

Tenant Organizers Social

Meet tenants organizers from across the Bay. Come to Thee Parkside, 1600 17th St on Tuesday, June 30 at 7:00 PMfor one final time before it closes it’s doors for good. 

The same forces of rampant speculation and gentrification responsible for destroying local culture spaces (like Thee Parkside) are causing the massive displacement of tenants throughout the Bay Area. Pleace come and share your experience as tenants organizing in the face of finance capital’s agenda to build their “luxury city”.

---

EWOC Fundamentals of Workplace Organizing Course

Sign up here!

EWOC holds a regular training course to help you build your union from the ground up alongside workers in your industry. It doesn’t require an organizing background to understand the material, which covers topics including mapping and charting, building an organizing committee, uniting over common concerns, and how to take action. If you’re interested in becoming any level of organizer for EWOC, this course is mandatory.

This course will in person at the DSA office (1916 McAllister). We’ll watch the EWOC lecture together and then go through the discussion activities. If you can’t make all of the sessions, reach out to Caitlin Stanton (SF EWOC local lead coordinator) for accommodations.

SCHEDULE:
Week 1: Developing Leadership
Tuesday, July 14 (7-8:30PM)

Week 2: The Organizing Conversation
Tuesday, July 21 (7-8:30PM)

Week 3: The Arc of the Campaign
Tuesday, July 28 (7-8:30PM)

Week 4: Inoculation and the Boss Campaign
Tuesday, August 4 (7-8:30PM)

This year’s May Day activities saw significant mobilizations and marches, some school closures, and even small examples of strike action. Yet, many activists had reason to hope for a much more powerful action to confront Trump and his right-wing authoritarian agenda. The enormous victory against ICE after the January 23rd mass strike in Minnesota set a high water mark for resistance. A day of “No Work, No School, No Shopping” set a profound example that inspired national discussion about next steps to fight Trump and ICE’s Gestapo tactics. I counted myself among those looking to make May Day 2026 a day to build on the Twin Cities’ momentum. 

I am an elementary special education teacher, a proud Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) member, and an elected school delegate. In Chicago, we had ICE in our streets kidnapping neighbors just months before they descended on the Twin Cities. Many schools, including my own, had spent the fall building school-based ICE response networks that included Safe Passage shifts and know-your-rights (KYR) trainings.

Leaders of the CTU joined the January 23rd mass strike in the Twin Cities in person. They pointed to it as a positive example to build on, and later announced plans for a May 1st “Day of Civic Action.” As put forward at the March House of Delegates (HoD) meeting, the CTU’s monthly delegate meeting, the Day of Civic Action implied shutting down the city and called for “No Work, No School, No Shopping” to be joined by educators and families. 

What actually happened in the schools was quite limited. Important awareness was raised around the significance and history of May Day among educators, students, and the Chicago school community. But there was no shutdown, no disruption of business as usual, and no direct challenge raised against Trump’s racism and warmongering.

News outlets reported staff absences just a bit above average for the week. Student attendance remained normal, with the exception of high schools, which reported 72% attendance compared to the previous Friday’s 75%. While students from around forty schools participated in field trips to community hubs or to the main rally in Union Park, all schools remained in session. Some schools organized assemblies or resource fairs and some teachers gave lessons in their classrooms, but many did not participate at all. After weeks of discussion and planning, May Day in Chicago, as it was initially conceived by CTU leaders and approved by CTU rank-and-file delegate leaders, was essentially a flop.

Why did the Day of Civic Action underperform so much? Answering this question is important for class struggle unionists like myself and those across the country. 

CTU’s Political Influence Fails to Cancel Classes

In my opinion, May Day should have been a disruptive, powerful action. The movement had slowed after the victory against ICE in Minnesota, but with prominent unions like CTU taking the lead, there was an opportunity to keep up the pressure. We could have shut down the city and led the way for workers across the country. I believe the reason it fell short was due to the weakness of the CTU leadership’s chosen strategy to rely on leveraging Democratic Party politicians that the union helped elect.

CTU leaders initially seemed to have secured the support of both Mayor Brandon Johnson (a former CTU teacher and union staff organizer) and the Johnson/CTU-influenced school board. If they signed off on a “Civic Day of Action,” the union would not have to take full political responsibility for the shutdown. In the leadup to the Day of Action, Mayor Johnson continuously said “May 1st is happening.”

As every class struggle unionist knows, progressive Democratic politicians are unreliable allies even in the best of times due to their conflicting ties with big business. As May Day approached, these political leaders flinched and capitulated. Whether Johnson and the school board genuinely planned to shut down schools and then backed down due to pressure, or if they had planned to water things down all along, remains unknown. Either way, absent action by city and district officials, CTU was left in a trap of its own making. The union struck a Memorandum of Understanding with Chicago Public Schools to allow for May Day lessons and trips, but there was no Plan B for “No School, No Work.” 

May Day showed the limits of CTU’s political influence. Unions should, of course, make use of politicians’ support where they can get it. However, far too often, the CTU leadership of President Stacy Davis Gates and Vice President Jackson Potter uses the strategy of leveraging friendly Democrats as a one-size-fits-all shortcut. Our power is not primarily in dues money flowing to electoral campaigns, but in our power as vital workers with social authority and the means to shut things down. In their consistent focus on political influence, CTU leaders neglect the tools of rank-and-file organizing and class struggle. Make no mistake: Members can see that they are being made into observers, rather than participants, in our own union’s actions. We need more confidence in our independent worker power.

I want to be clear that I am making a different critique of CTU leadership than the Illinois Policy Institute or the Chicago Tribune. There is also a minority of more conservative members, very active on social media, who echo pro-business propaganda, calling CTU a “political machine.”

Working people have an absolute right to our own representation, and unions should be involved in electoral politics. But union members need to be aware that even where we are decisive in a winning campaign, the capitalist class can bring enormous pressure on any representative. They have the advantage in the halls of state power. As it stands, CTU’s strategy exaggerates the strength these politicians give us, to the point that an overreliance on arrangements with politicians is actually harming our union’s democratic vitality and fighting capacity.

By pushing for May Day action, CTU compared favorably with most of the rest of the labor movement, which let the moment pass by. CTU leaders consistently prepared members for May Day for months and came up with member-led structure tests that steadily built this support among the rank-and-file. The problem? The overall strategy hinged entirely on friendly political representatives facilitating the union’s actions, rather than the union guaranteeing it through an independent commitment of its class power. 

Thousands of members were prepared to shut down the schools on May 1st. Dozens of delegates, like myself, prepared for this, school by school. Yet when the politicians’ support dissolved, so did our May 1st “No Work. No School. No Shopping,” project. Instead, we were handed more work planning in-school civics lessons – and many frustrated, dejected, and confused members on top of it.

Organizing for the Day of Civic Action and Its Opponents

For the union membership, these events unfolded in a confusing fashion. The discussions between the CTU leadership and powerful city and district officials were not transparent to us, so following the public twists and turns had many members themselves feeling twisted into knots.

To their credit, CTU leadership began laying groundwork for May Day as early as the February HoD meeting. Delegates were given a poster to bring back to our schools for members to sign as a structure test. The poster read “Our school is ready to protect our students, tax the rich to fund our schools, defend our democracy, and fight back on May 1st.” The meaning of fighting back was still not totally clear, but many members in the schools signed on in agreement that we should be doing something.

At the following March HoD, CTU leadership brought forward a resolution on May 1st and the Day of Civic Action. Delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor, after a short discussion. The ones I spoke with were under the impression that we were calling for a day of non-instruction so that teachers, students, and families could attend the May Day rally. 

All members were mobilized to sign a petition demanding Mayor Johnson and the board of education declare May 1st a “Day of Civic Action.” Although the resolution passed overwhelmingly, the petition itself ultimately gave the mayor and the board the power to define the fate of May Day, leaving delegates and members alike with vague guidelines for action.

In March and April, national newspapers ran oppositional editorials and reporting, and public debate intensified. Nonetheless, in early April, it seemed we were just waiting for the gears of the decision-making process to turn. At that time, the board of education held a closed session; it was shared that a straw poll indicated support for a Day of Civic Action. Following this, a rumor spread that Johnson-appointed interim CPS chief executive officer Dr. Macquline King was also on board. So far, so good!

However, just hours after buzz hit our schools, Dr. King walked back her perceived agreement in an e-mail to all CPS staff, in which she wrote: “My position is to maintain May 1 as an instructional day. As a career educator, I believe that every minute in the classroom is vital for students. My position has been consistent and has not changed.” Following this back and forth, member activists were concerned, and CTU leaders did not have concrete answers. 

CTU leaders responded by mounting several lines of public rebuttal. As a result of both on the ground experience and the public back-and-forth, May Day looked shaky. It became a hot topic among the rank-and-file members in the schools. Rumors spread through different news outlets, internal CTU communications, CPS e-mails, and on social media. Feelings of whiplash and a negative view of May Day began to circulate among some members, who complained that they were being forced to participate in something political they didn’t vote for, or that the union had planned poorly and made their path uncertain.

Nonetheless, if the union had taken action, I believe a majority of members would have been ready to go. But time was running out. Discussion raged: What the hell are we doing on May Day? Are we calling off work? Is this a one-day strike? Are we holding out and waiting for Mayor Johnson to cancel school? What is the plan?

We got an answer at the HoD meeting on April 15th, where I was surprised to be given three different options to take back to membership: 1) coordinate field trips to community hubs for students to participate in a day of civic education around May Day; 2) host a “Day of Civic Action” at our schools; or 3) take a Benefit Day. CTU leadership continued to blame CPS for all the confusion and reiterated that delegates needed to be flexible and have a plan in case school was not cancelled. They said they were working towards an agreement with CPS, but they didn’t have concrete details or full terms. At this point, schools were instructed to ‘choose their own adventure.’

May Day in Chicago: More Work for Educators, School in Session

Hope was still kept alive that CPS would relent. However, CTU leadership had effectively retreated, and the “Day of Civic Action” was redefined. Members struggled to keep up and understand the shift. The ‘choice’ meant that some schools were going all in to plan field trips or a day of action, but it also meant that many were off the hook to do nothing at all. 

With just the Memorandum of Understanding in place, obstructive administrators at CPS had the ability to water down our plans. They skirted around the language, denying field trips and avoiding required paperwork. Rather than uniting members around a common struggle to fight back against the right-wing dismantling of educational funding, CTU’s failure to secure a non-instructional day siloed May Day actions to inside the schools. It also undermined delegates and activist members that had spent a lot of effort convincing members to get behind a bold action. May Day, as it was initially envisioned and discussed in Chicago, was a bust. 

Ultimately, many schools across the city participated in May Day, but it depended on activists within the school, the willingness of administration, and buy-in from individual communities. Some students went on field trips to CTU Headquarters, Rainbow-PUSH, and BUILD; some high schools held assemblies and teach-ins for students and neighboring schools; schools hosted their own “Days of Civic Action” with community clean-ups, resource fairs, and mini-marches around their buildings; and some teachers used a May Day curriculum to teach lessons in their classrooms about labor history. Any actions taken required work and flexibility from teachers to make happen, but in the end, they raised consciousness among educators and in school communities. Yet CTU’s bold May 1st strike threat, which had rattled Chicago’s ruling class, had been withdrawn, and this was a success for the rich and powerful.

An Alternative Class-Struggle Approach

CTU leaders should have decided on a solid strategy for actual disruption. This might have come in different forms, like an attempt at a sick-out or an actual strike vote (which would have likely been ruled officially unlawful, like many great union struggles of the past). There would have been a contentious and robust debate over this among the rank-and-file, with no guarantee of success. But the debate, on clear terms, could have been educational and empowering in itself. Perhaps these proposals may have even lost in a democratic vote, something CTU leaders surely feared; but, of course, we did not succeed in having a “No School” May Day with Mayor Johnson, either. 

The CTU’s approach to May Day was just one example of the leadership’s disorganized approach and lack of transparency. This conduct has been typical since Johnson became mayor, but the problems go back further. It’s part of a longer-term strategy of placing too many eggs in the basket of gaming politics through the state. These maneuvers are then brought to the membership, preventing the union from organizing power with us.

The takeaway is, as Jane MacAlevey famously said: “there are no shortcuts.” To win, we have to build and rely on the massive power we possess as educators to galvanize school communities, unite with other workers, and disrupt and resist. We hand this power over to others at our peril.

A class-struggle approach genuinely involves the membership in deciding how to use the union’s independent collective power. It allows for multiple proposals, differing opinions, intense debate and discussion, and vibrant democracy. This strategy understands that capitalism does not grant us easy victories. We must commit to building a wider, multi-racial working-class movement that understands the need to challenge the normal functioning of capitalism in order to force change.

The CTU Dues Restructure: Leadership Loses a Referendum on Their Struggle Strategy 

At the May HoD, each CTU officer report championed our May Day action and characterized it as a success. Some members would agree, but for many, May Day was an unpleasant disappointment that raised numerous doubts about the union and leadership. For me, the HoD created cognitive dissonance. As a collective, we weren’t grappling with the result. I felt it was tragic that we ended up with so much disappointment and unease when there was a lot of possibility around May Day and a great deal of work put into organizing.

How can post-May Day member sentiment be gauged? Interestingly, the May HoD also initiated a new democratic procedure in the union. In addition to preparing for other end-of-the-year votes, delegates were also responsible for organizing discussions and voting on a proposal to restructure CTU dues, held on May 20th and 21st. Leadership brought forward a constitutional amendment to restructure the dues in a more equitable way, proposing that all members pay 1.75% of their base hourly salary instead of the current flat rate. 

Delegates were first informed about a possible dues hike in January, but it did not feature prominently at meetings until March. When the official language of the amendment was brought to delegates to discuss in April, I was already overwhelmed. It was a lot to consider alongside the May Day confusion, and CTU leadership added an additional question to the mix: Another new clause to the constitution about exhausting all union structures before taking CTU to court. All things considered, I was hesitant to give more in dues money to an unclear political strategy, not to mention the need to convince my colleagues why this was critical.

Ahead of the all-membership vote, CTU and staff organized one of the biggest member engagement campaigns I have ever seen. Leadership explained the dues change from a number of different angles: we need money to fight back against Trump and the right wing, to pay for organizers to defend our contract wins, for the upcoming school board races, and for the inevitable fight to defend against school closures. Given this long list of reasons summarizing the union’s political outlook, the vote acted as a referendum on the leadership’s approach, and was seen as such by members I spoke with. 

There was strong opposition from the more conservative parts of the union, which could be seen all over Facebook, but ultimately the proposal was not endorsed by a wide part of the general membership. It was defeated, with 62.9% opposed. By comparison, the CORE leadership was reelected with 64% of the member vote in 2025.

For me, the vote did not leave any doubt that CTU is still a majority-progressive, fighting union. Even despite inflation pressure on members, a dues increase might have passed if the proposal were tied clearly to empowering activism. But given the context, many members were not inclined to send the union more dues money, and instead, sent a message of frustration. I think the vote result can fairly be described as an example of the growing disconnect between CTU leadership and the rank and file. 

Equitable dues could be the right step for the union down the line. But for our union and the broader working class to be stronger in the righteous fights that CTU leadership correctly identifies are coming, money is not necessarily decisive. Truly powerful collective action can best be measured in the risks, time, and sacrifices members make to build it. The rank and file need to push CTU leadership to take a class-struggle approach featuring democratic meetings that include us in the fight, rather than a demand that members join actions with no critique of tactics and strategy allowed. 

We need a vision of working class-power and a clear, determined organizing strategy to bring everyone in. More dues money for organizing could help with this, but it’s the self-activity of the members that is our true strength. If money is simply used to double down on a limited strategy to contribute to more political campaigns, we are no closer to being prepared to fight like we need to be fighting. 

That fight is not letting up. In recent days, Chicago educators have faced notice that CPS expects to conduct the largest set of layoffs in years. COVID relief money is drying up, and Trump is at war with public education. School closures are back on the table. Principals have said these cuts compare to those of the early 2010s, when the city was coming out of the Great Recession. The fight to tax the rich and fund our schools is urgent.

I am proud to be a member of the CTU and grateful to be in a position to engage in genuine collaboration about how to work towards a fighting strategy in our unions. I hope that leftists and unionists read this piece and consider how we can empower our unions and raise the level of resistance against Trump and the capitalist billionaires ruining the country – and the planet. 

The post Assessing Chicago’s May Day: What Was the Chicago Teachers Union’s Day of Civic Action? appeared first on Midwest Socialist.