Image: bijanterani.com/photography

INTRODUCTION

Until today, electoral strategy debates within the Democratic Socialists of America have been argued on the same terrain. They have strategized within the constraints of the U.S. electoral system, but there is an alternative way of thinking about electoral strategy. The alternative demands a new kind of organizing aimed at eliminating those constraints. I call the strategy structural eliminativism, grounded in the practice of democracy organizing.

Structural eliminativism is the idea that some projects of social change require the elimination of structural obstacles for those projects to succeed. When applied to the project of building a mass working-class party, the idea is that the success of that project necessarily depends on eliminating the legal obstacles that frustrate multi-party democracy.

Democracy organizing is the idea of building power through collective action to enact legislation that reforms elections and governance. In this way, democracy organizing is distinct from electoral organizing–it’s not organizing to win elections, it’s organizing to transform the laws that govern elections and elected officials. That is, organizing to transform the law of democracy.

Within DSA’s project to build a mass working-class party, the function of democracy organizing is to strategically organize to transform the law of democracy by concentrating on the elimination of legal obstacles that frustrate our electoral aspirations. The idea is not to compete with pre-existing electoral strategies, but to supplement them. At a minimum, a structural eliminativist strategy aims for public finance matching programs and rank-choice voting. At a maximum, a structural eliminativist strategy aims to kill the two-party system.

EXPERIENCING THE POWER OF LAW

In September of 2018, I started my freshman year of college. I was a naïve and ignorant 18-year-old child of uneducated immigrants, yet I was politically curious. In my first semester, I took a course on Comparative Politics. I never did the readings, I barely showed up for class, and I do not recall most of what the course was about—except for one topic: electoral systems. 

I vividly remember my professor explaining the difference between a non-proportional and proportional electoral system. A non-proportional electoral system, she said, is designed to manipulate electoral outcomes in a way that does not accurately represent group preferences. She explained that these systems are designed to favour two-party democracy, such as in the United States. A proportional electoral system, she said, is designed to produce electoral outcomes that accurately represent group preferences. She explained that such systems are designed in a way that favors multi-party democracy. Through my professor, I learned about the power of electoral systems.

The summer after my freshman year, I interned for my local state representative in New Jersey. The internship was generally mundane. I made calls, I wrote letters, and I bullshitted with co-workers. One day I overheard a conversation between the chief of staff and a staffer. They were discussing a conflict during a legislative committee. “He had her dragged out,” she said. The “he” was George Norcross—an insurance executive, prolific fundraiser, and political machine boss. The “she” was Sue Altman—the executive director of the New Jersey Working Families Party, an organization leading the fight against Norcross’ political machine. Sue was protesting at a hearing where George testified on his use of tax incentives. The chair of the hearing had Sue forcibly removed by state police.

Fast forward to January of 2020, when I began interning for Working Families. Through research, I learned that George had been fundraising for gubernatorial, municipal, federal, and state elections, for decades. Through fundraising, he built a political machine: winning election after election, enriching himself at the expense of working-class communities. Such as in one instance, for example, where he manipulated government tax breaks in Camden—home to some of New Jersey’s poorest black and latinx working-class communities. Through George Norcross, I learned about the power of campaign finance. 

In 2019, I left my summer internship and started an independent political organization (IPO) in my hometown with a childhood friend. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders was ramping up his primary campaign for president. Through my IPO, and my eventual internship with Working Families, I developed relationships with congressional candidates across the state answering Bernie’s call for a grassroots “political revolution” from the bottom up. That slate of candidates came to constitute a state-wide movement. For the first time in my young adult life, I felt the power of solidarity, and with solidarity, hope. Little did I know what was about to come next. 

Early in that period, I attended an event. Overhearing a conversation, I heard an organizer use the phrase the county line. Later on, in another conversation, I heard a candidate saying, we’ll see if we can beat the county line. And again, in a presentation, we have to target the county line. Frustrated, I finally found the courage to ask, “What the hell is the county line?” 

An organizer explained that the county line referred to the way Democratic Party county committees designed ballots to legitimize establishment candidates and delegitimize grassroots candidates. County committees—a part of the official infrastructure of the Democratic Party—would place endorsed candidates in a perfectly straight column with the language “X Democratic Party County Committee, Inc.” Meanwhile, challengers to endorsed candidates would be placed in ‘ballot Siberia,’ chaotically sorted into different rows and columns far away from the pristine Democratic Party column. The purpose of the design was to psychologically influence voters into perceiving some candidates as more legitimate than others. The saying among organizers was that no one has beat the county line in over 50 years. At the end of the democratic primary, every movement campaign lost. Through county committees, I learned the about power of ballot design.

FROM NEW JERSEY TO CHICAGO: Chicago DSA & RE-THINKING ELECTORALISM

Fast forward to February 2025, when I joined an organization called Chicago DSA. With my organizing days long behind me (as well as my days of being a bad student), I moved to Chicago in 2023 to pursue a doctorate in philosophy. I began to see education as a vehicle for social change. Through my program, I spent time studying political philosophy. I became particularly enamored with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/60s and Karl Marx. Eventually, after the 2024 presidential election, I realized that philosophy wasn’t going to change the world. With the memory of electoral anger at the Democratic and Republican parties, I turned back towards organizing.

Initially I joined DSA out of a vague memory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s membership. When I joined, I did not know what to expect. I was exploring. Then, at a DSA 101 orientation, our chapter co-chair Sean Duffy went on to explain the aspiration of DSA to become a mass political party. In that moment, my soul shined with joy. My experience as an organizer in New Jersey taught me the harsh lesson that the U.S. electoral system is designed to systematically exclude working-class communities from the democratic process, while privileging a capitalist class. The experience of exclusion within the Democratic Party, especially, left a gaping hole in my political identity. I was hopeless, but DSA offered a political home.

Eager and excited, I began exploring the Political Education Committee. At my first meeting, the Committee spoke about Socialist Night School and explained that they were in the process of organizing a new semester. One of the semester’s sessions was titled “Do We Need Our Own Party?” With curiosity, I volunteered to help organize the session alongside Sean and another comrade, Alan M.

Sean and Alan went on to suggest a few readings that laid out established positions and debates. I learned about the idea of “proletarian disorganization,” of a “dirty break,” of an “independent surrogate,” of an “independent ballot line,” and so on. With conviction, I dove into the readings, analyzing them vigorously and finding them both interesting and confusing. 

They were interesting because they were all anchored in a strategic conversation about creating a party that I had never been exposed to. I found value in the idea of weaponizing the Democratic Party to sharpen class contradictions. I found value in not focusing too much on party association and more so on developing an independent organization. I also found value in concentrating on organizing the working class, while affecting electoral conditions through extra-electoral activity.

They were confusing because they all seemed to avoid an extensive discussion of the power of structural legal obstacles that frustrate third party success: a non-proportional electoral system, a private campaign finance system, and establishment party control over ballot procedures. Rather, they were mainly focused on the question of independent organization and that organization’s relationship to the Democratic Party. In retrospect, what frustrated me about the debate was that it seemed to accept the constraints of the U.S. electoral system–strategizing within those constraints, as opposed to outside them.

STRUCTURAL ELIMINTAVISM: RE-THINKING ELECTORALISM

Faced with this problem, I turned towards solving it through my coursework. In doing so, I started to realize that the nature of the problem proposed a solution. What if, instead of organizing within the electoral obstacles, we organized to eliminate them? 

Thinking back to my studies, I realized that the proposition of eliminating structural obstacles was not a new idea. The civil rights movement, for example, organized for the right to vote without the right to vote by eliminating discriminatory racial classifications. Likewise, some Marxists historically organized for collective ownership without such ownership by eliminating the legal distinction between owners and workers. What if, I thought, we organized for a mass political party without a formal party by eliminating structural obstacles within the U.S. electoral system? The culmination of my thinking was a strategy I called structural eliminativism, the idea that some projects of social change require the elimination of structural obstacles for those projects to succeed.

In my view, DSA will never be a mass political party unless it eliminates the structural obstacles that frustrate our electoral success. The U.S. electoral system is systemically designed to uncontrollably frustrate our electoral aspirations. We are dominated by an electoral system designed to entrench two parties. We are dominated by a private campaign finance system designed to privilege the political influence of capitalist elites. We are dominated by ballot procedures weaponized to exclude working-class candidates from challenging the democratic establishment. If we are to achieve the project of building a political party, we must eliminate the structural obstacles that constrain multi-party democracy and the success of working-class electoral organizing.

In practice, eliminating structural obstacles can be both maximalist and minimalist. At a minimum, we can organize to eliminate disadvantages through piecemeal reforms that make it easier to win elections. Public finance matching programs and rank-choice voting are paradigmatic examples. In New York City, for example, Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign benefited from over $13 million dollars in public funding, while also benefiting from cross-endorsements that strengthened his position as the anti-Cuomo candidate. In Chicago, a group of our members, including myself, are already doing this minimalist kind of work by exploring the endorsement of the Fair Elections Coalition—a group of organizations advocating for a public matching program in Aldermanic races. 

Meanwhile, at a maximum, we can organize to eliminate the two-party system. Every 20 years in Illinois, for example, voters are given a ballot proposition to call a state constitutional convention. Through that convention, voters elect delegates through electoral procedures constructed by Illinois State Representatives. Notably, the convention provides an opportunity to re-design the state’s electoral system. Which, in Illinois, is not a radical idea. Up until the 1980s, the Illinois state legislature embodied a version of multi-party democracy through cumulative voting and multi-member districts. Meanwhile in 1991, citizens of Peoria successfully filed a voting rights lawsuit that forced their city council to move from winner-takes-all to cumulative voting. By re-designing the electoral structure of Illinois, through a constitutional convention and/or strategic litigation, we can effectively kill the two-party system in our home state, which would open the legal door to a working-class party.

None of this is to say that we should abandon our current electoral efforts, of course. Chapters should continue weaponizing the Democratic party line, organizing the working class, building independent infrastructure, and experimenting with independent candidates towards strategic goals. This is to say, however, that there is another way of solving our problems as a dominated political group in an oppressive electoral system. We can strategically eliminate the obstacles that oppress us and we can eliminate them through a new kind of organizing.

A NEW KIND OF ORGANIZING: DEMOCRACY ORGANIZING

Democracy organizing is the idea of building power through collective action to enact legislation that reforms elections and governance. In this way, democracy organizing is distinct from electoral organizing. You are not organizing to win elections. You are organizing to transform the laws that govern elections and elected officials. That is, you are organizing to transform the law of democracy.

Democracy organizing is a long-standing tradition, practiced especially by advocates for voting rights. When the Women’s Suffrage Movement was organizing for the right to vote, they were democracy organizing. When the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/1960s was organizing for the right to vote, they were democracy organizing. Democracy organizing exists in a tradition that stands alongside the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, Sylvia Pankhurst, A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, and Fanny Lou Hamer, embedded in a deep relationship with the socialist movement.

Interestingly, the tradition of democracy organizing is often practiced when alternative options are not available. For example, the Suffrage and Civil Rights Movements were organizing for the right to vote without the right to vote. The lack of alternative options is notable because it poses a curious question: when you can’t win through electoral organizing, what do you do?

In my view, the problem that voting rights activists faced bears a striking resemblance to our own problems as DSA. We want a mass-party, yet we exist in a two-party system. We want working-class electoral representation, yet we exist in a private campaign finance system. Just like the voting rights activists, our options are limited. The only difference is that we have some agency. We can win some seats at some levels of government. Extraordinarily, we have done this. Still, no matter how hard we try, the structural barriers we are embedded in frustrate our aspirations and facilitate internal conflict within the organization over our relationship to the dominance of established party institutions. Despite the creative use of our collective power, we inescapably find ourselves in situations where there is an extremely limited range of electoral options. We find ourselves in a slightly different, yet similar, situation: when you can’t win through electoral organizing alone, what do you do?

The strategic response is democracy organizing. By building power through collective action aimed at strategic democratic reforms, we can supplement our electoral efforts through a transformation of the U.S. electoral system. In practice, this can look like a variety of things. 

From the example of NYC DSA’s Democracy Working Group, we can establish Democracy Working Groups in chapters across the country. From the example of our members in Chicago DSA, we can explore projects like the Fair Elections Coalition. From the example of Peoria, Illinois, we can file strategic lawsuits that aim to challenge the constitutionality of legal requirements that entrench two-party politics. From the example of Illinois history, we can strategically organize a constitutional convention that successfully re-designs the Illinois state legislature. From the example of the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Suffrage movement, we can engage in non-violent disobedience and insider lobbying, by organizing direct actions at strategic locations such as marching through the state legislature, organizing sit-ins at city council, and crashing private fundraisers.

Whatever form it might take, democracy organizing is a strategic solution to our electoral problems. We do not need to exclusively organize within the constraints of the American electoral system. Instead, we can organize to eliminate those constraints. By supplementing electoral organizing with democracy organizing, we can strategically open the door to multi-party democracy and transform the American electoral system over time.

The post A New Kind of Organizing: Re-Thinking Electoralism  appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

On November 27th, 2025, Now This Impact made this post on Instagram: “Karoline Leavitt’s family member was just taken by ICE,” with the caption, “The media war has only just begun … and you thought your family drama was bad …”

I want to talk about this because, as a leftist, no scratch that, as a human being, anytime I hear about these disgusting occurrences of kidnapping by the Trump administration and its army of racist terrorists, my heart breaks and my blood boils. 

You’d think that on a post by Now This Impact, a Left-leaning news and entertainment page, you’d find the same reaction to this; that you’d find people upset that yet another immigrant has been snatched up by ICE. 

Well, to an extent, you and I would be wrong. 

If you go into the comments, you have some reasonable reactions to a situation like this:

But once you start reading more of the replies to this—in my honest opinion, unempathetically captioned—post, you have comments like the following:

Now, while there is validity to the critique about dating a conservative as a leftist, this logic doesn’t make any sense. Surely not everyone who has been kidnapped, detained, and deported by ICE was dating a Republican.

Obviously, I think the Trump family is terrible; I believe those serving in the administration are fascists. However, if you are genuinely anti-deportation and pro-immigration, what kind of backward logic is it to cheer for ICE terrorism when it happens to, mind you, the extended immigrant family member of someone in the administration? 

Imagine if you were taken by these masked cowards, thrown into a detention center, and facing deportation. Later, it came out that your ex-partner’s dad voted for Trump. Then, because of that, people said heinous stuff like this and cheered on your deportation. It just doesn’t make sense. 

Even if this person is a Trump supporter*, yes, as humans, we cannot help but feel justified in seeing our points of view and our fears come to fruition, no matter how horrifying (there’s the whole leopards ate my face subreddit), but to all of a sudden be cheering on the deportation of immigrants just to squeeze in an “I told you so!” is bizarre.

*As of writing this, WMUR Manchester has reported that Ferreira, “…has no bad blood with the Leavitt family, and has deep respect and admiration for the White House press secretary…” 

And the worst part of siding with the fascists is that, if we’re being completely honest, there is a 0% chance Karoline Leavitt genuinely cares. Do you really think this hateful person is losing sleep over their brother’s ex-fiancée, an immigrant, may I remind you, being detained by ICE? 

Absolutely not! She’ll just slip into her white robes like any other night and sleep like a baby.

Look, I’m not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but you even have people in the comments theorizing that maybe it was even Leavitt herself or someone else within the family orchestrating this so that the ex-fiancée can take full custody of their child.

To be honest, I don’t know whether there’s a custody dispute happening or what that situation is; it doesn’t really matter. We’ve seen that the people serving and supporting this administration have no morals and no empathy for anyone or anything.

I just got a weird, unsettling feeling from some of the reactions to this. It’s similar to people cheering about people losing health care, SNAP benefits, and other crucial social services. Why are we celebrating the dismantling of what little the capitalist elite allows us to have? It’s fair to be outraged, it’s fair to dislike people for their terrible views, but why the need for fireworks and party hats at the expense of the working class?

Leftist YouTuber Kavernacle recently made a video about racism on the left and how some liberals and leftists are fine with being racist as long as it’s toward someone with whom they disagree. If you want to see a different, perhaps more well-organized, point of view toward a similar topic, I’d recommend watching it.

We already know the people voting for conservatives are voting against their own interests, and yes, it is incredibly frustrating. I cannot forgive that a lot of these people do it out of disdain for immigrants, refugees, the native peoples of this land, LGBTQ+ comrades, women, and other marginalized groups, but do we really need to cheer on these horrible anti-human policies?

And look, I’ve taken part in this in the past; at times, I was reactionary to these situations because I thought, “Why should I show any empathy for people who obviously don’t give a shit about me?” But we have to realize this is not how we’re going to build solidarity within the working class. 
This is not me calling for centrism or “compromise”, not even a little bit, but please do not give these horrible people credibility by agreeing with fascism when it’s egotistically convenient!

The post On Liberal Hypocrisy   first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.

Author: Andrew O.

“Theory” may be the most misused and misunderstood term on the left today. The popular understanding of theory, as simply things written in books, is deeply harmful to our movement. This understanding leaves the impression that theory is an object locked behind the elitist walls of academia, to be known of and kept only by those with the training and time to learn it. Frequently, this idea becomes an insistence that action is superior to theory, rather than the two not only being inseparable, but actually being one in the same.

This faux-debate seeks to make a distinction where none exists. Engaging with this debate at all limits our ability to organize and blinds us to the ways in which theory and action inform one another. When we give preference to action and minimize theory, we may occasionally hit on something that works, but we will have a limited understanding of why it worked or if it will work again in the future. On the other hand, preferencing theory and minimizing action limits our ability to effect change on the world around us. We must instead build a theoretical framework of the world to instruct our actions. This is essential to participating in a socialist movement.

All of us have an instinctual understanding of action or “the work”. It can take many forms, whether canvassing, protesting, writing proposals, debating and deliberating, doing turnout, organizing mutual aid, the list could go on forever. This “instinct” is actually a theoretical understanding of our world. Theory is simply the way we connect our abstract ideas of the world with our concrete reality so we can hold an understanding of it within our heads. We use our theoretical framework of the world to build our personal politics. When we analyze this theoretical basis for our worldview, we are able to give greater strategic reasoning and direction to our work and actions. If our personal politics are the house we build out of our ideas, theory is the foundation we build our house on. 

To ensure our foundation is strong, it should be constantly inspected, analyzed, critiqued, and updated both by ourselves and via discussions and arguments with our comrades. Each of us are perfectly capable of building and writing our own theory–our own understanding of the world–by living within it, but that doesn’t mean we need to start from scratch. Many great political theorists have done the heavy lifting already. We should study their work critically, rejecting some elements, and embracing others. In a very real way we can place our own ideas into debate with theoretical giants like Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Luxemburg, Nkrumah, and countless others.

Reading theoretical texts from those who came before us will allow us to build our own method of analyzing the world. With practice, we can more easily and readily share our understanding and politics with others. Our theoretical frameworks will not and cannot identically reflect anyone else’s. Each of us has lived a wholly unique life. It is our responsibility as socialists to build our own political theories and drive ourselves, our organization, and our movement forward. We, as socialists, must seek to politicize all of our decisions, particularly those within DSA.

It is up to each of us to ensure theory is not the arena of academics, dead socialists, or our nerdiest friends. Many people have written theory, and many of those theories are good, important, and relevant today. However, most theory ever written was not widely read or remembered.  It is not impossible to write theory, I am doing so right now. In fact, it is a certainty that I am writing ideas that have already been written and shared. 

Academics and nerds are not the arbiter of theory, much less of your own theory of politics. For our movement to win, theory cannot be used to gatekeep the movement. You do not have to have read any specific work to enter debate. Rather, you are responsible for doing what each of the great theorists have done before; you must analyze the world around you. No one will hand us a map to socialism, we must draft our own by constructing our own personal theoretical framework for our politics. This can, of course, be made easier by reading the writing of those that came before us.

The second major flaw with the understanding of theory within our movement are our methods of teaching and learning. The too common and dismissive refrain of “read theory” leads us to believe that we should go read a boring and difficult book by ourselves. Frustratingly, this is frequently what a person telling us to “read theory” means. This sort of attitude is unacceptable. To put it bluntly, you cannot learn theory this way. This is not a critique of your intelligence, rather, this is a comment on the reality of what theory means to the socialist movement. We all bring unique perspectives, catch different things, and we all benefit from sharing these perspectives with each other. Collective action is a strength to us in all aspects of our movement. We should not limit ourselves in this area by learning individually. Collective and mutual political education is socialist education.

So is the answer then to read with as many comrades as possible? In the long term, yes! But, if we try to introduce too many people into one reading group, we find many pitfalls. It is great to get a lot of passionate people in a room, but the discussion, debate, and deliberation suffer from the necessity to get in line to speak in groups this large. Conversation, explanation, and deliberation become confusing, disjointed, and ultimately counterproductive. Worse, if it is not well organized, it turns into a lecture where the most vocal people dominate the discussion to the exclusion of all others.

Instead, we should read with many small and varied groups of comrades. We open the ability for free flowing discussion and debate. This will give us the best opportunity to understand and digest the texts we have read. This method still is not perfect, and while free flowing conversations and arguments are great for learning, they can still be monopolized by the most confident and opinionated people in the group. As socialists, we must ensure that everyone is able to participate as much as they are willing and able. It is our collective responsibility to redirect conversation towards people who are seeking to speak, and to give space for everyone’s ideas to be heard. This is hard to do and takes constant practice and reflection to achieve. Even with these pitfalls, small discussion groups are the best method for reading and learning theory.

Socialists were able to learn, teach, and argue about theory when the literacy rate within the United States was under 70%. One third of labor organizers in this period (and likely much more) were unable to read. Still, they were able to build personal politics and deep understandings of political theory. Reading together and arguing about books helps us build our own theories and politics through having to listen to other perspectives as well as having to sharpen our own arguments. It is more engaging and more fruitful than a lecture can be, and it keeps us more accountable and engaged than reading alone will. 

We are all already forming and applying theory whether or not we realize it. We have all read theory, and have been inundated with liberal theory for our entire lives. What is important now is to analyze our own theoretical frameworks, our own politics, and ask why we believe what we do, how we got here, and if our frameworks are still accurate and useful to who we are and where we want to go. 

There is not a difference between building your theoretical frameworks and your personal politics. Your politics are downstream of your theoretical base, and they will be built, changed, and updated simultaneously. This is not a process that can or should be completed, we should always be working to learn and update our theories and politics as often as we are able. There is no shame in being wrong. Learning, growing, and changing our minds are all parts of engaging in politics, and engaging in the world.

We should not seek to create identical political theories or politics. It is not possible and it would hinder our movement. We must, instead, find ways to resolve these differences through principled and good faith debate. As long as everyone is accurately and honestly representing their viewpoints and perspectives, we should be able to engage in debate regarding ideas, actions, and arguments with anyone. “Good faith” simply means we have all come to the table with honesty and integrity. Being dishonest about the why behind your argument is just as destructive and harmful as any other dishonesty to our movement. The concern about honesty within our debates is not just high-minded idealism. Dishonesty functionally and materially holds back our ability to make decisions, learn, and grow as individuals and as a collective movement. Debate, discussion, and deliberation will build our movement and is just as much action as canvassing or protesting.

As socialists, we seek to make every person a leader in the movement. If we are organizing effectively, the movement will not notice if we need to take a break or step away temporarily. As a result, all people within a socialist movement must be an active participant within building democracy whether that is our chapter, the national organization, or in the broader world. Finding the direction of our movements and our actions, finding the common ground between our personal politics, and finding the principles we must uphold are only possible through debate.

It is imperative for each person in the socialist movement to build their own understanding of theory and their personal politics. It is equally important to build our movement via debate and deliberation with our comrades. We are not individualists. We are a collective movement of individuals. If the working class is to build itself into a class ready to lead itself, into the worker class, we must all take the responsibility to build our theoretical framework, our personal politics, and to build each other into these leaders.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA Cleveland as a whole.

The post Theory and Individual Politics in a Collective Movement appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

By a Comrade

This article is written by a DSA member and does not formally represent the views of MADSA as a whole or its subgroups. 

Welcome to Vol. 4 of the monthly round-up! The content in this publication overlaps significantly with our DSA newsletter and monthly General Membership Meetings. To sign up for the newsletter or check out an upcoming General Membership Meeting, visit: https://madison-dsa.org/events/

Behind-the-Scenes in a Growing Org

Over the past year, the DSA has had a huge boom in membership nationally, a surge in membership here in Madison, and an increase in name recognition after Zohran Mamdani’s recent high-profile win in NYC (as well as other wins across the nation!). MADSA saw several new work groups form throughout 2025, as well as new projects, book clubs, potential candidate endorsements, and events for members and the community at large. These efforts all remain underway!

As MADSA has scaled up, we’ve also contended with more mundane operational questions– How do we handle marketing and social media posts, now that there are so many more events? How are we feeling about our electoral endorsement process when it’s for re-elections? How can we keep developing comradeship among members? What is a good venue for our monthly meeting?!

Here is a small behind-the-scenes look at some changes as we expand:

• The Communication Committee (Comms) is working on appointing “liaisons” within each working group and project, so that Comms can stay better oriented to the chapter’s marketing/posting needs;
• Comms and Executive Committee are also working on increasing direct posting access for various Working Groups so that they are not solely reliant on Comms for posting information about events and actions;
• The Electoral Working Group has been exploring endorsement for several candidates running in state and local races, as well as discussing and reviewing the endorsement processes themselves;
• Various members continue their efforts to revitalize Red Madison for internal and public readership – this has included identifying people who are open to contributing, as well as making calls for submissions at our general meetings;
• The chapter will be publishing a resource to prepare for the 2026 Chapter Convention, where members will continue shaping the direction of MADSA;
• The chapter has been experimenting with a few different venue options for GMMs to accommodate our new numbers and the geographical distribution of our membership.

It is our hope that these changes will support the continued growth of the chapter, both in scope and in activity levels. 

Social Events

Our chapter had two reading groups wrap up in November:

• Skyscraper Jails, discussed in the Abolitionist Working Group meetings;
• Wretched of the Earth, discussed on Sundays, in a hybrid virtual/in-person format.

We continue hosting recurring social events – New Member Orientations, Coffee with Comrades, Crafting with Comrades, MADSA Run Club, and the Rosebuddies program. 

As the year comes to an end, we’ll be reaching out to members and asking about their experiences in MADSA this year, and their socialist resolutions for 2026. We’re also planning a New Year’s party on New Year’s Eve, details forthcoming!

Protest Song of the Month

For a November protest song, I’d like to highlight an artist from an indigenous background and ties to the Midwest – John Trudell. John was a Santee poet, musician, actor, speaker, veteran, and activist, at one point chairing the American Indian Movement (AIM). Here is the Listening / Honor Song, a spoken word piece over traditional music. The lyrics can be found here. 

And that concludes our monthly round-up!

Chapter and Verse: a Summary of Chapter News for November 2025

The post Election Victories Across U.S., Socialist Caucus Coming to Minneapolis and More appeared first on Democratic Left.

Author: Barbie A

Day in and day out, more and more people are disappearing off of the streets of our communities. From migrants going in for routine immigration check ins and being detained, being targeted in traffic stops, being sought out on their way to work, or out right having their paperwork revoked from them and hunted down like animals. All across the United States, including here in Cleveland, people who call this place their home are having their lives destroyed by the racist and inhumane Trump administration. A country that once guaranteed safety and sanctuary is now trapped within a shifting system in which anyone could find themselves entangled with ICE or DHS, including U.S. citizens. 

Living in the most diverse country in the world, with a long history of immigration, racism, colonization, imperialism, and injustice, as democratic socialist, it is our duty to show up for the marginalized groups of our community and stand up against fascism. During Trump’s campaign for presidency there was a lot of talk about expanding ICE operations and abilities to go after criminals, or “the worst of the worst” as he put it. For those of us familiar with the immigration system and the terminology around immigration, we understood clearly that they were going to use this opportunity of power to abuse their authority and go after undocumented migrants, child U.S. citizens, and various documented legal immigrants. A majority of immigrants who are undocumented did not come into the United States without being vetted first. Most immigrants enter the United States with legal status and end up falling out of status because of expiring paperwork, financial barriers, changes in their life situations, or for most it being that they do not have a legal way to obtain permanent residency or citizenship from the status they do have. 

For example, those with temporary protected status (TPS), and people with other statuses of immigration, do not have a pathway to citizenship despite being legal documented migrants who must obey the law, pay taxes, and are excluded from social welfare, unemployment, social security benefits, and other rights afforded to US citizens. In most cases of immigration the only way to obtain citizenship is by being sponsored for a green card by an employer or by marrying a U.S. citizen. TPS holders and others are having their paperwork revoked or denied under the Trump administration. Migrants come to the United States seeking refuge and they have created lives with families, jobs, homes, businesses, and more, and yet they could lose everything they have paid and sacrificed for because this administration would rather punish the innocent than negotiate fair immigration reform. Migrants being deported who have U.S. born children have to decide between figuring out living situations for their kids here in the United States or bringing them to the countries where the parents are from but are of no familiarity to the children. This disenfranchises child U.S. citizens from having access to medical care, education, food, and many more opportunities.

We are watching the Trump administration abuse their power. The escalation is something we must be prepared for as we know anti-immigrant agencies have been rewarded $170 billion dollars via the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”. It’s imperative that all people in our country and region understand their rights under the constitution and what they’re lawfully protected to exercise. 

So far we have seen Donald Trump use executive orders to try to revoke birthright citizenship (14th amendment) from people. We have seen the attacks on the fifth amendment by blatantly denying people their rights to due process, including denying people their rights to a fair hearing, to challenge deportation, or to their rights to challenge their unlawful detention (habeas corpus). Regardless of any person’s status they’re guaranteed the rights to the first amendment, in which we have seen the invasion of these protections and discriminatory practices used to target people for their rights to freedom of speech, rights to protest, rights to assemble, rights to petition the government, freedom of press, and the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. Across the country we have also seen an overwhelming amount of evidence showing violations of the fourth amendment, which protects all people from themselves and their personal belongings illegally being searched or seized without a judicial signed warrant that would prove that there is substantial evidence to have this protection breached. 

Recently the Supreme court has ruled (6-3) in favor of Noem (Kristi Noem) v. Vasquez Perdomo, in which it allows for racial profiling and discrimination. This opens the door to allowing immigration, and other enforcement, to violate the rights of all people. Agents are now permitted to bother people based on their appearance and ethnicity, language and accent, location and occupation, and other suspicionless stops. This has led to the arrests of U.S. citizens who are being treated inhumanely and having their rights violated. Cleveland DSA has vowed to commit to helping prepare the community and support immigrants during these turbulent times.

Cleveland DSA’s mission with our immigrant solidarity priority project is to show up for the communities of people who are many times forgotten about. Through preparation of our comrades to take part in our rapid response network, building and participating in extensive coalition efforts in greater Cleveland and surrounding areas, and showing up to support our communities in courtrooms, check ins, their places of employment or business, worship, and social activities; we want to meet people where they’re at and show them our commitment to justice and solidarity. 

First we will start by preparing all comrades through various know your rights (KYR) training so that they can help our community to observe and document people’s interactions with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and/or local law enforcement. When our chapter is prepared we will begin canvassing through Greater Cleveland’s businesses and organizations, churches, and public spaces, to prepare them for potential illegal raids. We will support the immigrant community by showing up in solidarity during court proceedings and check ins, time spent in detention centers, rapid response networks, protesting, and various mutual aid efforts. During this period we will build trust within the community and build our reputation to prove that democratic socialists care about the real issues facing the people in our neighborhood. 

No matter anyone’s race, sex, age, language, origin, or status here in the United States, this fight impacts us all. To challenge the structural injustices that divide workers and communities, we must recognize that affirmation of the rights and humanity of immigrants is inseparable from the struggle for socialism and justice, because it confronts the very systems of exploitation, exclusion, and inequality that a society must overcome in order to truly be free. We must fight to dismantle the entrenched structure of the injustices that constrain human possibility, forging a path towards a society rooted in collective ownership, democratic empowerment, and genuine social equality!

The post Immigrant Solidarity Priority Project appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day.  When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have  talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice  of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind. Armistice Day has become Veterans’ Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans’ Day is not. So I will throw Veterans’ Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don’t want to throw away any sacred things. What else is sacred? Oh, Romeo and Juliet, for instance. And all music is.

-Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Tacoma seemed to bloom on November 11th, 2025. Beautifully painted clouds permitted plenty of sunshine to cast down on city streets. A lively crowd numbering just over one hundred trickled into the plaza bringing flags, or signs, or wearing a reminder of service. They all brought their fears, hopes, gripes, and their ideas about themselves and the land they grew up walking. It was a gorgeous backdrop for the city to recommence the annual observation of Armistice Day. The crowd respectfully encircled a motley group of tattooed, long-haired, sometimes bearded, always opinionated veterans wearing fatigues and patches. No dress uniforms, no military drills. It was about leaving all that behind.

Armistice Day opened with a land welcoming ceremony led by veteran Toby Joseph, Sr. He performed a moving rendition of his father’s love song and reflected on militarism from an indigenous perspective. Veterans spoke to pressing problems such as Veterans Affairs and LGBTQ+ medical care, the right to refuse illegal orders, and the history of active duty resistance. In one of the more memorable moments a physician and current conscientious objector spoke poignantly about his courageous decision to choose peace. Flanked by veterans stoically holding large pictures of Zahid Chaudhry in uniform and with family, Melissa Chaudhry delivered a tour de force keynote about her husband, moving me and many others to tears. Melissa sharply defended Zahid, elucidated the militarism that led to his detainment, and articulated beautifully the meaning of Armistice Day.

Zahid is a disabled veteran and immigrant; he is the President of Veterans for Peace 109 and for years has been an immovable fixture of the peace movement. He didn’t get to see the beautiful sky that day. He has been a comrade of mine for over a decade, going back to when I began organizing against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Zahid is wrongfully detained in the concentration camp known as the Northwest Detention Center on the Tacoma tideflats, two miles and a world away from city hall. As I write this, Zahid is experiencing cruel medical neglect and risks blindness if he is not released for required medical procedures soon. We would agree every person deserves excellent healthcare. It’s just especially cruel that a disabled veteran, with private health insurance in Olympia, risks blindness in the unnecessary custody of the U.S. government.

The day concluded with a memorial ceremony led by Pastor Shalom of First United Methodist Church. It was a wholly dignified ceremony that seemed to me life-affirming, peace-affirming, and inclusive. The enhancement of the remembrance ceremony to include not just our WWI veterans but all victims of militarism was beautiful, and only natural, given the armies can’t seem to keep the wars to themselves. The ceremony honored the original purpose of the day as imagined by folks like Kurt Vonnegut, while maintaining the universality that so many must have felt in the wake of the Great War. It is a high standard that future remembrance ceremonies will be based upon.

The weather was great for Armistice Day. The political climate was another matter; we gathered on stolen Puyallup land against a backdrop of hegemonic struggle, military belligerence, terror campaigns, genocide, and the rise of the authoritarian right across the breadth of the international system. At home we face surveillance, extra-constitutional policing, mass deportations, wanton nuclearisation, and the militarization of our streets. Political assassinations are on the rise. There is a massive military build up off the coast of Venezuela and already western operatives on the mainland. Domestically, our coffers are ransacked and public institutions are seized. Homeland Security has been allocated an unprecedented wartime budget to terrorize immigrants and urban dwellers for the delight of an increasingly openly white nationalist base. Trans rights are being ripped away. Peace is questioned as a value, human rights as a cause, and the worthiness of empathy itself is mocked by our leaders. The U.S. regime foolishly stokes dormant embers in the Caribbean and saber-rattles in the Pacific. The United States has funded, provided intelligence and abundant material support, and suppressed public knowledge of Israel’s genocide. We face a very real and imminent threat of ethnic cleansing and a collapse of LGBTQ+ and women’s rights. We face war.

So we celebrate peace. But we cannot simply enjoy the peace there is; we are without peace. It is only through resistance that we can create peace. It is only through solidarity that we can resist. And it is through love that we find solidarity. So we celebrate Armistice Day: Peace through Resistance.

by Eric Ard

The Oregon White Oak, also known as the Garry Oak (Quercus Garryana) is the only native Oak species in Washington state. A keystone species needed for endangered lifeforms like the Western Gray Squirrel, Garry Oaks occurs in the endangered South Sound Prairie ecosystem, and as such are also called Prairie Oaks by a select few enthusiasts. Prairie Oaks grow slowly in open areas, and support more species of wildlife than any other tree species in the region. This is due to the abundant food they produce (acorns), and their tendency to form cavities that become homes for various types of wildlife. On average, Prairie oaks don’t begin producing acorns until 30 years of age. 

The city of Lakewood in Pierce County is home to one of the highest concentrations of these oak trees in Washington state, once part of a vast oak prairie stretching beyond Pierce County into Thurston, Lewis and Skamania counties, then on into Oregon. There are isolated groves of these oak-prairies around Puget Sound as well in Shelton, Port Townsend, and Whidbey Island. The town of Oak Harbor on Whidbey proudly exclaims its oaken character, providing a map of the towns catalogued oak trees, and serious protections for these trees. Their resident Garry Oak Society successfully created a culture of appreciation for the gnarled specimens that dot the town. The state of Washington designates oak stands critical habitat for conservation, and in 2020-2022, I was a part of an effort to develop priority tree protections for Lakewood’s oak trees. 

None of this has stopped the proliferation of warehouses in Pierce County, who often set up shop on prime oak habitat. 

During the covid pandemic, a global logistics market that was hurdling towards more online shopping went over a ledge. Millions of people were stuck and home, and a new warehouse boom began. WallStreet firms read the writing on the wall, and invested big in logistics. Private Equity and investment firms rallied behind a new concept: the speculative warehouse. That is a warehouse built with the hope of attracting tenants. Many of these warehouses have been built and sit empty in Lakewood.

In 2023, Lakewood activist Christina Manetti saw her worst fears realized. She had sparked the effort to save Lakewood’s Garry Oaks after learning of a speculative warehouse slated for the Springbrook neighborhood that would cut down over 50 oak trees in the floodplain of Clover Creek. Some of these trees were over 150 years old. Bisected by I-5 and the McChord Air Force Base, Springbrook is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Pierce County, and is considered overburdened by air pollution. In spite of protests, the project broke ground, and put the oaks under the axe. This marked a string of defeats for oak activists in Pierce county, as we watched concrete and cement seal over our aquifer for more Wall Street speculation for the fourth or fifth time. In spite of protections for the rare Prairie Oaks, our laws do not allow us to truly get in the way of capitalism. The developers pay minor mitigation fees, and the habitat is lost for the next hundred years. 

The State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) allows a permitting body (city or county) to authorize an environmental review and request mitigation. It also authorizes these bodies to waive this process via a determination of non-significance. 

As chair of TDSA’s Ecosocialist committee, I learned of a proposal to build one of the largest warehouses in Washington state in south Tacoma, and organized our small membership to build opposition to the project. We knocked doors and drove turnout to a public hearing, where we learned just how far along the project already was.

The Bridge Industrial Warehouse was fast-tracked by the city of Tacoma as the lead permitting agency, and we quickly learned the limit of the state’s environmental protections laws. The project, which is now under construction, seals over even more of our non-glacially fed sole source aquifer with 2.5 million square feet of warehouse. We had no path within the law to defeat the warehouse. 

Front and Centered, a Washington-based legislative advocacy group introduced a bill in 2023 that would have created a lever to stop the Springbrook and Bridge Industrial warehouses. The CURB Act would effectively create a veto option for communities suffering from the cumulative effects of environmental harm. Lack of tree canopy and green space, air pollution from I-5 and Air Force Base McChord, and the existing burden of polluting industry would all be taken into account, as well as public voice. This bill did not make it to the house floor for a vote, in spite of democratic party control of the house, senate, and governor’s office. 

Bridge Industrial, the company behind the South Tacoma warehouse, rode a new trend: developing polluted land. Companies like BI offer municipalities a path to clean-up EPA-designated pollution sites that they couldn’t afford to remediate on their own. The “South Tacoma swamps”, where BI is constructing its mega-warehouse, is one such EPA superfund site, a former dumping ground for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail company. Companies like BI also peddle public safety, turning sites that function as homeless encampments and illegal dumps into trucking, concrete, and jobs. While this makes communities shudder, this offer makes neoliberal politicians and economic planners salivate. Under this form of capitalism, all economic growth is considered good growth, and even helps fund the government through new tax revenue to appease even some moderate social democrats. Never mind that they’re allowing Wall Street to carve up our communities and economic destinies how they please. 

Neoliberal economics has been the name of the game for some time in the county. Under the leadership of the Master Builders Association, a powerful developer lobbying group, Pierce County has consistently chosen to forget environmental protections in favor of economic development. The MBA fielded several County Charter Review candidates this cycle, and until recently held the seat of County Executive under their lobbyist Bruce Dammier. The unincorporated Pierce County community of Fredrickson is a prime example of this legacy. Designated a new industrial and logistics hub, Fredrickson today is more asphalt than anything else. Here the headwaters of Clover Creek, once the main drinking water source for the city of Tacoma, is besieged by a massive Amazon warehouse, Boeing plant, and the Niagara bottling facility, devastating the natural recharge of the aquifer and causing dry conditions downstream. 

A preemptive tool granted to municipalities is zoning. It was industrial/light commercial zoning that created the modern Fredrickson. Municipalities are granted this level of planning, if done ahead of time. Zoning cannot be changed once an investor has submitted a project, no matter how much the locals dislike it. This is playing out today in Dupont, where the city will have the distinct embarrassment of having a warehouse built directly across from their city hall, destroying over 20 acres of forest and a section of the beloved Sequalitchew Creek Trail. The Dupont West project, another speculative warehouse, is a product of poor planning, loopholes in regulation, a polluted site, and a city leadership afraid to confront an economic giant. My watershed-based advocacy organization, the Clover Creek Restoration Alliance, organized against the Dupont West project, which was unanimously opposed by the town residents. Large projects with environmental impacts like Dupont West are arbitrated by an appointed judge called a hearing examiner, who reviews state law, as well as county and city code to determine the legality of a project. During this time, public comment is accepted into the record as a part of the consideration. On rare occasions, members of the public are able to persuade hearing examiners that development proposals are not consistent with the law and must be rejected. More commonly, mitigation measures are recommended and projects are approved. In the case of Dupont West, the project is to be on a site steeped in history, the site of the first Methodist Mission in the state, as well as the first Fourth of July Celebration in the Washington territory and thousands of years of indigenous history primarily associated with the modern Nisqually tribe. The hearing examiner ruled that the project be approved, but ordered the developer to provide a small buffer around the historic mission marker as mitigation. The historic Methodist Mission Marker will now be cartoonishly placed as an island amidst a sea of asphalt. 

The last option available to cities is that of eminent domain, a power to force the sale of private property for the public good. While we made a strong case for the city of Dupont to do so, the timid town councilors refused to consider this in spite of public support, fearing the financial burden and a potential legal battle. 

As a solely rain-fed system, the watershed I advocate for, the Clover-Chambers watershed, is uniquely harmed by these warehouse projects. The impervious surfaces created by large buildings, asphalt, and even the non-native turf grasses repel the water needed to replenish our wells and flush them into storm drain and retention ponds, picking up pollutants like the salmon-killer 6-PPD, found in most tire dust, along the way. Add in the state of drought we find ourselves in today, with rainfall at 50% of average (75% is considered drought conditions), and we find ourselves in a water crisis. Lakewood, Spanaway, Dupont, JBLM, and Parkland all rely on water drawn from aquifer wells. Tacoma also considers the aquifer its back-up water supply, should water from the Green River run low. Warehouse impacts are being felt in the rest of the county as well, like in Puyallup, where the Puyallup tribe has filed an appeal against the city and a new mega-warehouse that would pave over critical farmland. To neighboring King County, we also must remember the loss of the farmlands in the Kent valley, which are now almost entirely warehouses. 

As climate change worsens, it’s expected that a majority of alpine glaciers will vanish in the next 25-50 years, meaning more water demand and less availability from here on out. Global temperatures are rising as well, as is population and demand for electricity. There is absolutely more that can be done for mitigation. Warehouses are a blank canvass for the production of solar energy. Permeable pavement and eco-friendly design like green roofs, tree retention, native landscaping, or even submerged structures would reduce the blight on the environment. And at the core of the issue, communities need to be able to democratically plan the communities they live in, and if needed, reject economic plunder. Under the madness of capitalist development, we must stop condemning our future to a hydrophobic, polluting, heat island Warehouse Hell.

by Sean Arent