by Comrade Drake

It is an unfortunate reality in our capitalist society that divisiveness is endemic in our daily lives. Despite our best efforts such divisiveness can enter our organizing spaces, manifesting in sectarianism and compromising unity and impacting our ability to effectively organize our workplaces and our communities. 

The rich history of our movement grants us the privilege of looking to the past to determine our path forward, and in this vein I’m reminded of a phrase from the Chinese socialist period: “Cure the sickness to save the patient”. In context:

Finally, in opposing subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing we must have in mind two purposes: first, “learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones”, and second, “cure the sickness to save the patient”. The mistakes of the past must be exposed without sparing anyone’s sensibilities; it is necessary to analyse and criticize what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude so that work in the future will be done more carefully and done better. This is what is meant by “learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones”. But our aim in exposing errors and criticizing shortcomings, like that of a doctor curing a sickness, is solely to save the patient and not to doctor him to death. A person with appendicitis is saved when the surgeon removes his appendix. 

So long as a person who has made mistakes does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment or persist in his mistakes until he is beyond cure, so long as he honestly and sincerely wishes to be cured and to mend his ways, we should welcome him and cure his sickness so that he can become a good comrade. We can never succeed if we just let ourselves go, and lash out at him. In treating an ideological or a political malady, one must never be rough and rash but must adopt the approach of “curing the sickness to save the patient”, which is the only correct and effective method.

There was a comrade in my old organization who would show up consistently late to meetings and events and forget to complete tasks they had volunteered for. Perhaps understandably, this was incredibly frustrating for not only me but for the other members in the organization as well, and this frustration ultimately came to a head when they were an hour late to an event we were tabling at they had committed to bringing supplies for. In our debrief meeting we brought this up, and they apologized for it, saying that they had a variety of personal issues that made it difficult for them to keep on top of a schedule, and also correctly criticized me for being undisciplined about planning events ahead of time. 

My own frustration blinded me to not only the underlying issue behind their truancy but also to my own unprincipled behavior. Had I approached the issue as “curing the sickness to save the patient” then perhaps I would’ve also seen the sickness within myself that needed curing. With this in mind, we reengaged from a place of mutual best interest. They committed to showing up on time, and I committed to being more disciplined about event planning.

The analogy isn’t exact in the sense that all of us hold some mix of correct and incorrect ideas and in practice they are often rarely as clear cut as something like appendicitis is. However in today’s “rough and rash” political environment where debate amongst the broader left tends to be fought in the heavily polemicized social media thunderdome we should actively work within ourselves to approach disagreement with the understanding of mutual interest. Like an immune system fighting off an infection we are all constantly waging a struggle between bourgeois and proletarian ideas within ourselves and it would be a disservice to ourselves, our movement, and our comrades to be unnecessarily harsh during periods of ideological conflict.

The post Curing the Sickness to Save the Patient appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

The post Political Cartoons, April 2026 appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Pro wrestlers face dangerous conditions without basic protections or representation. See how close some wrestlers have come to winning more than the belt.

The post The history of labor organizing in pro wrestling appeared first on EWOC.

Read more at Memphis-Midsouth

Smile, Las Vegas! You’re on Camera.

Imagine you’re driving to work and stop at a red light. Without your knowledge, a camera on the street pole has taken a picture of your license plate, your car’s color and make, your tire brand, any dents, and even your bumper stickers. This data uploads immediately to a searchable nationwide database. Officers in other states you have never visited can pull it up without a warrant, without suspecting you of anything. These assaults on our privacy are already happening, and they are victimizing our most vulnerable.

The Las Vegas Democratic Socialists of America (LVDSA) have a new target on our radar: Flock Safety. This private company has quietly built one of the largest mass surveillance tracking networks in American history. Controversial for racially profiling targets and making grave algorithmic errors, this company has recently become notorious for its integral collaboration with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In Las Vegas, a city built by immigrants, ICE actively and secretly scours Flock data to target and arrest them, destroying lives. While some states have taken measures to protect people from this abuse of power, Nevada has not. Flock has covered our city in cameras– a “gift” from elite powers who seek oppression and control. Whether used to track innocent people’s movements, instill fear in diverse urban areas, or hunt down our immigrant neighbors, Flock cameras have no place in Las Vegas. We, the LVDSA organizers, are sounding the alarm.

What is Flock?

Flock Safety is a private tech firm that sells AI-powered surveillance systems to police departments, homeowners’ associations, and private businesses. Their Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) is a camera mounted on poles at busy intersections and neighborhood streets that photographs every passing car, 24 hours a day, every day.

All of that data gets channeled to a central database that police across the country can search. With over 1 billion data points collected per month, 99.5% of the vehicles scanned belong to people who have done nothing wrong.

Why We Care, Even Though We Have Nothing to Hide.

Our daily movements tell an intimate story about who we are, and Flock captures it all. Here’s what their own contract states they can do with our data:

“For clarity, Flock may access, use, preserve, and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties…”

Third parties–that means companies and advertisers.

More urgently, we care about our Black and brown neighbors disproportionately targeted by ALPRs. In Oak Park, Illinois, for example, 84% of people flagged and pulled over by Flock cameras were Black–despite Black people making up 19% of the population. Flock uses AI to bolster a system already corrupted by decades of racist police enforcement, and it’s not that intelligent.

Flock’s Many Mistakes Take a Devastating Human Toll. 

The historic brutality of the police against people of color underscores Flock’s many disastrous errors. These ALPR glitches also create traumatic encounters for young people who are innocently going about their day. Here are just a few examples:

In Baltimore, 16-year-old Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school, waiting to be picked up after football practice, eating Doritos. An AI gun-detection system misidentified his bag of chips as a firearm. Eight police cars arrived. Officers with drawn guns approached him, forced him to the ground, and handcuffed him. Taki said the first thing he thought was, “Am I about to die?” When shown the image that triggered the alert, Allen explained: “I was just holding a Doritos bag – it was two hands and one finger out, and they said it looked like a gun.”

In Aurora, Colorado, a mother and her children were pulled over at gunpoint and forced to lie face down on the hot pavement. An ALPR system mistakenly matched their license plate to a stolen motorcycle in Montana. After a loud public outcry, the family was awarded a $1.9 million settlement from the city.

In Espanola, New Mexico, police officers held a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint because an ALPR camera misread a number on her sister’s license plate–a 2 that the system read as a 7. One month later, in the same region, a 17-year-old honors student was held at gunpoint on his way home from school after officers mistook his vehicle for one associated with an individual sought in connection with a string of armed robberies.

Cops are Using Flock to Stalk their Exes and Enemies.

Flock’s marketing materials don’t mention that the technology gives officers full rein to weaponize it against anyone they want. They have been brandishing this power against ex-romantic partners and personal rivals.

• One Kansas police chief used Flock to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner over 160 times.
• A Wisconsin officer used Flock to run his ex-girlfriend’s plates five unauthorized times in a single month.
• A Milwaukee officer ran a personal target’s plate 55 times and another’s 124 times over two months.

This is what happens when we allow unlimited, warrantless access to technology that can track anyone’s movements anywhere in the country, with no oversight. We cannot trust police officers to use it properly; what can we expect from ICE agents?

ICE is Already Exploiting Flock.

While Flock Safety does not have an official contract with ICE, federal immigration agencies have accessed Flock data through secretive backdoor deals with law enforcement agencies. This consolidation of power is another tool of terror wielded against immigrants.

In Washington state, researchers found that at least 10 police departments had Flock data accessed by the U.S. Border Patrol through backdoor access—meaning agencies that didn’t explicitly authorize federal immigration enforcement were still having their data searched. ICE has exploited Flock data in cooperating with local law enforcement agencies to locate and detain immigrants–often in cities with policies to protect them.

In Las Vegas, ICE is using Flock cameras right now, with the help of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). This is especially problematic, as ICE and LVMPD signed a 287(g) agreement in 2025, enabling Metro cops to execute immigration warrants on people held at the CCDC. The agreement also allows people to be held for an additional 48 hours after their release time, so that ICE may take them into custody. Therefore, Metro officers can use Flock data to track a brown-skinned person, pull them over for a trivial reason–like having a faulty brake light–and act as an ICE agent, detaining the driver in the name of immigration enforcement. Once detained, the victim has little recourse, thanks to the 287(g) agreement. (The ACLU of Nevada challenged the legality of the 287(g) agreement in court, but the case was dismissed on technical grounds. The ACLU of Nevada has vowed to continue the fight.)

While some Nevada leaders have expressed concern over the sinister and pervasive spread of Flock cameras and the vast surveillance machine they feed, none have introduced legislation that would protect our privacy from ICE. Governor Joe Lombardo has already granted ICE permission to enter our schools and churches without a warrant, and he caved to Donald Trump’s insistence that Nevada is a sanctuary state that requires the National Guard’s ICE enforcement support. Now it is more crucial than ever for everyday Las Vegans to protect the safety and dignity of our immigrant neighbors. Every Flock scan, every plate logged, is a potential family separated, a worker missing on the job, a life destroyed.

No Limits in Nevada.

Las Vegas residents are especially vulnerable. Clark County has at least 200 Flock cameras operating right now, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) signed Flock’s contract without any public discussion–no city council vote, no press release. Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz side-stepped the necessity for public discussion by donating approximately $6.3 million to a private foundation, Friends of Metro, which then gifted the Flock contract to LVMPD. And so far, the reported lack of oversight for this powerful tool is incredible. Nevada is one of 34 states with zero legislation regulating ALPRS. While other states enacted legislation to curb Flock, no bill was introduced in Nevada in 2025. For us, Nevada residents, there are no restrictions on federal sharing and no prohibition on selling our data.

LVDSA organizers are calling on Clark County to immediately suspend the privately-funded LVMPD Flock contract, demand a full public accounting of every search conducted, and pass an ordinance requiring City Council approval before any further surveillance contracts are signed.

The Good News: We Can Get Flock Off the Block.

Solidarity is working. Cities where residents have organized and demanded regulation have won protections, such as mandatory written consent for data sharing, strict limits on which “hot lists” cameras can scan, requirements that data be deleted after 21 days, and absolute prohibitions on sharing data with entities not subject to US law. Two Virginia cities–Charlottesville and Staunton– banned Flock entirely. Las Vegas can follow suit.

Here’s What We Can Do Right Now. 

1. Visit deflock.org– a map of known Flock cameras across the country.
2. Find out if your plate has been scanned – visit haveibeenflocked.com.
3. Sign this petition to demand action from our local officials. Make them answer on the record.
4. Attend our protest outside Mayor Shelly Berkley’s State of the City address on Wednesday, April 22nd, 5 pm at Reynolds Hall (361 Symphony Park Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89106).
5. Spread the word. This technology is expanding because most people either don’t know it exists or don’t understand its reach. Tell your neighbors, post about it, bring it up at work, and at your HOA meeting–because your HOA might be feeding your data to the system right now.

Flock Off.

Flock Safety secretly built a nationwide surveillance system that tracks our every move without cause. It does not reduce crime, but it has repeatedly made dangerous errors that result in innocent people being held at gunpoint. It is being used excessively in Black and brown communities, and unstable police officers use it to stalk women. ICE agents use it to hunt and detain working immigrants. In Las Vegas, its reach will continue to expand until we do something to stop it.

We, the LVDSA organizers, proudly stand with all Nevada workers, regardless of their immigration status. We believe in the complete abolition of ICE and entities like Flock that empower them. We advocate for a city where our neighbors don’t fear the drive to work, the grocery store, or home from school. We demand our friends, neighbors, and coworkers not be targeted and silently tracked based on their status–they are our valued community members, not criminals. We deserve a city that safeguards everyone’s 4th Amendment right to privacy. We demand privacy, accountability, and a voice in what happens. For our neighbors, for ourselves, for our future, it’s time to get the Flock off the block.

By Jill G. & River T.F.

References:

Aldrete, I. (2025, Aug. 8). Lombardo to authorize the Nevada National Guard to support ICE operations. The Nevada Independent. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-national-guard-authorized-to-support-feds-with-immigration-enforcement 

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (2025, Oct. 23). LVMPD Ignores Underlying Nevada Court Order in ACLU of Nevada’s 287(g) Challenge and Transfers Detainee to ICE Custody
https://www.aclunv.org/press-releases/lvmpd-ignores-underlying-nevada-court-order-in-aclu-of-nevadas-287g-challenge-and-transfers-detainee-to-ice-custody/

American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma. (2023, Dec. 21). The threat to privacy and civil liberties from automatic license plate readers.
https://www.acluok.org/en/news/threat-privacy-and-civil-liberties-automatic-license-plate-readers

Aurora Police Department bodycam. (2020, Aug.). Officers force an Aurora, Colorado, family of Black girls to the ground at gunpoint after Flock misreads the license plate. The Associated Press.

Chronicle Media. (2023, Dec. 21). South Side.
https://chronicleillinois.com/tag/south-side/

DeFlock. (2026). DeFlock: Find nearby ALPRs. https://deflock.org

Denver7 News. (2020, Aug. 7). Prosecutors reviewing actions of Aurora officers during the mistaken traffic stop of Black family.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/prosecutors-reviewing-actions-of-aurora-officers-during-mistaken-traffic-stop-of-black-family

Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2023, Oct. 1). Street-level surveillance and ALPR technology.
https://www.eff.org

Flock Safety. (2026). Technology and services overview.
https://www.flocksafety.com

FOX5 Vegas. (2025, June 9). Nevada governor vetoes bill aimed at protecting students from ICE [Video].
https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2025/06/09/nevada-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-protecting-students-ice/

Have I Been Flocked? (2026). Have I Been Flocked? https://haveibeenflocked.com

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). (2020). Predictive policing and racial bias.
https://naacp.org

The Nevada Independent. (2026, Feb. 22). Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department surveillance reporting.
https://thenevadaindependent.com

The Nevada Independent. (2026, Mar. 22). License plate reader cameras abound in Nevada. The state has no laws to regulate them. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/license-plate-reader-cameras-abound-in-nevada-the-state-has-no-laws-to-regulate-them

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2026). Data access and surveillance practices.
https://www.cbp.gov

Iran is under savage imperialist military and economic onslaught against its people and soil. At this existential moment, we must stand unequivocally with the Iranian people and against their aggressors. At the same time, we must not forget that standing with the Iranian people requires an ongoing defense of their democratic rights. Serious deficiencies in addressing both of these urgent tasks are apparent in Western leftist currents.

At the moment, there is no anti-war movement similar to the 2003 opposition to the war on Iraq, when the left mobilized millions of people around the world to say no to the U.S.-led invasion. At the same time, a minority but vocal segment of the Western left that correctly prioritizes anti-imperialism as its primary strategy, displays a lack of creative internationalism in dealing with Iran. This view, particularly espoused by the so-called Campists, seems disinterested in the sacrifices of Iranian protesters–who are literally being killed when they stand up for freedom and economic justice–by either avoiding any criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), or sometimes exalting it. ¹ Conversely, much of the Iranian left in the diaspora, while aware of the imperial designs on Iran, has suffered from its own lack of creativity in delivering a cohesive and compelling internationalist vision–of simultaneous resistance to autocracy and colonialism–especially to the Iranian people.  A significant part of this Iranian left, at this vital moment, insists on equal condemnation of the IRI and the aggressors, and as such, in practice, remains in the gray zone. This group, consisting of different Marxist and republican (see below) tendencies, rejects those voices on the left—some with similar views as Campists—that side with the IRI’s resistance to U.S. imperialism, as resistance leftists. From fundamentalist perspectives, both views—articulated by the Campists and proponents of equal criticism—may be plausible. However, we must act both strategically and with the sense of urgency that this moment demands. This article will argue that in the face of naked and highly destructive aggression on Iran, opposition to imperialism, especially in the U.S., must take the highest priority for the left: we must oppose this aggression–unequivocally and vociferously. On the other hand, this opposition must not descend into blind support for the Iranian state. Assuming that Iran and the IRI will survive this insane war, most observers believe that if anything, the state will become more repressive domestically. Therefore, even now, the left must strengthen its support of Iranians struggling for democracy and social justice.

The IRI presides over a capitalist, rentier economy–in which the majority of the national income results from the extraction of oil and not productive activity–while refusing to play the role of a U.S. surrogate. It supports resistance to Israeli colonialism in the Middle East, but only within the confines of its own theocratic ideology. Yet the IRI’s domestic repression—executions, imprisonment of dissidents, suppression of labor organizations, patriarchal policies, and its brutal “war on drugs”—has countered the Iranian aspirations for justice and democracy for decades. To confront these seemingly contradictory challenges facing Iran, the left needs to articulate a stance that is unequivocally pro–social justice, democratic rights, and human rights, while being loudly against all foreign machinations and interventions in Iran, whether military or economic. Developing this stance will require building more bridges between Western and Iranian progressives. It also requires a deeper participation of the latter in all internationalist causes.  Our collective position must embrace an expansive solidarity sensitive to the reality of Iran’s political sociology, with the welfare of its people at the center of our vision for change.

Promises Betrayed

Before the 1979 revolution, the left’s position on Iran was straightforward: oppose the Pahlavi dynasty and its imperialist patrons. The Shah, acting as Washington’s regional proxy, lacked legitimacy: with an Americanized military, he helped create a regional tableau reflecting the Washington (and London) hegemony, e.g., by arming the Iraqi Kurds against an Iraqi Arab-nationalist regime, by direct military intervention to suppress the Dhofar uprising in Oman, and furthermore, as a buffer against any southward projection of power by the U.S.S.R. Inside Iran, much of the opposition sought independence from foreign interference, freedom, and economic justice. Yet in the absence of democracy—and with the growing influence of clerical Islam—debates about Iran’s post-Shah order were suppressed.

Ayatollah Khomeini, a dissident while living in Iran and later in exile, commanded widespread respect. As the anti-Shah movement gained momentum in 1978, he consolidated leadership and guided the revolution. From exile in France, he assured Iranians and the world that he did not intend to rule, promising economic justice and political freedom in a post-Pahlavi Iran. The revolution was celebrated domestically and abroad, including by leading advocates of human rights and social justice. Western governments, fearing Iran’s drift toward the Soviet bloc, soon abandoned the Shah and accepted the rise of an Islamic regime hostile to communism.

The post-revolutionary reality diverged sharply from Khomeini’s promises. After a brief period of openness, it became clear that Khomeini and his inner circle envisioned a theocratic state, with ambitions to export their model across the Muslim world. Within two years, they orchestrated systematic assaults on free speech, shuttered independent newspapers, banned many political organizations that had helped topple the Shah, imposed severe restrictions on women, and launched military campaigns against pro-autonomy regions such as the Turkmen northeast and Kurdistan in the west. By June 1981, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr—the liberal-minded first elected president of the IRI and once a strategist for Khomeini—was ousted and forced into exile. Much of the opposition now recognized that the revolution had been betrayed.

The left’s response was fractured. A significant segment, influenced by pro-Soviet leanings and seduced by Khomeini’s anti-American rhetoric (primarily the Tudeh Party and the majority faction of the Fedayeen People’s Guerrilla Organization), continued to support the regime. Other smaller leftist groups (primarily the minority faction of the Fedayeens), along with Islamic-leaning progressives (Mujahedeen Khalgh) and moderate liberal-democrats (e.g., the National Front), formed an incongruent opposition. The U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iraq’s invasion (encouraged by Washington), and the ensuing eight-year war further complicated matters, fueling nationalism among Iranians.

The Anti-Imperialist facade

The revolution’s anti-imperialist veneer rested on two pillars:

• Socio-cultural: purging decades of Western influence and imposing strict Islamic traditions.
• Geopolitical: rejecting the West’s interference in the Middle East–The U.S. in particular–especially its unrestrained support of Zionism.

The Socio-cultural Pillar

A large faction of the Shia hierarchy had always been a force against progress.  For example, while a few notable senior clergy supported Iran’s 1905-1911 European-inspired Constitutional Revolution, others, most importantly Ayatollah Nouri, were steadfastly against it; instead, they demanded a religiously based (Shia sharia) alternative to the then absolutist monarchy. During the 1951–1953 National Movement, led by the democratically appointed Mossadegh government, the leading Ayatollah Kashani collaborated with the CIA to defeat it.  Then, in 1963, a younger Ayatollah Khomeini rose in opposition to the Shah’s reforms–encouraged by President Kennedy–and was consequently arrested and sent into exile.  Common to all this clerical resistance was its opposition to modernity, meaning all secular and democratic reforms–women’s right to vote and land reform, among others.  

The Geopolitical Façade: A Country under External Aggression

In the decades before the 1979 Revolution, the imbricated relationship between imperialism and modernity fueled anti-Westernism among conservative religious factions, first mobilized by the clerical hierarchy and later articulated by intellectuals such as Ali Shariati. The Shah’s autocratic rule helped legitimize the reactionary nature of Khomeini and his movement in two ways: a- it made it impossibly difficult to gain direct access to pertinent information and to conduct open debates, and b- the distrust of the monarchy made almost any opposition to it appealing. Thus, a lack of rigorous challenge to the clerical leadership by civil society played a vital role in the failure of the 1979 revolution in replacing authoritarianism with democracy.

Iran’s post-revolutionary foreign policy quickly became marked by a veneer of anti-imperialism through anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans. Its rejectionist posture toward the U.S. regional interests and Israeli apartheid, is simultaneously authentic and disingenuous.

The authenticity stems from widespread resentment among Iranians toward decades of Western interference in their affairs, most notably the CIA-staged 1953 coup that, in response to the successful nationalization of Iran’s oil industry, overthrew the popular Mossadegh government, as well as the U.S. support for Iraq’s war against Iran soon after the 1979 revolution; add to this a genuine distaste for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. Despite its many negative qualities, the IRI is not a U.S.-surrogate.  This is in contrast to the Persian Gulf emirates, for example, whose economic and foreign policies–resource management (especially petroleum and the reinvestment of petro-dollars), their relationship to Israel versus Palestine, and military strategy–are almost entirely aligned with U.S. interests. This fact, along with the IRI rejectionist rhetoric, and its overt support for regional para-state actors such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Hamas in Palestine, unsettles the U.S. policymakers and its regional client states. Yet since the inception of the IRI, this perceived threat has been paradoxically useful to the U.S. corporate economy: it has justified the purchase of advanced U.S.-made weapon systems by Iran’s oil-rich neighbors.

But the IRI’s combative foreign posture has also been self-serving. Domestically, it has fostered national pride among its loyal supporters; regionally, it has sought to extend its hegemony by positioning itself as the champion of Islamic aspirations and Palestinian rights. The inauthenticity of this posture is evident to many Iranians, including its politically conscious left, who see the regime’s external rhetoric at odds with its brutal suppression of domestic rights and minority aspirations. Also, at the popular level, the same inauthenticity, amplified by Israeli propaganda, has caused a sense of resentment against Palestine and Lebanon among some Iranians – those who are led to believe that their economic hardship is in part due to the IRI’s foreign projects.   The IRI’s support for Palestine is narrowly ideological, limited to its fundamentalist factions such as Hamas. Even before Yasser Arafat’s death, the IRI had adopted a hostile stance toward the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The “Resistance Front”

The regime’s revolutionary posture led to the creation and sponsorship of a so-called resistance front—encompassing Palestine to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—intended to expand Iran’s regional influence and to serve as a line of defense against U.S. or Israeli aggression. This strategy was tested during Israel’s 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza, and in its attacks on Lebanon and on Iran itself. The resistance quickly lost much of its military capability, with a heavy toll on the ordinary people of those countries, leaving the strategy relatively ineffective.

In addition to the above, Iran’s material support for Russia’s war on Ukraine, its strategic alignment with Russia and China, and its increasing prominence in the BRICS economic block, at least until now, are serious irritants to U.S. hegemony and economic strategy.

The Rule of theocratic authoritarians

The clerical system of government in Iran is profoundly patriarchal. Its regressive vision of society stands in stark opposition to modernity and secularism. While the regime recognizes the necessity of modern technology and the physical sciences for its survival—particularly in military, defense, and manufacturing domains—it holds a deeply dismissive view of modern social sciences, prevailing concepts of human rights, feminism, ethnic or national autonomy, individual freedoms, and democracy.

Despite a procedural façade of representative democracy, Iran is governed by the constitutionally mandated Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist)—an unelected Supreme Leader appointed for life, without popular oversight, and supported by the all-powerful Revolutionary Guards–the primary military force in Iran, and a financial and industrial conglomerate in its own right. And now, the selection of the assassinated Ayatollah Khamenei’s son to succeed him as the country’s supreme leader, has explicitly violated a fundamental premise of the revolution: its rejection of hereditary transfer of power. Candidates for the comparatively weaker presidency or the parliament (Majlis) are vetted through constitutional requirements that discriminate against women and religious minorities, and through arbitrary decisions by the Council of Guardians—a body submissive to the Supreme Leader—also against ethnic minorities.

Human rights violations are systemic. Women, religious minorities (especially the Baha’is), and ethnic nationalities such as Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs face persistent discrimination and suppression. Genuine opposition media are nonexistent, reformist media are frequently attacked, and free speech is curtailed. Iran ranks among the world’s leading states in the number of executions, carried out for both political reasons and ordinary crimes such as drug trafficking or murder. The Special Rapporteur for the Situation of Human Rights in Iran reports 1,639 executions in 2025. Such violations intensify during existential crises, including the aftermath of the 2025 Israeli and American aggression against Iran. It is not unreasonable to assume that after this ongoing war on Iran, a weakened ruling establishment could resort to even more draconian measures of internal repression, including executions, which are multiplying even now, as hostilities continue. 

Economic Mismanagement

Although the crippling U.S.-imposed sanctions on the Iranian people have been a key contributor to economic decline, the regime’s own mismanagement bears significant responsibility. Monopoly control of key industries, illicit financial practices facilitated by so-called trustees who are tasked with circumventing US sanctions while personally benefiting from it, and corruption have caused entrenched social and economic disparities. Transparency International ranked Iran 150th out of 177 countries in 2024, with a corruption score of 23/100.

Development & Decline

While the assassinated Supreme Leader professed an austere lifestyle, politically-connected elites and their families enjoy luxury and excess, sometimes sparking public scandal. In stark contrast, the dwindling middle class and ordinary workers—including industrial laborers, teachers, nurses, government employees, and retirees—face severe economic hardship. According to IRANWIRE, the Iranian Parliament’s Research Center report suggests that 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, though this is likely an underestimation given inflation rates exceeding 42% in 2024. These conditions have fueled widespread protests, strikes, and civil actions, many of which have been brutally suppressed.

Iran’s vast natural and human resources have enabled progress in illiteracy reduction, infrastructure development, and domestic technological capacity. Yet chronic mismanagement has produced existential challenges: water scarcity exacerbated by climate change, water overuse due to poor agricultural policies and outdated irrigation techniques, energy shortages, pollution, and a massive flight of human capital abroad.

In the end, the IRI has failed to fulfill its revolutionary promise to serve the interests of the middle class, working people, and the poor. Inflation, corruption, sanctions, and political repression, and a misdirected foreign policy have brought a resource-rich nation to the brink of systemic failure.

Nuclear Policy

Another policy with profound foreign implications has been Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has a legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear technology, and it has successfully built domestic expertise in enrichment. Whether this program serves dual purposes—energy generation and possible weaponization—is debatable, and is possibly a point of contention within Iran’s own political and military establishment. Tehran has consistently declared opposition to nuclear weapons on religious grounds. This assertion is also supported by reports from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency that the enriched uranium does not exceed 60% in U-235, i.e., below its 90% weapon grade requirement. Moreover, multiple statements, most recently from Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard), indicate that Iran was not in the process of developing nuclear weapons.  However, after the second U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran in less than a year, the IRI must and most likely will reexamine this decision.  This is especially important as the possibility of a nuclear attack against Iran is now openly discussed in the media.

Until the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran had abided by its commitments. The Iranian government even continued to allow inspections by the IAEA afterward, yet it also accelerated enrichment, possibly as leverage in negotiations. At the same time, the U.S. and Israel collaboratively reinstated severe sanctions, assassinated Iranian scientists, and engaged in military aggression—actions that disregarded international law and Iran’s sovereignty. Regardless of legal arguments, the IRI’s nuclear policy has inflicted economic damage and human suffering on its people. Economic sanctions have prevented foreign investment and technical upgrades in the oil industry and other manufacturing sectors, reduced the GDP as Iran is forced to sell its oil below market price, and misdirected precious resources toward the economically nonproductive nuclear enrichment and missile programs.

Foreign Aggression

Despite its support for allies in Palestine, Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthis of Yemen, Iran has never initiated aggression against its regional neighbors or the United States.  As the 1953 coup against the independent-minded yet U.S.-friendly Dr. Mossadegh demonstrates, merely acting in the interest of one’s own nation can attract the hostile reaction of the empire. Thus, acts of sabotage, armed aggression, and economic warfare directed against Iran in the past 45 years have harmed not only its government but most importantly its people, deepening their suffering and often their resentment against the state.

The combination of Iran’s sovereign nuclear and foreign policies, legitimate alignments, and regional instigations, has motivated U.S.-Israeli past aggression and the current cowardly attack on Iran.  In both instances, the attacks began while negotiations between Iran and the U.S. were underway. In spite of Iran’s highly accommodating approach in these negotiations (as reported by the foreign minister of Oman and senior U.K. security advisor present at the talks), Trump and Netanyahu began a unilateral attack on Iran with no legal or legitimate justification. The waning fantasy that decapitation would lead to a change in government continues, despite its evident failure. Vast economic and human damage has been inflicted on Iran. This includes significant damage to its military and economic infrastructure, residential areas, hospitals, and schools, as well as environmental degradation, and according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, the loss of more than 1400 civilian lives at the time of this writing, including about 200 children and an unknown number of military personnel.  In spite of all this, Iran has resisted and has inflicted significant economic pain not only on the aggressors and their proxies, but the entire world. There is ample evidence of the adverse impact of the aggression on the world economy, including its increasing harm to the working and middle-class Americans who are already feeling the economic impact of the war.  At least 13 U.S. servicemen have died as a result of the aggression, and many injured. The war is increasingly unpopular in the U.S., but Washington–Trump in particular–refuses to heed the popular sentiment.

Resistance to Military Aggression

The decades-long anti-democratic policies of the regime, along with the crippling U.S.-imposed economic sanctions, have led to a fragmented society. There are diverging views (see below) among groups consisting of the ardent supporters of the regime, the independence-minded and democratic internal opposition, the opposition among the ethnic or national minorities, and those who wish the overthrow of the regime at any cost. Therefore, I must note that to speak of a single view among the Iranian people is imprecise, even now! However, Trump’s reversion to “gunboat diplomacy” does not go unopposed. The Guardian and the BBC, as well as other independent media, report that the Iranian people are increasingly coalescing against the U.S.-Israeli aggression. 

The regime’s roots are in Iran–it is not a client state. This, and the development of a large military force and deterrence arsenal, consisting of ballistic missiles and drones, has allowed Iran to put up a resistance to the most fearsome military assault on its soil and its people; this was unanticipated by Trump. Another well-known risk—dismissed by Washington’s hubris—was Iran’s strategic command of the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf’s gateway to the Indian Ocean through which roughly 20% of global oil exports flow. Iran’s effective closure of the Strait, only allowing selective passage, has constricted supply, driving up prices for every end user. The refusal of the European states—usually submissive to U.S. military adventures—to overtly take part in this aggression, is a clear indication that Iran’s military resistance has been substantially effective. None of this, however, reduces the immense suffering and danger that this aggression continues to impose on the country.

A continuing popular resistance

The IRI depends on a homegrown ideological system in which religion remains a central element of culture. Historically, many clerics are rooted in the lower strata of the society; they run neighborhood mosques across cities, towns, and rural areas; they are adept at speaking the language of their followers, and provide basic social support, thereby sustaining loyalty. The early populist beliefs and messages of the IRI’s founder are still repeated and resonate with many who hold conservative religious outlooks. Moreover, the very significant role of the government in providing jobs, attracts many believers as well as opportunists to the regime’s security apparatus.

Yet the regime’s authoritarian nature and repeated failures have generated a broad spectrum of opposition. Resistance to theocratic rule, and its violent backlash, began soon after the revolution and, despite pauses, it has never ceased. Forces of modernity, exposure to the outside world, economic collapse, and nostalgia for the past continue to fuel opposition both inside Iran and among the diaspora. For now, war has consolidated popular support for defending the country. However, this may not last, and certainly after any cessation of hostilities, existing grievances will resurface.

Internal Resistance

Domestically, acts of defiance have taken forms, both organized and spontaneous. Notable examples include:

• The 1979 International Women’s Day marches across Iran to protest the new laws discriminating against women’s rights.
• The June 1980 massive action against the internal coup aimed at Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadre, and the brutal backlash against the progressive opposition ranging from communists to Islamic Socialist to liberal nationalists. The exact number of prisoners executed without open trials, between 1980 to the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, consisting mainly of those from the ranks of previous revolutionaries, is unknown, but is certainly in the many thousands.
• The 1999 student uprising in response to the closure of a reformist newspaper.
• The 2009 “Green Movement.” Mir-Hussain Moussavi, a former prime minister, and Mehdi Karoubi, a cleric and former speaker of the parliament, both presidential candidates, led days of demonstrations, with as many as 2 million protesters early on, to protest the results of a rigged presidential election. These protests were eventually suppressed violently by the regime.
• The 2017–2018 protests against inflation and economic shortages.
• The 2019 nationwide demonstrations against sudden fuel price hikes.
• The 2022–2023 “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman detained for violating the mandatory dress code. This uprising, due to its broad national presence, and strong leadership by women, took on an international character inspiring major support not only within Iran, but also externally. In her Z Article Frieda Afary, points out: “The most important achievement [of progressives in Iran] has been the 2022 Woman, Life Freedom Movement which raised explicit emancipatory demands involving women, labor, education and the rights of oppressed minorities.”
• The December 2025 – January 2026 revolt started with a Bazar strike to protest against the out-of-control price inflation and the devaluation of the Iranian currency, the Rial. It rapidly gained momentum and spread to numerous small and large cities. The uprising began in response to legitimate economic hardships. However, it is likely that Israeli and American interference worked to influence the authentic demonstrations, which quickly turned violent; in fact, the former U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo gleefully suggested the presence of Mossad agents at the demonstrations. The call for taking part in the street demonstration by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, along with his promise of U.S. support, was heeded by many, adding to the regime’s nervousness and its brutal backlash. In part, by closing down the internet, the government managed to suppress the rebellion violently, killing protesters in their thousands, and injuring and imprisoning thousands more.

Even before these recent nationwide protests, smaller street actions and strikes had persisted—organized by retirees, teachers, nurses, and other workers. Sit-ins, hunger strikes, and demonstrations against political arrests and executions continued, often led by prominent activists, many from within prisons. The regime’s typical response is often violent, deploying paramilitary Basij forces, plainclothes agents, and the Revolutionary Guards. In some cases, however, concessions did follow: fuel prices were reduced after mass protests. And women’s particularly courageous resistance, culminating in the “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising, when hundreds of young demonstrators lost their lives, forced the regime to significantly reduce policing of women’s dress codes—a revolutionary achievement in its own right.

Regime Change by Whom?

Under dictatorial rule, it is difficult to gauge whether all dissatisfied citizens hope for regime change; a question even more difficult to answer under the wartime conditions. Yet spontaneous uprisings before the current aggression were increasingly radicalized, demanding the overthrow of the regime. These movements had often lacked organized leadership, though underground cells emerged during the 2023–2024 protests, and there is reason to believe that external actors, including the Israeli-supported royalists might have had an agitating role in this year’s street actions–the rise in the popularity of Reza Pahlavi seems to have contributed to an appreciable increase in the numbers of protesters. Since the onset of the revolution, dissidents inside Iran have spoken out at great personal risk, with women activists particularly outspoken despite severe repression. In exile, the opposition is fragmented, while some factions are more organized.

Two broad currents of opposition can be identified:

• The Client Opposition: Two relatively unified but separate groups dominate: the Pahlavi-royalists and the Mujahedeen Khalq Organization (MKO)–a formerly left-leaning Islamic guerrilla group, with current cult-like behavior. Despite rhetorical commitments to democracy, both insist on their own predetermined leaders for a perceived post-IRI (purportedly transitory) stage. Both seek support from U.S. elites, particularly from Republicans, and from Israel. The royalists, in particular, openly celebrate the U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, and the former Crown-Prince continues to encourage the continuation of the war to topple the regime.  Each faction has its own patrons within the most right-wing Western circles.  The MKO is supported by such figures as John Bolton and Rudy Juliani, for example, while Reza Pahlavi is Israel’s own–albeit often subpar–Manchurian Candidate. The increase in the Pahlavi popularity has been fueled by massive monetary injections (possibly by Saudi Arabia and Israel) into television, most prominently the satellite broadcaster Iran International, and a broad array of social media propaganda tools.
• The Independent Opposition: This consists of left-leaning or democratic individuals and groups who have failed to coalesce around unified programs. Many are active among the Iranian diaspora, with some having semi- or completely clandestine presence inside the country.  Also, many have their roots in the pre-Islamic revolution era in Iran–some quite prominent at that time, but not as much in the imagination of today’s Iranian masses. The left consists of disparate and relatively small groups of Marxist tendencies, while the liberal democratic groups belong to a range of secular tendencies from Mossadegh’s National Front (including both secular- and religious-nationalist), to the proponents of a federal republican system of government, e.g., as demanded by regional political parties–to address ethnic and national aspirations for autonomy–most prominently in Kurdistan, but also among the Baluchis, the Arabs of Khuzestan and in Azerbaijan, some with guerrilla fighters among their ranks.

Shared demands could form the basis of a platform: social democracy, opposition to foreign intervention, abolition of capital punishment, political freedoms, and regional autonomy. Yet lingering mistrust rooted in past conflicts, sectarian tendencies (especially among the left), and an aging leadership disconnected from younger generations–less ideological, at times nostalgic for the pre-1979 era, and inclined towards a somewhat sanitized normal western life–have hindered coalition-building.  Any rising or recognized leader who advocates for transition to a democratic Iran, e.g., figures such as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi or a former prime minister and presidential candidate Mir-Hussain Moussavi, are undermined by both the regime–arrests and imprisonment–and the royalists–disruption of their events and character attacks through the social media, including accusations of collaboration with the regime. However, the Pahlavi success in his call for demonstrations early in 2026, and the royalist initiative to offer a platform for transition, as anti-democratic as that platform is—for example, Reza Pahlavi’s absolute authority to choose the members of the transition government, his advisors, and the timing of various proposed referenda—has motivated more serious initiatives within the left, but especially among the democratic opposition currents to form alliances. This is promising. Particular examples include the coalition of six Kurdish groups, and a new congress consisting of various republican-minded opposition formations based outside Iran, which consist of regional parties, social democrats, as well as liberal entities, reportedly formed in support of a still-undisclosed list of an internal leadership council.

From outside the country—and even for observers within—it remains unclear how influential these groups are among Iranians. There is significant grassroots support for democratization, modernity, and economic justice.  Courageous activists inside Iran openly call for change at great risk to their own freedom.  The government has never allowed the formation of active opposition parties inside Iran, nor a free civil society, including independent trade unions.  In this vacuum, there is evidence that the right-wing factions, namely the royalists, have gained support. However, their past record, and now their outright support of foreign aggression, limits their popular appeal, or potentially will reverse it if the war ends without a regime collapse.

Where To go from here?

It is indeed possible for a government to be simultaneously anti-imperialist and repressive against its own people. Foremost, especially at this moment, there must be unequivocal and nonstop opposition, and as much as possible tangible resistance to U.S.-Israeli aggression whether military or economic. All anti-war and anti-imperialist activists, in spite of any ideological difference–importantly this includes the Iranian left in the diaspora–must come together to oppose this aggression.

Iran’s support for Palestine has been relatively unique on the global stage. As I have argued, the IRI’s posture toward Israel and Palestine has been both authentic and disingenuous. Combined with decades of opposition to U.S. hegemony, this duality complicates how left-leaning activists in the United States perceive the IRI.

In my conversations with many Palestinians and their allies, at first these distinctions appear as unimportant subtleties in the face of the Israeli genocide and the U.S.-Israeli imperial war on Iran. Yet for progressive internationalists committed to social justice and human rights, ambiguity is unacceptable. The Islamic regime is hostile to modernity, secularism, democracy, and social justice. While the left must continue to organize the opposition to aggression against the Iranian nation-state, its solidarity—irrespective of geopolitical considerations—must be directed only toward the Iranian people, including those individuals and organizations that champion human and democratic rights, and social justice.

This is a moment for the anti-war movement to reenergize itself. Three years of protesting the Israeli genocide–and the normalization of extreme violence televised to the world–has likely sapped the energy that surfaced in 2003 to organize the mass opposition to that American war on Iraq. Possibly as a result, to date, the opposition to the war on Iran has been an addendum to the continuing, albeit weakened rallies for Palestine. The U.S. has been the key enabler of the Israeli genocide; but now, it is the direct perpetrator of the aggression. Thus, an independent anti-war initiative can and must form. Moreover, this war, due to its geography and oil, has become an environmental and climate disaster, and if it continues, it is likely to become even more so.  Destroying water desalination plants will cause irreversible social dislocations, while the burning oil fields and storage depots, together with massive explosions and aerial transportation are causing a huge injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.² The combination of the direct U.S. role in inflicting atrocity and economic damage, and the environmental impact must be a call for alliance of the anti-war and environmental activists to unite in opposition to the U.S. war.

Therefore, especially in the U.S., the opposition to the war has to be first and foremost; this is indeed the time to reignite a broad expansive alliance to do so. However, our slogans in the condemnation of the imperialist war must not include support for the theocracy in Iran; sentiments heard regularly not only at pro-Palestine rallies—where fundamentalist Muslims and anti-imperialist communists converge—but also in smaller, more deliberative political milieus.

There is ample hypocrisy.  Western governments, with imperial ambitions, criticize governments such as Iran’s and Venezuela’s for human rights violations, Russia for her militarism, and China for its economic expansionist policies, yet they close their eyes to genocide in Palestine, abduct a President, and without provocation attack a sovereign nation both militarily and economically. The powerful, with their impatience for the niceties of human rights and social justice, can afford to be hypocrites, at least for now. But the left, whose only path to political influence lies in standing for what is right, cannot afford its own double standards.  Its credibility can only come through its consistent adherence to its principles.

Thus, our message to Trump and all war criminals must be clear: while we support the struggle of the people of Iran for freedom, we strongly condemn the aggression on its sovereignty and demand an immediate halt to all military and economic war on Iran–only Iranians can choose their own future path.  At the same time, our message to the government of Iran must also be as vivid: We stand with Iran against all aggression on the Iranian territory, but we are united with her people in their struggle for economic justice and political self-determination.

Notes:

1. PSL (Party for Socialism & Liberation) is a primary example of groups in the anti-imperialist camp.  They correctly point the finger at the U.S. administration and the mainstream media for falsifying the Iranian nuclear threat to justify the imperialist designs on Iran, while ignoring the Iranian regime’s internal brutality (see: 47 years of hybrid war against Iran, Liberation, March 24 2026, where a quote from Vijay Prashad essentially dismisses the responsibility of the Iranian government for the January killings of thousands of Iranian demonstrators).  In the rallies against the war on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, the rhetoric often extends to praises for the IRI for its resistance to imperialism and support for the Palestinian cause.
2. Democracy Now, April 1 2026, Interview with Dr. Kaveh Madani

On March 18, a Maine Superior Court judge summarily rejected the latest attempt by landlords to gut Portland’s rent control law and stifle the power of tenant unions. In fact, in her sweeping decision, Justice Darcie McElwee solidified rent control’s power to keep rents affordable in Maine’s largest city in a way many of us have been fighting for since it was enacted. 

This is a big moment, and Portland administrators, as well as those looking to confront the housing affordability crisis across the state (I’m looking at you, candidates for governor), should take notice.

Here’s the story: The landlord in this case – the notorious Geoffrey Rice, who lost a three-year court battle to break the tenant union of which I am a founding member – filed an appeal to overturn a recent rent board ruling that had forced him to roll back rents three years, reimburse hundreds of thousands of dollars in tenant overcharges, and pay $170,500 in fines. Mr. Rice made six arguments, all of which Justice McElwee tossed out.

The first was that the rent board, an administrative body appointed by the City Council, didn’t even have the legal right to adjudicate the case. This argument, made by many landlords, is that the city permitting office is the place to decide these matters. If tenants don’t like what the city says, they can go to court. Obviously, that’s a costly process that few tenants can afford, which is why landlords want it that way.

Rice also argued that the rent control ordinance is too vague. We often hear this from landlords who are still furious that tenants wrote and passed this law through citizen initiative, without their corporate lobbyists at the table.

On these two arguments, the judge ruled decisively. Yes, of course the rent board can hear these cases, and no, in fact, the ordinance is not vague. It is crystal clear.

Satisfying though these two rulings may have been, they weren’t the most important. Those were the precedent-setting rulings that tenant unions have standing to file complaints on behalf of any and all tenants, and that landlords who are serial violators of rent control lose the right to raise rents on any tenants until they clean up their act.

These two points are ones tenant rights activists in Portland have argued for years, both in front of the rent board and to the city of Portland.

On the first point, the landlords have always argued that a tenant union should only be able to represent tenants who officially disclose their membership in the union (about 30 of the over-150 tenants signed this formal complaint). The first problem with that, of course, is that many tenants fear retaliation if they openly confront their landlord. The second is that the law makes clear that getting a tenant’s permission is not a requirement, just as it would not be a requirement to get a tenant’s consent before reporting a landlord-created fire hazard.

The judge saw through the landlord’s argument immediately, simply quoting the text of the ordinance, “[a]ny Tenants Union shall have standing as a party to assert the rights or interests of any Tenants.”

On the second point, the issue is whether a landlord loses the right to raise any rents when they are a serial offender, or whether they must only pay back increases on the units where the violations occurred. But the latter is obviously no penalty at all. It is simply a requirement that the landlord pay back what they have stolen.

Imagine the run on banks if the law was, “those who rob a bank and get caught will only have to pay back what you stole.” No jail time. No fines. Heck, we’d all give it a shot.

Thankfully, the judge saw through this one too. Serial violators may indeed be forced to forfeit all rent increases. The city has been reluctant to implement this interpretation in the past. Hopefully that now changes.

Last, but not least, the judge reminded all of us why this law is here by quoting its stated purpose:

“…to address increasing rental costs within the City of Portland; to promote neighborhood and community stability; to protect the City’s tenant population; to limit arbitrary evictions; and to stabilize and make more predictable future rent increases…”

Having helped write those words six years ago, it was a good reminder even to me. Protecting Portland as an affordable place for everyone to live is paramount to our city’s survival. 

This judge did her part. Now the city must do theirs by enforcing this precedent setting ruling. And the next governor must pass similar protections for tenants statewide.

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post Maine Court Slams Landlords, Confirms Rent Control Laws Initiated by Maine DSA appeared first on Pine & Roses.

By SacDSA Steering Committee

Sacramento DSA condemns Donald Trump’s threats against Iran, including his April 7th statement on Truth Social that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” We also fiercely condemn Israel breaking another ceasefire by continuing its bombardment of southern Lebanon.

Imperialist war only serves capitalists and billionaires, not working people. As socialists we stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and condemn the senseless strikes which have led to the deaths of over 2,000 Iranians. We also extend our solidarity to the people of Lebanon, as Israel bombs infrastructure, displaces more than a million civilians, and attempts to occupy land south of the Litani River.

Trump’s escalating threats to wipe Iranian civilization off the face of the Earth are despicable and dangerous. While this is an escalation of rhetoric, it is also simply a more blatant demonstration of the warmongering which has been moved through implication, propaganda, and political and economic pressure by every administration over our entire nation’s history. As such, we must be aware of the ways reality is invented for us through the use of well timed propaganda and the mainstream media’s delegitimization of targets of the US empire.

No conflict can be viewed in a vacuum when the influence and weight of capitalism is ever looming, twisting the narratives and undermining legitimate resistance movements. The capitalist class always moves with an eye on increased profits, decreased input costs, and demonization of workers and grassroots movements working for the rights of people everywhere.

To oppose the imperialism of the capitalists and the billionaires, we must work together. One step you can take to fight back against the capitalist interests pushing us into this unjust war is to commit to boycotting Chevron. Chevron is one of the largest suppliers of natural gas to Israel, even as they bomb homes and schools in Gaza and Lebanon. This imperialist war with Iran has, perversely, destabilized Chevron’s activities in Israel, opening a window for organizers to push for a permanent end to their investment in genocide. Join the Sacramento DSA International Committee’s Boycott Chevron campaign to demand Chevron stop fueling genocide and to begin to build the foundation for international working class solidarity from Palestine to Iran and beyond.

We have a world to win. Let’s get to work!

• Steering Committee of Sacramento DSA

This is an opinion piece written by an individual member and was not voted on by membership. Opinion pieces from members do not reflect the opinions of other members and are not chapter approved statements.

The conjunction of Zohran’s victory and the redistricting of CD-1 put the Salt Lake DSA (SLDSA) in a position where it was necessary to relate to and organize around both developments simultaneously. The sudden nationwide interest in the DSA led to a huge influx of members who were willing to organize to elect their own “Zohran in Utah,” and the excitement around CD-1 redistricting presented an obvious opportunity to realize this goal. Though winning a federal congressional campaign is far beyond the objective organizational limits of SLDSA, it was clear that if we did not run a candidate in CD-1, someone else would take advantage of the larger stage and define what a “Zohran in Utah” would look like for their own careerist aspirations. After a difficult period of deliberation (which is interesting in its own right but not relevant to this article), SLDSA activists ultimately decided (and I supported) to run a smaller race, Taylor Paden for State Senate District 13.

Abstaining from CD-1 has had political consequences for the popular understanding of Democratic Socialism in Salt Lake County. Two candidates have chosen to identify with the label to some degree, Liban Mohamad and Luis Villarieal, both of whom sought an endorsement from Salt Lake DSA. Additionally, Nate Blouin secured an early Bernie Sanders endorsement and has secured the strongest “Berniecrat” position in the race. Though he does not identify as a Democratic Socialist, the popular understanding of the aesthetic political brand of the left Democrats is bound to be confused and identified with the politics of the DSA. He has not sought endorsement from SLDSA, likely because he sought endorsement 4 years ago for his state senate campaign and failed. Chapter leaders from the time said simply, “he’s not a socialist.”

It will not be clear to people why there is very little interest in endorsing any candidate in CD-1 from SLDSA activists, nor will we be able to meaningfully communicate why due to our (probable) abstention. After all, if our goal is to further the socialist movement in Utah, how could we not endorse any one of the three “left” choices in CD-1, especially those adopting the label of Democratic Socialist? In this article I intend to communicate my own reasons for advocating no endorsement in CD-1, as well as some of the reasons that I think the average SLDSA member is uninterested. 

(For additional context, here are the candidate interviews for Luis and Liban)

What is the point of candidates and endorsing them?

Running candidates for office is often uncritically accepted as useful on its own merits because this is the hegemonic theory of change. To improve society, well meaning individuals are inspired to run for office, and, by the strength of their capacities and willpower, they use the institutions that are ostensibly designed to empower them to do so. Even when politicians engage with a broader mass movement, they do so assuming they are over and above it, commanding the grassroots to empower their personal campaigns and further their political position. This is not necessarily cynical; they genuinely believe those political positions occupied by “good people” is what results in a linear improvement of society over time. This default understanding of social change is also prevalent amongst the activist base of DSA, who sometimes assume that the steady increase of self identified Democratic Socialists in office will eventually lead to a fundamental change in society.

(This point is probably why most of the activist base of SLDSA is uninspired by Liban or Luis. Neither can win, with or without our endorsement, and so they can’t contribute to the increasing number of DSA electeds in office, no matter what they believe.)

This perspective is a misunderstanding of where power actually lies in society and how the working class can affect meaningful change. As socialists, we understand that all sections of society, both within and without the government, are controlled by the capitalist class. It is not a conspiracy but the natural consequence of class society, wealth, and power. Wealthy and powerful people will, more often than not, choose to concentrate and increase their wealth and power. They use it to shape society for their benefit and collaborate with other powerful people to maintain the systems that serve them. There is no secret plot; it is simply logical for them to do so. 

This means that even on the rare occasions where well meaning, working class people acquire positions of power in the government, they discover that the strength of their argument and their heartfelt appeals to the rights of common people cannot change the basic realities of living in a capitalist society. Any reform which is possible through legislation is inadequate to the scale of the problem, and even occasional consequential changes will be fought by the capitalist class with every tool available to them. This is why the greatest progressive moments in American history, though often resulting in legislative reforms, were at the end of intense social upheaval and mass actions i.e. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the New Deal, the Civil War. 

A genuine socialist candidate must therefore have a fundamentally different strategy. They will not view the primary mechanism for change as legislation, but will instead take a class-struggle approach. By their connection to the mass movement and the organized socialist core, they use the position of elected official to reach a larger audience, show the illusions of the capitalist parties, educate people on the nature of class society in their messaging, and contribute to the independent organization of workers outside the government in any way they can. They will not be deluded into believing that the legislative process alone can fundamentally alter class relations. Their success can only be measured by the forces they politicized and organized to fight for reforms in their class interests against the capitalist class, not by the number of bills passed.

It is important to stress that a socialist in office is not useful because of what they believe. Belief in fighting for a better world is useless for the struggle of the working class if it does not result in concrete action. Utah Democrat Party politics shows the uselessness of abstract belief. Because of the conservative supermajority in the legislature, any meaningful progressive reform has no chance of being passed through the legislative process. As a result, Utah Democrats spend their entire careers proposing bills so diluted they’ll pass a conservative legislature, or bills they know will fail for the purpose of performing their virtue on the campaign trail. But without an actual plan to win, there is no consequence of these politicians’ beliefs. Some typical canned responses, “at least they’re trying” or “at least they’re better,” might have a certain narrow truth, but it does not help us advance the organization and consciousness of the working class. It is not wrong to tell people what society should look like. But if you don’t understand and articulate the scientific steps necessary to get there, there is no substance. It is an essentially magical theory of change which assumes that good heartedness has an effect on the structures of capitalist oppression. 

Instead, the socialist in office is just one lever in the process of organized struggle, and demonstrates that role by consistent building of and commitment to that struggle. DSA candidates must prove that they are able to use their position to contribute to mass movements, not for the purpose of securing their next campaign, but by winning genuine reforms. Every left Democrat says they are building a movement; socialists must actually demonstrate they can do so. People are generally not convinced by rhetoric; they learn through concrete struggle. 

There’s two candidates that are using the label of “Democratic Socialist,” doesn’t that make them part of or contributing to the socialist movement?

In order for us to believe a person can contribute to the socialist movement as a candidate, it is helpful if they have to have done so already. To be sure, Luis Villareal and Liban Mohamad have decided to adopt the label of Democratic Socialist to varying degrees. However, both of them cannot demonstrate a commitment to mass movement politics and independent working class organization. This is not because they are bad people or are intentionally duplicitous. Both attested, and I believe, that they do find Zohran’s campaign inspiring and are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the Democratic Party. They both attested they want society to be more equitable and serve the needs of working class people, and I believe them. However, neither can demonstrate a commitment or understanding of the steps that it will take to get there, either by their ideas or their political history. Neither has a history of organizing social forces in struggle against the capitalist class. Neither could contextualize their campaign’s strategy with the organized socialist movement, DSA or otherwise. Neither has a significant describable and specific history of activism in the mass movement. Both decided to run because they think their personal virtue and social position will lend itself to governing, which is admirable in a certain way. But ultimately they cannot have a conception of how to win the reforms they are running on by mass action because they have no experience doing so.

All this would be fine if it was possible for SLDSA to turn their campaigns into movement oriented campaigns anyway. If we were deeply involved from the beginning, the candidate forefronted their Democratic Socialist identity, committed to a Socialist in Office Committee relationship, and we had the organizational ability to realize those movement goals, the specific beliefs and experiences of the candidate would be secondary. It is helpful to use our current campaign as a counter-example, from an organizational perspective. If Paden had no previous experience union organizing or was not a member beforehand, but committed to the organizational relationship we have with him now, the campaign would probably have the same political character. It is helpful that he has those personal qualities, but they are secondary to the organizational relationship.

Why not just endorse the “most left” candidate, even if they cannot win, because the campaign will attract people to DSA?

A DSA electoral campaign should have two goals. Primarily, the campaign should clearly articulate a socialist politics and move people to action on those ideas. This does not mean adopting the “left wing of possible,” as most left Democrats do i.e. identifying the most acceptable left positions that will still probably get you elected. It means using the platform and attention to make connections between the present struggle and the socialist horizon in the minds of the public. Plainly explaining the illusions of the two party capitalist political system, the need for people to organize to improve their lives, the actions necessary to do so, and the basic reality of class society, even if it reduces the chances of the candidate’s victory.

The second goal is to develop the sophistication, ability, size, reach, political consciousness, and leadership of the DSA. We lend credibility to the campaign’s message through strong organization and coalition building. Most people will not seek out and respond immediately with action to even the best articulated socialist positions. If this were true, we’d have a revolution by now. The organization which builds the campaign must demonstrate its capability by extending the reach beyond the activist base and into the general public. This does not necessarily mean a winning campaign, just one that the public must take seriously. Our goal as a socialist organization is to win the confidence of the masses as leaders of the struggle for their own liberation. If we endorse and organize unserious campaigns, it will only serve to perform some rhetoric for the tiny minority of people who already agree with us. 

Luis and Liban’s campaigns can do neither of these things, for our organization or for the broader movement. They developed their platform, branding, strategy, and communications as individuals before seeking endorsement, resulting in a muddled political outlook and a lack of clarity. Though they assure us they are Democratic Socialists in private conversations, their messaging does not convey that either in substance or explicit mentions of the word socialism. It gives the (perhaps mistaken!) impression they adopted it to the extent they could get the endorsement of Salt Lake DSA and branded as Utah’s Zohran, but did not want the word “socialism” to affect their chance to win. It’s almost more frustrating, personally, that they don’t understand that these tepid capitulations are not worth making for our endorsement. SLDSA is a small organization; our endorsement and participation is not going to outweigh the political costs of actually adopting a socialist platform in a capitalist party primary.

Obviously, neither campaign is credible, whether or not we organize to support them. I don’t think it’s helpful to list reasons why I think neither campaign can make it to the ballot because it is a secondary question. Though it must be said that although Liban has taken a more serious approach to campaigning and appears more viable, this is due to his history of working inside Washington DC with and amongst capitalist politics, not because of an understanding of organization. His background working at TikTok gives his campaign the aesthetic of a professional and serious campaign, similar in “vibe” to Zohran’s. However, it is very important to understand the relationship in NYC-DSA’s strategy between communications and organizing the field. The purpose is not to look flashy and get clicks, it’s to create a narrative that clearly communicates the politics of the campaign, a politics which motivates people to get involved on a deeper level. Aesthetics can help deliver a message, but they do not make up for a weak message and an inability to turn that flashy messaging into organized action. Though he appears to be doing an admirable job of collecting signatures, he stated in the interview this is because he is paying for signature gatherers, not because the campaign is organizing volunteers.

(Additional listening on the Zohran campaign strategy, The Dig episodes “Three Million Doors” “Zohran’s Message” “How Zohran Won w/ NYC DSA”)

For these reasons, this means that an endorsement in the present conditions would be nothing more than our logo on their campaign websites. Over time, DSA activists are becoming more critical of their use of the endorsement and are shying away from “paper” endorsements, meaning one which just exists as a rubber stamp on the campaign website and isn’t associated with any action from activists. This is how endorsements from most non-profits, unions, and Democrat aligned groups work, perhaps with a cash donation. Instead, a DSA endorsement means that we are going to move people to action, both inside and outside the activist base of the chapter. We’ll do that difficult work because we think the campaign can increase class consciousness and working class organization, which is the primary goal of a socialist campaign. This is an important part of the scientific approach to socialism; actually fighting for something in the world, not just writing down an endorsement statement on a page that almost nobody will read all the way through. If we do paper endorsements, it teaches our base that we think rhetoric alone is an effective form of political action. To those outside our base, it teaches them nothing, because they won’t have reason to care.

Then what are the next steps for SLDSA?

All of these arguments are not being made to the public, because we abstained from the race. It is not persuasive to the public to abstain from struggle, especially in the current situation of generalized disorganization, lack of left leadership, and low level of class-consciousness. I don’t believe I’m making a sectarian argument for no endorsement, rather an acknowledgement of our objective limitations as an organization in relative infancy taking its first steps. If we were more organized and identified a stronger candidate for CD-1, then the best course of action would have been to run in CD-1, but I agree with the direction we chose. SLDSA should continue to organize to create the strongest possible campaign in State Senate District 13, develop new connections, widen our activist base, qualitatively change our organization to a real power player (however small), and then use the campaign as a springboard to a struggle for a concrete reform. I believe the Paden campaign has already demonstrated that the Salt Lake DSA is capable of taking on a bigger fight for a specific reform. It is hard to say the precise form that will take, an evaluation in June after the primary ends will be necessary before we can say. But an endorsement in CD-1 would be a distraction with no obvious positive outcomes.

The post A Case for No Endorsement in CD-1: Some assertions about socialist electoral campaigns in DSA first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.