[[{“value”:”

By: B. Greer

The terms “abundance” and “supply” are unavoidable in the housing affordability debate. 

The Healey administration’s plan to address the housing crisis, “Achieve a State of Housing Abundance” confidently states that a “lack of supply is the root cause of our housing cost crisis.” The state is correct that Massachusetts needs more homes, as does most everywhere, but treating the supply shortage as the root cause mistakes an outcome for an explanation. 

The problem is not simply that the market has failed to produce enough housing, but that housing is produced, financed, owned, and governed through institutions that benefit from the very scarcity that the Healey administration cited as the sole culprit.

The housing crisis grew out of an inherent contradiction in how housing operates. For tenants and workers, it is shelter: the place people live, raise families, and recover from work. For developers, contractors, and labor, it is a commodity: something built, bought, and sold through the market. For owners, lenders, investors, and towns, it is an asset: a source of rent, wealth, credit, and tax revenue.

Clearly, these roles do not fit together neatly. Shelter requires affordability and stability. Commodity production requires profit. Asset ownership depends on rising rents, rising land values, and protected resale prices. 

The same system that asks housing to become affordable also demands that it stay expensive. High prices generate rent, support land values, secure loans, and protect local tax bases. The crisis we see today is the logical outcome of a system expected to provide affordable shelter, produce profit, preserve wealth, secure debt, reward investment, and sustain municipal finance.

Supply-Side Limitations

Private development responds first to profit, not need. 

My work as a designer focused on multifamily housing has taught me that projects only move forward when expected rents or sale prices can cover land, construction costs, financing, and profit. Private development can add homes and ease pressure, but when rents fall, prices weaken, or returns shrink, capital pulls back. 

The market does not keep building just because working people need homes.

The abundance movement wants to recreate the rate of residential construction we saw in the postwar era. However, the postwar boom cannot be separated from the massive federal subsidies that supported its construction. We do not have the modern suburb without the GI Bill, Federal Housing Administration-backed insurance, and the creation of the interstate highway system. Since the postwar boom, and subsequent pullback of government support, housing construction has sporadically materialized as a declining series of booms and busts shaped by recessions, credit conditions, land prices, and construction costs.

The role of states and cities rise and fall within that larger cycle, while their relative position depends on material conditions like land, labor costs, infrastructure, and regional growth pressure. 

Massachusetts can reform zoning and strengthen public policy, but it cannot replicate the building rate of a state like Florida without the available land and market conditions that make that scale of private construction possible. Massachusetts has set a goal of 220,000 new homes by 2035, but so far it has not built the public institutions needed to build, preserve, and keep that housing affordable. Unsurprisingly, we aren’t on track. 

What Needs to Be Done?

All three sides of the housing contradiction must urgently be confronted. 

Massachusetts, and the Healey administration, must protect housing as shelter, build and repair housing beyond the limits of private profit, and weaken the power of landlords, banks, investors, and wealthy towns to benefit from scarcity. More homes are necessary, but new housing becomes an affordability strategy only when public power determines where it is built, who controls it, and whether it stays affordable.

The blueprint forward is simple. Housing must be defended as shelter. In both gentrifying Boston-area neighborhoods and Gateway Cities across the state, the goal must be reinvestment without displacement. That means rent control, eviction protections, and prioritizing affordable housing.

Second, housing production must become a public responsibility. When expected returns fall, the market slows, even if people still need housing. Massachusetts needs public financing, infrastructure investment, and a state social housing authority capable of building and preserving homes directly.

Legislation should be passed mandating that municipalities allow  apartments, remove parking minimums, and allow smaller residential lots that can accommodate smaller homes. Exclusive suburbs like Milton and Wellesley should also have to use public land for social housing and meet enforceable regional housing obligations. Communities that hoard access to jobs, transit, schools, and high-value land should not be enabled to push all housing construction  into working-class neighborhoods.

These are not separate crises. Displacement in high-rent neighborhoods, abandonment in older industrial cities, and exclusion in wealthy suburbs are different expressions of the same housing contradiction.

The housing crisis cannot truly be solved without federal action, but Massachusetts cannot wait for Washington to move first. If scarcity is protected through law, finance, and land ownership, then those are the forces we have to confront here.

This will not be easy, but there is no other option. Massachusetts must protect tenants, build social housing, and challenge the system that organizes housing around scarcity. Despite the recent loss in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the need to push for rent control has not ended.

Boston DSA Housing Working Group Co-chair Tim Scalona addressed the problem clearly:

As rents explode and few affordable housing opportunities exist without a years-long waitlist, tenants risk an eviction notice after each health emergency or job loss.

The task now is to fight for an equitable future, building by building, city by city, and law by law.

B. Greer is the Housing Justice Campaign Lead for Boston DSA and a senior designer focused on multifamily housing. He is currently working on the social housing proposal in Cambridge alongside CHJC.

The post OPINION: Healey’s Abundance Relies on Institutions Keeping Us in Scarcity appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

By: B. Greer

The terms “abundance” and “supply” are unavoidable in the housing affordability debate. 

The Healey administration’s plan to address the housing crisis, “Achieve a State of Housing Abundance” confidently states that a “lack of supply is the root cause of our housing cost crisis.” The state is correct that Massachusetts needs more homes, as does most everywhere, but treating the supply shortage as the root cause mistakes an outcome for an explanation. 

The problem is not simply that the market has failed to produce enough housing, but that housing is produced, financed, owned, and governed through institutions that benefit from the very scarcity that the Healey administration cited as the sole culprit.

The housing crisis grew out of an inherent contradiction in how housing operates. For tenants and workers, it is shelter: the place people live, raise families, and recover from work. For developers, contractors, and labor, it is a commodity: something built, bought, and sold through the market. For owners, lenders, investors, and towns, it is an asset: a source of rent, wealth, credit, and tax revenue.

Clearly, these roles do not fit together neatly. Shelter requires affordability and stability. Commodity production requires profit. Asset ownership depends on rising rents, rising land values, and protected resale prices. 

The same system that asks housing to become affordable also demands that it stay expensive. High prices generate rent, support land values, secure loans, and protect local tax bases. The crisis we see today is the logical outcome of a system expected to provide affordable shelter, produce profit, preserve wealth, secure debt, reward investment, and sustain municipal finance.

Supply-Side Limitations

Private development responds first to profit, not need. 

My work as a designer focused on multifamily housing has taught me that projects only move forward when expected rents or sale prices can cover land, construction costs, financing, and profit. Private development can add homes and ease pressure, but when rents fall, prices weaken, or returns shrink, capital pulls back. 

The market does not keep building just because working people need homes.

The abundance movement wants to recreate the rate of residential construction we saw in the postwar era. However, the postwar boom cannot be separated from the massive federal subsidies that supported its construction. We do not have the modern suburb without the GI Bill, Federal Housing Administration-backed insurance, and the creation of the interstate highway system. Since the postwar boom, and subsequent pullback of government support, housing construction has sporadically materialized as a declining series of booms and busts shaped by recessions, credit conditions, land prices, and construction costs.

The role of states and cities rise and fall within that larger cycle, while their relative position depends on material conditions like land, labor costs, infrastructure, and regional growth pressure. 

Massachusetts can reform zoning and strengthen public policy, but it cannot replicate the building rate of a state like Florida without the available land and market conditions that make that scale of private construction possible. Massachusetts has set a goal of 220,000 new homes by 2035, but so far it has not built the public institutions needed to build, preserve, and keep that housing affordable. Unsurprisingly, we aren’t on track. 

What Needs to Be Done?

All three sides of the housing contradiction must urgently be confronted. 

Massachusetts, and the Healey administration, must protect housing as shelter, build and repair housing beyond the limits of private profit, and weaken the power of landlords, banks, investors, and wealthy towns to benefit from scarcity. More homes are necessary, but new housing becomes an affordability strategy only when public power determines where it is built, who controls it, and whether it stays affordable.

The blueprint forward is simple. Housing must be defended as shelter. In both gentrifying Boston-area neighborhoods and Gateway Cities across the state, the goal must be reinvestment without displacement. That means rent control, eviction protections, and prioritizing affordable housing.

Second, housing production must become a public responsibility. When expected returns fall, the market slows, even if people still need housing. Massachusetts needs public financing, infrastructure investment, and a state social housing authority capable of building and preserving homes directly.

Legislation should be passed mandating that municipalities allow  apartments, remove parking minimums, and allow smaller residential lots that can accommodate smaller homes. Exclusive suburbs like Milton and Wellesley should also have to use public land for social housing and meet enforceable regional housing obligations. Communities that hoard access to jobs, transit, schools, and high-value land should not be enabled to push all housing construction  into working-class neighborhoods.

These are not separate crises. Displacement in high-rent neighborhoods, abandonment in older industrial cities, and exclusion in wealthy suburbs are different expressions of the same housing contradiction.

The housing crisis cannot truly be solved without federal action, but Massachusetts cannot wait for Washington to move first. If scarcity is protected through law, finance, and land ownership, then those are the forces we have to confront here.

This will not be easy, but there is no other option. Massachusetts must empower tenants, build social housing, and challenge the system that organizes housing around scarcity. Despite the recent loss in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the need to push for rent control has not ended.

Boston DSA Housing Working Group Co-chair Tim Scalona addressed the problem clearly:

As rents explode and few affordable housing opportunities exist without a years-long waitlist, tenants risk an eviction notice after each health emergency or job loss.

The task now is to fight for an equitable future, building by building, city by city, and law by law.

B. Greer is the Housing Justice Campaign Lead for Boston DSA and a senior designer focused on multifamily housing. He is currently working on the social housing proposal in Cambridge alongside CHJC.

The post OPINION: Healey’s Abundance Agenda Relies on Institutions Keeping Us in Scarcity appeared first on Working Mass.

Today is the centenary of Fidel Castro, and the Democratic Socialists of America recognize the historic significance of both this day and the man. Fidel was an organizer, a fighter, and endures as a stalwart symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination for the Global South. DSA has a long history of solidarity with the Cuban people, their revolution, and their self-determination. We choose this historic day to recommit ourselves to acting in solidarity with the Cuban people and to starkly opposing Marco Rubio’s genocidal war against the Cuban people and US imperialism writ large.

 

The Trump Administration, under the leadership of Marco Rubio, is waging an indiscriminate war against the Cuban people and killing women, children, and babies by illegally blockading critical resources from the Caribbean nation. By intentionally imposing conditions calculated to kill a civilian population, Marco Rubio is leading a genocide. 

 

DSA unequivocally demands 

• an end to the genocidal blockade

• an end to all threats of military violence against Cuba

• an end to all imperialist aggression against Cuba

• the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba

• reparations payments to be made to Cuba for the trillions of dollars in damages the blockade has cost the Cuban people 

• the prosecution of Marco Rubio for crimes against humanity

 

Finally, the Democratic Socialists of America demands that our country respect the sovereignty and inalienable right to self-determination of sovereign nations. We believe in building a world of peace, cooperation, and mutual respect and understanding. 

 

Build that world with us.

 

 

The post DSA Commemorates 100 Years of Fidel and Denounces Rubio’s Genocide Against the Cuban People appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

River Valley Democratic Socialists of America Endorses Michael Lachenmeyer in the 12th Hampden District River Valley Democratic Socialists of America (RVDSA) is proud to announce our endorsement of Michael Lachenmeyer, an active chapter member running for the 12th Hampden District. Lachenmeyer is running against Angelo Puppolo, an establishment Democrat who hasn’t faced a primary challenger […]

Seattle DSA stands in solidarity with the more than 140 immigrants currently organizing a hunger strike at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA. It’s being reported that these brave community members have not eaten in more than 24 hours in protest of the continued inhumane conditions that they and their fellow detainees are being subjected to. 

The GEO Group owned facility has had more than 10 hunger strikes organized by detainees just since the beginning of 2026, a clear sign that the conditions in the already horrific facility are deteriorating as Trump’s regime continues to pursue a blatantly racist immigration policy which has led to death and disorder all over our country. 

Like so many current events, this specific crisis sits at the crossroads of our society’s systemic xenophobia and crony capitalism. Our tax dollars are being paid to the GEO Group, a corporation which donated millions of dollars to Trump and his endorsed candidates, so that their private corporation would be given multi-million dollar contracts to confine, abuse, force work, and starve tens of thousands of our neighbors and family members that have been arrested by ICE.

Seattle DSA demands an end to all forms of immigration detention. We specifically demand the closure of the Northwest Detention Center and the immediate release of everyone who is being held and tortured for profit inside. We encourage you to call your representatives and demand they take action to get these facilities closed and our neighbors returned to our communities. 

How can socialists develop a more efficient and united organizational mode?

As Mayor Mamdani seeks to build solidarity with the Palestinian people and dismantle Israeli apartheid, he should look to the example set by another activist-turned-mayor.

A statement of the Democratic Socialists of America International Committee, July 2026. En español a continuación.

What is happening in Ecuador is a coup conducted without tanks. Its weapons are electoral councils, tribunals, and prosecutors, and its result is the one every coup seeks: a government that no longer has to face its opponents on equal terms. In a single week of July, the government of President Daniel Noboa closed three of the channels through which Ecuadorians contest power, each time by a lawful-looking decision of an ostensibly neutral body.

On July 15, the National Electoral Council refused to release the forms citizens need to gather signatures for a recall of the president, a right written into the constitution, ending the effort before anyone could sign.^[1] Days earlier the Constitutional Court had refused even to hear the appeal of the Citizen Revolution, the largest opposition force, against its own suspension, citing a rule that blocks review during an election period, which is the only period when the suspension bites.^[2] Then the electoral tribunal suspended AMIGO, the movement under which Citizen Revolution candidates had arranged to run, one day before the deadline to register alliances.^[3] Throughout, Noboa litigated against the recall aimed at him before the very council deciding whether it could proceed.^[4]

This is not a seizure of power in the night. It is the steady conversion of the referees, the electoral council, the courts, the prosecutor, into instruments of the incumbent. Each step survives inspection on its own. Together they let a president choose his opponents.

It did not begin with paperwork. During last autumn’s national strike against austerity, security forces killed three protesters and charged demonstrators as terrorists.^[5] And it is not only Ecuador’s affair. Ecuadorians voted in November 2025 to reject foreign military bases; the United States deployed personnel to Manta anyway, and by July the chief of U.S. Southern Command was in Quito reviewing Noboa’s security plan in person.^[6] Our own government has set aside a vote of the Ecuadorian people, which places a particular duty on socialists in the U.S.

To the citizens’ platform Revoca EC and the attorney Washington Andrade; to Leonidas Iza, acting as president of Ecuarunari; to the peasant, labor, and teachers’ organizations, FENOCIN, the FUT, the Frente Popular, and the UNE, who filed the second recall petition against austerity and the agreement with the International Monetary Fund; and to every rank-and-file member of the Citizen Revolution whose party the electoral tribunal has barred from the ballot: we see you, and we stand with you.

We do not write to instruct anyone in Ecuador how to conduct their struggle. We write to affirm a principle that stands above any single party’s fortunes: the recall belongs to the people, not to a party, and the right to appear on a ballot cannot depend on the incumbent’s convenience. The government suspended its largest opposition without ever proving the charge, because it timed the suspension to the one period when the courts are barred from reviewing it. A case that cannot survive review is not a case. It is a tactic.

DSA members: raise Ecuador where you are. Bring this statement to your chapter, and demand that your own representatives end the U.S. military and police cooperation that underwrites this repression. The local elections of November 29 will test whether Ecuador’s doors are narrowed or shut. Doors closed by law can be reopened by law, but only while some remain open, and solidarity is one of the things that keeps them open.

The recall is not a party’s weapon. It is the people’s. From Quito to Chicago, our struggle is one.

Sobre Ecuador: Cuando los árbitros se unen a un equipo

Declaración del Comité Internacional de los Socialistas Democráticos de Estados Unidos, julio de 2026. En español a continuación.

Lo que está sucediendo en Ecuador es un golpe de Estado llevado a cabo sin tanques. Sus armas son los consejos electorales, los tribunales y los fiscales, y su resultado es el que todo golpe busca: un gobierno que ya no tenga que enfrentarse a sus oponentes en igualdad de condiciones. En una sola semana de julio, el gobierno del presidente Daniel Noboa cerró tres de los canales a través de los cuales los ecuatorianos disputan el poder, cada vez mediante una decisión de apariencia legal de un organismo aparentemente neutral.

El 15 de julio, el Consejo Nacional Electoral se negó a entregar los formularios que los ciudadanos necesitan para recolectar firmas para una revocatoria del presidente, un derecho consagrado en la Constitución, poniendo fin a la iniciativa antes de que nadie pudiera firmar.^[7] Días antes, la Corte Constitucional se había negado incluso a admitir a trámite el recurso de la Revolución Ciudadana (RC 5), la mayor fuerza de oposición, contra su propia suspensión, alegando una norma que impide la revisión durante el período electoral, que es el único período en el que la suspensión surte efecto.^[8] Luego, el tribunal electoral suspendió a AMIGO, el movimiento bajo el cual los candidatos de la RC  se habían organizado para postularse, un día antes de la fecha límite para registrar alianzas.^[9] Durante todo este proceso, Noboa litigó contra la destitución dirigida en su contra ante el mismo consejo que decidía si esta podía seguir adelante.^[10]

Esto no es un golpe de Estado en la noche. Es la conversión paulatina de los árbitros —el consejo electoral, los tribunales, la fiscalía— en instrumentos del presidente en ejercicio. Cada paso resiste el escrutinio por sí solo. Juntos, permiten que un presidente elija a sus oponentes.

No comenzó con trámites burocráticos. Durante el paro nacional de septiembre y octubre de 2025 ante el Decreto Ejecutivo 126 del gobierno de Daniel Noboa, que elevó el precio del diésel,  la austeridad, las fuerzas de seguridad mataron a tres manifestantes y acusaron a los manifestantes de ser terroristas.^[11] Y no es solo un asunto de Ecuador. Los ecuatorianos votaron en noviembre de 2025 para rechazar las bases militares extranjeras; Estados Unidos desplegó personal en Manta de todos modos, y para julio el jefe del Comando Sur de EE. UU. estaba en Quito revisando el plan de seguridad de Noboa en persona.^[12] Nuestro propio gobierno ha hecho caso omiso de un voto del pueblo ecuatoriano, lo que impone un deber especial a los socialistas en EE. UU.

A la plataforma ciudadana Revoca EC y al abogado Washington Andrade; a Leonidas Iza, en calidad de presidente de Ecuarunari; a las organizaciones campesinas, sindicales y de docentes —FENOCIN, la FUT, el Frente Popular y la UNE—, que presentaron la segunda petición de revocatoria contra la austeridad y el acuerdo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional; y a cada miembro de base de la Revolución Ciudadana, cuyo partido ha sido excluido de la boleta electoral por el tribunal electoral: los vemos y estamos con ustedes.

No escribimos para instruir a nadie en Ecuador sobre cómo llevar a cabo su lucha. Escribimos para afirmar un principio que está por encima de las vicisitudes de cualquier partido en particular: la revocatoria le pertenece al pueblo, no a un partido, y el derecho a aparecer en una boleta electoral no puede depender de la conveniencia del titular del cargo. El gobierno suspendió a su mayor oposición sin jamás probar la acusación, porque programó la suspensión para el único período en el que los tribunales no pueden revisarla. Un caso que no puede resistir una revisión no es un caso. Es una táctica.

Miembros de la DSA: hablen sobre Ecuador dondequiera que estén. Lleven esta declaración a su sección local y exijan que sus propios representantes pongan fin a la cooperación militar y policial de EE. UU. que respalda esta represión. Las elecciones locales del 29 de noviembre pondrán a prueba si las puertas de Ecuador están más estrechas o cerradas. Las puertas cerradas por ley pueden volver a abrirse por ley, pero solo mientras algunas permanezcan abiertas, y la solidaridad es una de las cosas que las mantiene abiertas.

La revocatoria no es un arma de un partido. Es del pueblo. Desde Quito hasta Chicago, nuestra lucha es una sola.

---

^[1]El Universo, July 15, 2026.
^[2]Primicias, July 15, 2026.
^[3]La República, July 17, 2026.
^[4]Qué Noticias, July 8, 2026.
^[5]El Universo, October 23, 2025.
^[6]International IDEA, November 2025; La Jornada, July 18, 2026.
^[7]El Universo, 15 de julio de 2026.
^[8]Primicias, 15 de julio de 2026.
^[9]La República, 17 de julio de 2026.
^[10]Qué Noticias, 8 de julio de 2026.
^[11]El Universo, 23 de octubre de 2025.
^[12]IDEA Internacional, noviembre de 2025; La Jornada, 18 de julio de 2026.

The post On Ecuador: When the Referees Join a Team appeared first on DSA International Committee.

A discarded city lies on the outskirts of the American Capitol..

By: Jason M, Jake S

WORCESTER – Teachers and staff organized under the Massachusetts Community College Council (MCCC) have been engaged in contract negotiations with the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education for the last few months. Despite Massachusetts offering free community college through the MassEducate program, faculty at community colleges across the state face conditions that harm their wellbeing. Low pay, food insecurity, and ever-increasing class sizes hurt faculty and prevent them from being able to teach their students. While community college presidents across the state regularly make more than $200,000 annually, community college faculty make the lowest average salary nationwide, according to a study conducted by the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA). 

Nearly half of MCCC members struggle with food insecurity and most need a second job to pay their bills. Increases in the size of online classes by as much as 56% undermines existing protections in the Local QCC Distance Education agreement and severely hampers the ability of faculty and staff to offer students a quality education. 

The Massachusetts Board of Higher Education has not entertained a proposal from MCCC. Only three bargaining sessions have been held over a four-month period, during which the Board has tried to implement restrictions over rank-and-file MCCC members’ ability to attend, and changes to how union representatives are compensated for their time spent negotiating. The union has filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) over the latter.

Working Mass sat down with Caitlin B, an academic advisor and enrollment counselor, as well as secretary for the union’s QCC chapter (the Quinsigamond Community College Professional Association, or QCCPA), to talk about union members’ concerns.

Quotations used in this article have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Distraction, Delay, and Hostility

Salary, workload, and schedule flexibility are top concerns amongst QCCPA members. The Mass Board of Higher Ed, instead of entertaining proposals from the union, has forced negotiations to fixate around rules of engagement. Caitlin explained:

We haven’t proposed anything regarding these issues yet. So far, we’ve been working with management on establishing ground rules for bargaining. This has already been difficult to negotiate.

The Mass Board of Higher Education has also earned an Unfair Labor Practice charge from QCCPA early on by undermining compensation of the union’s bargaining team.

They don’t want us to be compensated, so we’ve been doing all of our bargaining outside of working hours. I’ve never done this before, but other people are like: ‘This is absurd.’

The school argues that rank-and-file union members should not be physically visible to the boss when they attend virtual bargaining sessions.

I’ve heard horror stories about bargaining, and so far I haven’t experienced anything that bad, but this year, management had some issues with silent representatives. Dues-paying members can silently attend bargaining sessions, and there’s this complaint about, should they be visible during the Zoom session, should they not be visible, it clogs things up, blah blah blah.

The Board of Higher Education hasn’t offered much detail to explain why seeing union members’ faces make them so uncomfortable during negotiations. Caitlin can only assume their intent.

The silent representatives are really important for us, because when we caucus in between bargaining sessions, they actually have information they can give to us that we wouldn’t necessarily know off the cuff. Management doesn’t want them there, they don’t want to look at people when they’re telling them: ‘No, you can’t get this, you can’t get that’, so that’s been the biggest issue for them right now.” 

A Real Sense of Ownership

When asked about what being in a union meant to her, Caitlin paused thoughtfully.

Without the union, we’d be at the mercy of whatever our employee decides what is best for us. When you work in a system with so many different components and types of employees, having proper representation is essential. 

Caitlin continued:

My coworkers have an unwavering dedication to their students. We work together on a mission to help our students get what they need, and at the community college level, our students may not be “traditional.” We are their advocates and support systems, and that is something worth preserving.

Caitlin reflected positively on rank-and-file engagement at QCC.

We’ve increased our membership a bit. We’ve got the MTA [Massachusetts Teachers Association, of which MCCC is an affiliate] noticing that and coming to our meetings every week, they’re really paying attention to how we’re doing things, which is really nice. So I think watching the change, watching people being more engaged in it, makes you want to be more engaged in it.

Caitlin in large part credited James L, president of the QCC chapter of MCCC and an active member of Worcester DSA who previously served on its Steering Committee, with this growth. “He quickly formed an organizing committee on campus, which exists at the statewide level, but usually locals don’t have one,” she explained.

I think once people started realizing, oh, we can actually do something with this, it’s not just a contract, it’s also action, you know? I think that’s really important.

Workers united can, in fact, demand a say in the place where their labor is bought and sold is why a strong, conscious labor movement is a central component to building working class power. Ownership unites the collective. When workers organize amongst themselves to confront a class enemy, they become the protagonists of the struggle they live through every day – to learn to think and act collectively, laying down the paving stones along the road to a better future.

Jason M and Jake S are members of Central Mass & Worcester DSA. They are contributing authors for Working Mass.

The post Mass Community College Faculty and Staff, Suffering Low Pay and Hostility, Face Off with Board of Higher Ed appeared first on Working Mass.