With Earth Day coming up this week, Seattle DSA’s Ecosocialism Working Group sat down and answered some questions about the environmental impact of Data Centers, A.I. and how our chapter is working to educate the public about this important issue and how you can get involved!

Question: Last year the Ecosocialism Working Group held a series of Forums on AI. Can you tell us what the specific focuses of those events were and what some of the biggest takeaways were? 

Ecosocialism Working Group: We held three People’s Forums on AI, each centered on different aspects of the AI conversation. The first focused on Data Centers, Water, and Energy; the second on Power, Labor, and Control; and the third was a workshop-based session geared toward developing strategies for regulating, resisting, and reimagining AI and data centers. Highlights included a testimony from the former mayor of Quincy, Washington on the impacts of the data center buildout on her town and its water, air, and electric grid; a rousing speech from Adrian Reyna Chavoya of the People’s Tech Project on building data center resistance across the country; and a presentation from DSA Ecosocialism’s own Raj Mirpuri on what the technology marketed as AI actually is and does and why we don’t need to let Big Tech determine our collective future.

There were many informative and revealing facts and perspectives shared at the forums, some of which you can watch here. But the biggest takeaway came from the numbers and enthusiasm of people who showed up and engaged with the sessions. There is a clear energy—including among tech workers—to first understand what the industry has planned for data centers and AI and second to challenge the idea that we should wait passively for them to have their way with our communities, ecosystems, jobs, and society. 

Question: There has been a lot of news nationally about the impact of data centers, can you give us some insight into how and where data centers are affecting Washington State?

Ecosocialism Working Group: Currently, there are 107 data operating in Washington state, with the majority in Seattle and Quincy, followed by Wenatchee. There are also several more being built or proposed throughout the state, including larger hyperscalers in Walla Walla, Spokane, and Richland-Kennewick. Big Tech is also eyeing parts of the state to build small modular reactors or nuclear fusion to power data centers both here and in Oregon. 

The colocated traditional data centers in Seattle add up to 270 megawatts across 50 or so data centers. These traditional data centers are the ones that run our internet and cloud services—we’re less concerned about these ones. However, news just broke this month that four tech companies approached Seattle City Light about building five large data centers that would have a maximum demand of 369 MW, approximately one-third of the city’s average daily energy usage. This raises obvious concerns about where the power will come from as Seattle continues to grow and electrify, and what the impact will be on ratepayers.

Quincy is an example of the impacts of larger hyperscaler or AI data centers, where around 53 centers add up to 1 gigawatt (or 1,010 MW). A 100 MW data center uses more electricity than all the homes in Everett combined. The tech industry wants us to believe that these new, large hyperscale data centers are necessary for running the internet, and we know that’s just not true. We’ve been getting by with these smaller data centers just fine. What has changed is the rollout of AI and its demand for energy.

Quincy has emerged as one of the largest data center markets in the country, and is a good example of the unadvertised effects of data centers on communities. Many members of the community support the data centers, which have been built over the past 20 years, as they have generated tax revenue that has funded a new high school and hospital. However, there are signs of growing frustration. Quincy once generated surplus electricity via hydropower, but now Grant County PUD wants to build a new transmission line and methane gas pipeline to power current and additional planned data centers. To build the new transmission line, it is condemning private land impacting 120 homes and 449 acres of farmland, sparking outrage among farm- and homeowners who say the route through their properties was chosen behind closed doors.

In general, the statewide data center buildout threatens Washington’s hydropower supply, already diminished by the impacts of climate change such as drought and reduced snowpack, and then risks exacerbating those impacts when utilities rely on methane gas to make up the difference. At the same time, the buildout could undermine the state’s climate commitments and further raise energy bills amid an affordability crisis. 

Question: It seems many of the issues around data centers tend to hit rural communities first and hardest. As residents of Washington’s biggest city, what can we do to support our rural neighbors in these fights?

Ecosocialism Working Group: Out of the planning process for the AI forums, a new network emerged known as Washington Artificial Intelligence Resistance (WA-AIR), of which Seattle DSA is a founding partner. This network is reaching out to communities across the state where data centers are active or planned to support local communities and struggles and help them in building local power and capacity to push back against the extraction of our state’s land, energy, and water resources.. This includes the landowners in Quincy as well as community members in Walla-Walla, whose port recently sold land to Amazon for a data center despite widespread opposition. 

That said, the news this month that major data centers are now planned for Seattle indicates that we can’t assume our more urban communities are safe. With our community partners, we have launched a letter-writing campaign calling on the Seattle City Council and Mayor Wilson to implement a moratorium on new data centers in Seattle. You can add your name here. If you are interested in getting more involved with the fight against data centers, both in Seattle and statewide, you can sign up here.

Question: During the last state leg session, Seattle DSA member and WA State Rep. Shaun Scott helped to pass HB2089, a bill which will help fund Wildfire Mitigation. Are there other victories like this we’ve seen locally?

Ecosocialism Working Group: Seattle DSA Ecosocialism focused most of its legislative energies around bills regulating data centers and AI. While the main bill that would have regulated data centers, HB2515, did not pass, a small victory emerged with the passage of SB 6231, which removed a tax exemption for the replacement of data center equipment. This will save the state $155 million through 2031 and gives us something to build on for further regulating and taxing Big Tech. 

Rep. Scott’s bill also helped, by stripping away tax incentives from financial institutions that lend to big development projects like data centers, redirecting those funds to wildfire mitigation. But we still have more work to do. We still give millions per year of taxpayer money to some of the wealthiest corporations in the world to build out new data centers across our state, when instead we should be requiring them to support our communities with energy affordability or renewable and distributed energy systems to mitigate the strain these companies and their data centers are placing on our grid. 

Question: With the escalating climate crisis sowing chaos in the natural world, can you tell us about current efforts to protect wildlife in Washington State?

Ecosocialism Working Group: The data center buildout could threaten Washington’s efforts to help salmon recover and thrive, as further strain on hydropower usage could lead to the waiving of provisions to help migrating salmon cross dams. At the same time, the water used to cool the data centers could be released back into watersheds at higher temperatures and with added contaminates, further threatening fish and other wildlife. Data centers can also contribute to the heat island effect, which means nearby plants have to work harder to retain water, increasing wildfire risk. DSA Ecosocialism plans to collaborate with local environmental and land defense partners to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Question: Are there some specific types of environmental legislation you’re hoping to see introduced in the upcoming legislation such as a data center moratorium? 

Ecosocialism Working Group: Seattle DSA Ecosocialism has signed a national call for a moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers. We are interested in any and all legislation that addresses the big threats posed by the unique tech industry in our state, including any efforts to expand nuclear power.

With WA-AIR, members of our group are currently drafting an AI Bill of Rights that is designed to be used as a springboard for future campaigns and legislation, which will focus on fairness, transparency, and privacy. That will be up on our website soon—stay tuned!

Minnesota labor and anti-ICE organizers are finding common ground and tools in the fight against authoritarianism in the workplace and on the streets

The post How to organize against authoritarianism appeared first on EWOC.

Eric Blanc and Chris Winston have both written articles recently investigating why there is currently no mass anti-war movement in the US and proposing actions for us to take to address that problem. I’m glad that they each put forward their analysis, because both are grappling seriously with this issue, and we do need to figure out what we can do to build a mass anti-war movement. Although I lean more towards Winston’s position, my primary objective in this piece is not to argue for why he is correct or why Blanc is wrong, but rather to dig into the underlying assumptions that lead some of us to Winston’s conclusions and others to Blanc’s.

Both authors propose various tactical interventions that they believe will help to build a mass anti-war movement. However, selection of tactics is downstream from strategy. In this case, the primary strategic question should be, “Who is our base?” Who do we seek to organize into this mass anti-war movement? Once we have the answer to that question, determining tactics is much more straightforward. With a war as unpopular as this one, it seems obvious that the potential base for the anti-war movement would be that majority of the American people who oppose the war, but when we look at the imperialist system more comprehensively, the base becomes smaller.

I propose that the potential base for the anti-imperialist movement within the US consists of the following:

1. The portion of the American ¹working class that is exploited by capitalism to a greater extent than it benefits from imperialism,
2. People in the United States, regardless of class status, who, due to ties of family or friendship, suffer net harm from imperialism when all impacts are taken into account, and
3. Individuals who, despite benefiting more from imperialism than they are exploited by capitalism, desire the end of the imperialist system because they believe it to be abhorrent and are willing to sacrifice the benefits they derive from the system in exchange for its end.

There is a potential fourth group: people who benefit more from imperialism than they are exploited by capitalism, but desire the end of the imperialist system in part because they don’t believe that they will have to endure any reduction in their standard of living when the imperialist system is dismantled. It is potentially possible that the productive forces could be developed more rapidly than the malapportionment of resources is redressed, such that the people in this group won’t actually face a reduction in their standard of living. Personally, I believe that doing so should be one of our objectives should we gain enough power to implement preferred policies, because it will be easier to carry out the changes we want to see if this group is not actively opposed to us. However, this group should not be considered part of the base. It might not be possible to develop the productive forces with sufficient speed to protect them from any decrease in their standard of living, and to pretend that we can definitely do so would be to act in bad faith. In order to presume good faith of our comrades, unless presented with evidence to the contrary I will assume that no one is including this group in their calculations of what constitutes our base.

The second and third groups of our base will be important, and are likely overrepresented among the organizers already involved in the anti-war movement, but the key factor determining the size of the base is the first group. This, I believe, is the primary point of dispute between those who agree with Blanc and those who agree with Winston. Before we get to that, though, I’d like to make explicit four points that I have been assuming so far, because I believe both sides of the debate agree with them:

1. The American working class is exploited by the capitalist system, given their position as workers.
2. The American working class benefits from imperialism, given their position as Americans.
3. At least some members of the American working class are exploited by capitalism to a greater extent than they benefit from imperialism.
4. At least some members of the American working class benefit from imperialism to a greater extent than they are exploited by capitalism.

The question is, of course, how big is the “some” in points 3 and 4? I will leave it to future articles (by me or others) to seek to quantify the degree of exploitation by capitalism and benefit from imperialism, but we now at least have the crux of the issue. If one believes that the group in point four is merely a small fraction of the American working class, then our base makes up a majority of the American public, and majoritarian ²tactics are the correct path to build a mass anti-imperialism movement. On the other hand, if one believes that the group in point four is a majority of the American working class, or even just a large minority, then our base does not make up a majority of the American public, and we should pursue minoritarian tactics instead.

What does it mean to pursue either majoritarian or minoritarian tactics? Well, here are some examples. In electoral work, majoritarian tactics would involve seeking to either win enough elections to pass our preferred policies, or to demonstrate the counter-majoritarian nature of the electoral system. Minoritarian tactics would mean seeking to win races in certain areas where the electorate is friendlier to us, running other races that we don’t expect to win, and having those elected officials and candidates use their higher profiles to encourage people to participate in the movement. In labor organizing, majoritarian tactics would involve strengthening our relationships with whatever unions we can and supporting any worker organizing. Minoritarian tactics would be specifically building relationships with unions that represent large portions of our base (and organizing unions in unorganized workplaces where members of our base are overrepresented), whether that is workers who are exploited more by capitalism, workers who have personal ties to the imperial periphery, or workers who are more likely to be willing to suffer reductions in their standard of living as the cost of ending imperialism. In direct action, majoritarian tactics means mobilizing as many people as possible to events such as the No Kings rallies, while minoritarian tactics requires researching specific pain points where a smaller number of people can put effective pressure on the imperial system.

Blanc’s preference for majoritarian tactics is most explicit in section 6, “Sectarianism Has Helped Marginalize Anti-War Activity.” He presents building “the broadest and deepest possible opposition to US military aid and interventions abroad” as the preferred option, and laments that the movement has tied “widely supported demands against war to unjustified and unhelpful romanticization of any and all anti-imperialist forces.” This is a long-running dispute within the left, where anyone who expresses support for the people who are putting their lives on the line to resist imperialism will be lambasted as romanticizing “any and all anti-imperialist forces”. Because such forces are universally condemned in American media, any support for them whatsoever (justified or not) tends to be incompatible with cohering majority support, at least in the short term. Blanc also explicitly criticizes the encampments on college campuses for lacking, “concerted efforts to win over and mobilize majorities on campuses,” but he does not explain why winning over majorities would have been preferable to other strategic objectives that could conflict with an effort to win over majorities. Blanc’s bias towards majoritarian tactics is so strong that he never bothers to argue for why such tactics should be preferred; it is self-evident to him that majoritarian tactics are necessary.

On the other hand, Winston’s preference for minoritarian tactics does not come out in any overt rejection of majoritarian tactics, but rather a belief that there are some things more important than staking out a majoritarian position, and those things are sometimes incompatible with such a position. In response to Blanc’s assertion that Americans are overwhelmed by all the terrible things Trump is doing, and thus don’t have time to build an anti-war movement, Winston asserts, “We have plenty of time to meddle in their [Palestinian and Iranian] affairs, and allow DSA politicians such as Zohran and AOC to manufacture consent for these wars, yet none, it seems, to build a competent, powerful movement to actually be of service.” In this section, Winston counterposes the need to build a movement that can materially impact the situation with public criticism of anti-imperialist forces, and crucially, presenting it from the perspective of our comrades in other countries: why would they have any respect for our critiques of their social systems if we aren’t actually inhibiting the mass slaughter our government is subjecting them to? Thus, building a powerful anti-imperialist movement must precede any critiques of their societies. This line of reasoning does not allow for any exceptions in the event that public criticism of anti-imperialist forces may be necessary to build a majoritarian movement in the US, so if such a necessity exists, then we have to rely on minoritarian tactics. However, the gaze of anti-imperialist forces is not the only reason to refrain from public criticism of them. For Winston, “What distinguishes us, however, is that we also hold AOC and Sanders and Zohran to account for their role in normalizing, from the left, the American narrative regarding Iran.” Public criticism of anti-imperialist forces, even when paired with rhetorical opposition to the war, strengthens the narrative that is employed to justify the war. As a result, any potential gain from a broader base being willing to support us if we concede the flaws of the enemy du jour is more than offset by the harm done by reifying imperialist narratives.

I do not expect us to all agree on whether or not our potential base makes up a majority of the American public. Even if someone effectively quantifies the relative degrees of exploitation and benefit I allude to above, there will be many who dispute the results of their calculation. However, I hope that this piece will help us to all understand the reasons for or against the various tactics that we propose.

by Eric Herde

1. While I am not fond of using the word “American” as a demonym for the United States, the English language does not have a workable analogue to Spanish’s “estadounidense”. “UnitedStatesian” just feels to clunky for formal writing. In the context of this piece, “American” is used as a demonym for the United States, not for the Americas as a whole. ︎
2. The term ‘majoritarian’ is not meant to imply that anyone thinks we can organize a majority of the population into DSA, or get a majority of the population to actively participate in any particular campaign. The majoritarian/minoritarian distinction refers specifically to the size of the base; the people whom we could reasonably expect to passively support or at least not oppose our actions ︎

DSA proudly endorses Andrea Parr in her race for Louisville Metro Council District 9. We’re fighting for Andrea because she fights for us: She knows the working class needs a transparent budget process and a city that working people can afford!

Andrea and Louisville DSA are working together to bring socialism to the Metro Council. We are excited to stand with the chapter as they fight for a government that is truly accountable to the will of the people. Can you help build our movement with a donation today??

Andrea is part of a slate of candidates in the Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!

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.

Read more at Memphis-Midsouth