Author: Julie C

The purpose of this piece is to notify Cleveland DSA members that there are now two local caucuses in our chapter and to give some brief history of internal politics in our chapter from a personal and limited perspective. These caucuses do not hold any formal positions of power within our chapter, and in fact are not “officially affiliated” with DSA Cleveland, but they were created in order to bring comrades together based on shared identities and vision.

The Black and Brown (B&B) Caucus was announced at or around the time of the June 2025 General Meeting. Inspired by Detroit DSA’s Black & Brown Alliance, as well as DSA’s national Multiracial Organizing Committee, the purpose of the B&B caucus is to bring together members of color and focus on ways to increase our diversity within the chapter, and working class power in Northeast Ohio’s communities of color. The caucus is not exclusive to members of color and there is no formal leadership or approval process for planning events for the B&B Caucus. If you are interested in this caucus, please reach out to Shay or Emma B on our member Slack.

The Praxis Caucus was announced at the September 2025 General Meeting and its Points of Unity can be found here. This caucus was formed with the intention of bringing members together to form a long-term and proactive vision for DSA in Cleveland and the surrounding areas. While the founding members have ideas on where to start, the current goal is to bring more members together to help develop the vision for our chapter in a way that aligns with our Points of Unity. All Cleveland DSA members are welcome to join meetings and events held by Praxis. If you are interested in this caucus, please reach out to Justin E or Julie C on our member Slack.

Background

When I joined Cleveland DSA (fall 2020), our chapter was very focused on local issues and local organizing. We were not fully plugged into the national org structure or any particular working group/committee in any serious or noticeable way. Also, from my perspective, while there were some political differences among comrades, our membership seemed rather homogeneous and came to consensus regularly. The most obvious difference was the approach to electoral politics and our biggest political “battle” was whether or not to endorse Nina Turner in 2021. This issue drew our largest General Meeting crowd at that time (over 60 members) and the motion failed with about 63% of the vote (it needed 66%).

Since then our chapter has experienced sizable growth in our membership which has naturally magnified the differences in perspective of how to achieve our shared goals. The national organization is more visible and connected to the work that we do through the use of resources available to us as well as some of our members being plugged into the work of different national committees. We also have at least close to a dozen members who belong to various national caucuses. At our October 2024 General Meeting, we passed a much more rigorous endorsement policy and that policy was put to the test this year. A substantial amount of work was put into a project proposal that would see a local DSA member endorsed in their run for city council. That proposal failed 64 nay vs 51 yea after a zealous debate at our May General meeting (5/8/25). The Praxis caucus formed with core members who voted yea on endorsement.
During and after the May General meeting, the political strategies among Cleveland DSA members have been more clearly outlined through internal debates and discussions. To be clear, DSA is a socialist organization. We believe in transitioning our society from capitalism to socialism and our “political” differences stem from what is the best way to do that. And even more specifically at our chapter level, what should our focus be in order to contribute to that outcome. While the differences in political opinion at times seem great, we are very much working towards the same goal.

1.  There are many lists and articles about the national caucuses but I am not linking any here since there is no “official” list that broadly summarizes them.

The post Caucuses in Cleveland DSA appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

By Tiffany P

“Gather around, kids! I’m going to show you how to use drugs.” – Terrance Zdunich

I watched Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) when it first released. Back then, I enjoyed the music, wacky characters, and gore. Today, the movie hits different. The movie takes place in the not-too-distant future. That future has arrived.

GeneCo is a company that specializes in organ transplants. At first, the organ transplants were necessary because of a pandemic that caused mass organ failure. GeneCo harvested organs from the dead and sold them to the living. Many could not pay for the surgery so they signed a payment plan with the company. Rotti Largo is the founder of GeneCo and should look very familiar to many of us today. He is your typical selfish sadistic billionaire. He lobbied a bill through Congress to make it legal for this private company to murder citizens if they are 90 days late on
their payments. By the time the movie starts, the people are tired of living in fear. Prop 598 would make it illegal for GeneCo to repossess organs. GeneCo gaslights the citizens and says they need the ability to murder your neighbor or else they might run out of organs to save your life. This is a typical billionaire tactic that keeps citizens divided and voting against their own interests.

Working for GeneCo is a more extreme version of what it’s like to work in corporate America today and certain members of government are trying to get us even closer to this dystopian reality. They are attempting to give more power to the employer, less power to the worker, reduce safety in the workplace, and even want to
eliminate child labor laws.

The Repo Man is the one who legally murders citizens to reclaim stolen property. By property, they mean someone’s heart, spine, or any other organ. You would think anyone who would do a job like this must be a monster. Far from it. The movie does a very good job making the Repo Man a sympathetic father. However, his current job of cutting out someone’s heart with no anesthetic while it’s still beating has taken a major toll on his psyche. He develops a split personality to hide behind to do much of the dirty work. This reminds me of slaughterhouse workers of today. They murder animals who struggle and scream for their life all day long. They are paid very little and are often times undocumented workers. This allows the company to abuse and threaten them. Because of the violent and cruel nature of the job, slaughterhouse workers will either quit because of extreme PTSD or develop violent tendencies outside of work. Meat packing factories are also often times staffed by undocumented workers. They have very few safety standards and finger and hand amputations are common there.

Genterns are a type of female worker at GeneCo. You see them perform various jobs such as surgery and inventory. They are expected to perform sexual acts for their employer, dress in very skimpy clothing, and can’t complain if their co-worker is suddenly murdered in front of them. Clearly, Genterns need to form a union. It is not unusual in today’s workplace for a woman to feel pressure to be more sexualized or even perform sexual favors to get promoted. Harassment and abuse are swept under the rug and employees are expected to suffer in silence. Employees at GeneCo can be forced into contracts that prevent them from leaving the company alive. They are in a type of indentured servitude. They work for the company in exchange for a surgery, but if they leave then the Repo Man will kill them. Today, companies want their employees to sign contracts which prevent them from leaving. This type of contract emboldens the employer to abuse their employees, and if the employee chooses to leave then the employer will steal their paychecks.

We are not shown this world’s economy directly, but we get a sense there is the very poor and the very rich with not much in between. GeneCo spends a lot of money advertising for cosmetic surgeries. They encourage people to buy a name brand spine or spleen as a fashion statement. Despite being poor, many people have these surgeries because they sign up for a payment plan. This makes the surgeries more affordable. This is reflected in the Labubu craze going on today. In previous decades, cosmetic sales would rise during financial turmoil and depression. Labubus make you look cool to your friends at a relatively affordable price. People nowadays understand they will never afford a house or have financial security so why not buy a $30 toy? It’s not as if saving that $30 will suddenly allow them to buy a house. Many buy Labubus because they are depressed and these little toys provide a glimmer of joy in their day.

The Genetic Opera in the movie itself is a massive advertising campaign. It is a yearly event that is run like a mega church. There is a band and a lot of spectacle. People testify on live TV to how GeneCo helped them. A single mom needed a kidney transplant and said the company showed her sympathy, but the company will have no problem turning her children into orphans if she is late on her payments. This reflects the constant flood of propaganda we see today. Companies spend millions to develop brand loyalty to keep their customers coming back for decades. None of us are immune to propaganda. Remember, they need us more than we need them.

Repo! The Genetic Opera will be playing at Hyperreal Film Club in Austin on October 6th at 7:30pm.

The post The Goth Rock Opera of Our Present first appeared on Red Fault.

Offshoring threats are common but damaging to campaigns. Learn how secure the facility is and how important it is to the overall company structure.

The post 6 questions to ask if your boss threatens to offshore your job appeared first on EWOC.

This opinion is part of a series debating what, if any, endorsements Maine DSA should consider in 2026. We welcome contributions. You can read the first in the series arguing in favor of endorsing Platner and Troy Jackson here, What’s at State in Maine in 2026?

***

“[I]t is not sufficient to attach a “vanguard” label to rearguard theory and practice.” — V. I. Lenin, What is to be Done?

Since launching his senatorial campaign in August, 2025, Graham Platner has quickly gained national attention. Graham has presented himself as a progressive candidate, criticizing the Republican Party for its extreme reaction, but also criticizing the Democratic Party for its utter fecklessness. This hardline progressive and anti-oligarchy position has earned Graham much praise within the progressive movement of the U.S., even earning Graham a speaking opportunity at Bernie Sanders’ 2025 Labor Day Rally in Portland, Maine.

This has predictably led to discussion within Maine DSA about whether the organization should endorse Graham, of which this article is a part. I do not deny that there is much to like about Graham. There are many provisions in his platform which Maine DSA was already fighting for. I do not deny that there are ways in which Maine DSA can and should support Graham’s campaign, but I am also of the opinion that it would be political suicide for Maine DSA to endorse Graham. Hence why I am arguing for “support without endorsement” in this article.

My argument against endorsement rests upon the following premises: 1) to endorse something is to give said thing one’s stamp of approval; 2) it is the job of all self-identified/self-described socialists and their organizations to advance a socialist agenda; 3) Maine DSA is a self-identified/self-described socialist organization; 4) it is, therefore, incumbent upon Maine DSA to advance a socialist agenda; 5) Graham Platner’s platform in its entirety is not only not a socialist platform, but is arguably an anti-socialist platform; 6) Maine DSA would, therefore, not be advancing a socialist agenda by endorsing Graham Platner; 7) Maine DSA should, therefore, not endorse Graham Platner.

How can we be sure that Graham’s platform is not a socialist one? My, admittedly only, proof comes from the section of Graham’s platform titled Take on Waste and Corruption at the Pentagon; Rebuild American Shipbuilding, which includes the following articles:

“We need to take the funds currently paying for mansions in Virginia and Maryland for defense contractors, and reinvest them into closing the massive shipbuilding gap.

I’ve seen under the hood. I know exactly how much money is wasted, and where. Send me to Washington and I will work tirelessly to rebuild the American military.” (Archived Platform)

There still appears to be much to like in these provisions at first glance, but closer examination reveals content which is highly problematic when considered from a socialist perspective.

[Read next: Gaza solidarity… New Banner, New Location, New Friends]

In my larger critique of Graham, I argued that any plan to close the US-China shipbuilding gap would be economically unfeasible without deepening the United States’ already unprecedented imperial exploitation of the globe, and that this would likely entail imperialist war. The project of expanding US shipbuilding to where it could compete with China would likely dwarf the construction of the interstate highway in the US; a project which was undertaken at the peak of the US empire in the 1950s, whereas now the US empire is in a period of steep decline, as is evidenced by the country’s shift from free trade to economic protectionism. The US currently accounts for only 0.1% of global shipbuilding whereas China builds more ships than the rest of the world combined. (Center for Strategic & International Studies).

Even if it were economically feasible, it still raises the question of what purpose there would be in closing the US-China shipbuilding gap? It’s easy to grasp why China now accounts for 53.3% of global shipbuilding (Ibid.). As the industrial capital of the world, China needs a substantial shipbuilding infrastructure to build the shipping capacity it requires to effectively export the commodities it produces for countries around the world, including the US. This is not only affirmed by the historical example of the British Empire, whose naval peak coincided with their industrial peak as the industrial capital of the world in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth century, but is also affirmed by the example of US ally South Korea, a country which also produces a great many goods for export and accounts for the second most global shipbuilding output at 29.1% (Ibid.).

The US, by contrast, while still being a very large exporter, is an overall net importer (Bureau of Economic Analysis). The US has a far smaller industrial capacity than China owing to its much smaller population. The ability of the US to be a competitive exporter is already hampered by the comparatively high cost of US labor, and this also means that expanding US shipbuilding might not translate to making the US a more effective importer either. And this is also before we even consider the effect that Trump’s tariff policy has on all of these factors.

Thorough study of the US-China shipbuilding gap leads one to the conclusion that the gap is simply insurmountable for the US for several reasons. Firstly, because the US simply lacks the manpower to facilitate the expansion of US shipbuilding that’s necessary to compete with China. Secondly, even if the shipbuilding infrastructure of US allies like South Korea and Japan are counted as part of the US shipbuilding infrastructure, it’s still unclear that the US would be able to close the resultant 11% gap between the US and China, as China is likely to continue expanding its shipbuilding capacity during this same time. Thirdly, building a newer, more modern, and more efficient shipbuilding infrastructure in the US would likely require the deconstruction of the existing infrastructure to create a clean slate to build on, further allowing China to expand its lead over the US. Fourthly, even ignoring the military utility and all other logistical problems, it’s simply unclear what purpose is served by expanding the US’ shipbuilding capabilities.

As I currently understand the prevailing state of US shipbuilding, expanding the existing infrastructure would, at best, make for a good jobs program, but shipbuilding for the sake of job creation is a different matter than shipbuilding to close a competitive gap with another country. As I will explain later, socialists have no interest in competing with other countries anyway.

[Read next: As Cumberland County Goes, So Go Immigrant Rights in Maine]

The section of Graham’s platform which is most objectionable from a socialist perspective is the clause on rebuilding the US military. Socialists, including moderate socialists, have always been resolutely opposed to war between countries and service in the militaries of capitalist countries. This is due to the socialists’ adherence to the concept of internationalism—the concept that the working class has no country and is therefore international, if not anti-national—which rests on the following premises, as we have summarized elsewhere: 

1) under capitalism, individuals make money by selling commodities; 2) the thing that distinguishes the working class from all other classes is that they sell their ability to work to an external consumer as a commodity; 3) as a commodity, the price of labor power is subject to the same basic laws as any other commodity; 4) the price of labor power therefore decreases when workers compete with each other for work or when there is an increase in the availability of labor power; 5) workers should not compete with each other for any reason because all it accomplishes is the mutual immiseration of workers to the benefit of capital owners; 6) workers should cooperate or unite with each other for the mutual benefit of all workers; 7) this idea extends to workers of different national origins because competition between workers of different nations has the same mutually destructive effects on workers as competition between workers of the same nation, especially as labor markets become increasingly globalized in step with the rest of the economy (The Revolutionist). 

From these premises, it follows further that since socialiststs do not support workers competing with each other, we also do not support workers killing each other, which is the inevitable result of war between countries. This is stated explicitly and succinctly in the Resolution on Militarism adopted by the Socialist International at its 1907 congress in Stuttgart, Germany, which says,

“Wars between capitalist states are, as a rule, the outcome of their competition on the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones. In this, the subjugation of foreign peoples and countries plays a prominent role. These wars result furthermore from the incessant race for armaments by militarism, one of the chief instruments of bourgeois class rule and of the economic and political subjugation of the working class. 

Wars are favored by the national prejudices which are systematically cultivated among civilized peoples in the interest of the ruling classes for the purpose of distracting the proletarian masses from their own class tasks as well as from their duties of international solidarity. 

Wars, therefore, are part of the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished or when the enormous sacrifices in men and money required by the advance in military technique and the indignation called forth by armaments, drive the peoples to abolish this system. 

For this reason, the proletariat, which contributes most of the soldiers and makes most of the material sacrifices, is a natural opponent of war which contradicts its highest goal—the creation of an economic order on a Socialist basis which will bring about the solidarity of all peoples.”

In this regard, in the sense that it can be said that Graham is actively supportive of the US military and its expansion, it can be conclusively said that Graham Platner’s platform is an anti-socialist one. To endorse Graham would therefore be to endorse his platform, and endorsing a platform which clearly expresses explicitly anti-socialist values would constitute more than a simple failure to advance a socialist agenda, it would constitute the advancement of an anti-socialist agenda. This would be especially damaging for Maine DSA since it has already demonstrated that it understands the importance of internationalism by forming a working group specifically dedicated to internationalism, meaning that the organization should know better than to endorse a platform like the one currently being advanced by Graham.

It would be one thing if Graham’s platform was ambiguous on such core aspects of socialist politics, in which case we would be unable to offer a strong argument against endorsement, as the rest of Graham’s platform consists of fairly milquetoast social-democratic policy initiatives which socialists have historically supported with the cynical goal of showing the limits of social-democracy by removing any barrier to it. But as shown above, any self-described socialist organization cannot endorse/approve of Graham’s platform in its current state. If Graham is interested in obtaining the endorsement of Maine DSA, he should be made to earn that endorsement by changing his platform to one which conforms to socialist values.

[Read next: Trump’s Social Murder Bill Passes — Now What?]

DSA is the largest socialist organization in the country, and Maine DSA is the biggest socialist organization in the state of Maine. This means that it is the vanguard of the working class struggle regardless of the discomfort moderates in the organization may feel toward the label of vanguard. We have built that political capital through our own hard work and perseverance, and part of that has meant taking the correct position even when it would be easier not to. While building that political capital has been quite difficult, losing it by making unforced errors is quite easy, and giving Graham our endorsement without making him earn it would be one such unforced error.

By endorsing Graham, Maine DSA would be committing the error of workerism, that is, the tailist error of supporting whatever is popular with the working class, even when what the working class wants is not in its interests as a class.

While I speak very strongly against endorsing Graham, I do not deny that he is by far the strongest candidate in his race. I do not deny that Graham, if elected, would be a definite improvement over Susan Collins in the US Senate—though that could also be said of any completely inanimate object. We want to be quite clear that I support Graham. There are many individual articles in Graham’s platform which do not contradict a socialist agenda and are or have already been advanced by Maine DSA. In these regards, I cannot argue in good faith against supporting Graham in some form, I only argue that support must not come in the form of endorsement. Such alternative forms of support could be things like doorknocking, phonebanking, and other forms of volunteer work which will support Graham’s campaign much more materially than a formal endorsement while also allowing Maine DSA to maintain a critical orientation towards Graham. I recognize that socialist organizations need to be flexible in their tactics, but history shows that socialist organizations cease to be socialist when that same flexibility is extended to the socialist program. Hence why I argue here for support without endorsement for Graham Platner, as I feel this exemplifies the kind of programmatic rigidity and tactical flexibility that must be at the core of any socialist politics.

The post Support, but don’t endorse Platner appeared first on Pine & Roses.

DSA San Diego has voted to endorse and campaign for Proposition 50, which will be on the California ballot for a special election on November 4, 2025. If it passes, Prop. 50 would implement a temporary redistricting of California’s Congressional seats to counteract Republican gerrymandering by redrawing five Republican seats to favor Democrats until the [...]

Read More... from Fight fasciscm! Vote YES on Prop 50

The post Fight fasciscm! Vote YES on Prop 50 appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America | San Diego Chapter.

Can’t make one of our DSA San Diego canvasses? There are plenty of other ways to get involved in this fight: Donate to California DSA’s PAC! (Donate here) This helps us print DSA-branded literature and purchase canvassing tools for our outreach efforts. We rely entirely on contributions from members and supporters. Every little bit helps! [...]

Read More... from Yes on Prop 50 – Activities

The post Yes on Prop 50 – Activities appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America | San Diego Chapter.

The Colorado Springs DSA strongly believes in the power of public education to empower and to liberate. We believe that the best people to decide how and what to teach are professional educators. We have been deeply troubled at the consistent interference from the extremist school board in District 11 of Colorado Springs as they deprive teachers of the very agency that allows them to excel. Their decisions are becoming ever more concerning. No novels in high school English classes. Pages physically cut out of health textbooks. And just last week we understand they cut from the curriculum the incredible abolitionist, writer, and orator Frederick Douglass.

Instead of cutting Douglass from the curriculum, we choose to live by his words, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” We choose to unite with Charles Johnson, a union-endorsed candidate for the school board in D11. We know that he is trying to do right, even as the allies of the extremists now vying for seats on the board play into the shameful, racist tradition of painting Black men as criminals by sending out a mass text showing the mugshot from Charles’s 2020 arrest. True to what we know of him, he was guilty only of, as John Lewis loved to say, making good trouble.

In 2019, a good friend of Charles, De’Von Bailey, was shot in the back and killed by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Charles organized for greater accountability for the department. At COS DSA, we know that Black history is fundamental to American history. Maybe if these extremists spent more time studying it instead of erasing it, they would know how predictable it was that Charles was then singled out for arrest by CSPD. But they don’t know, and we suspect they just don’t care.

We stand in solidarity with Charles Johnson. Charles has been a friend to many of us who are organizers and activists in Colorado Springs, and we know him to be kind and insightful. A product of D11 himself, his commitment to teachers and students in the district is an inspiration. As the Colorado Springs Education Association prepares to strike on October 8th, we call on everyone able to show teachers their support by joining them on the picket line and by standing with Charles and the rest of the union-endorsed school board candidates come the November election. Their only goal is one we all surely share; outstanding public education in this city we love.

On 10/1/2025 the Global Sumud Flotilla was intercepted by the IDF while trying to deliver life saving aid to the Palestinians living under a blockade in Gaza. A coalition of organizers, humanitarians, doctors, artists, clergy, lawyers, and seafarers across 57 countries were just off the coast of Gaza, intending to break Israel’s blockade with much needed humanitarian aid, when they were violently intercepted by the IDF. 

We condemn this act of violence against a group of peaceful humanitarians working to end the man-made famine imposed upon the Palestinians in Gaza. While Israel continues to actively and mercilessly bomb the Gaza strip to complete its goal of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the Global Sumud Flotilla was a beacon of hope to those waiting for much needed relief. The Global Sumud Flotilla poses no threat. They are unarmed and only carrying supplies needed by the population of Gaza such as baby formula, medical supplies, and food. 

To meet a peaceful convoy of humanitarian aid with such violence and little regard for human life is appalling. The response from Italy to try and force the Global Sumud Flotilla to turn away, siding with the IDF and betraying their own citizens, is shameful. The United States is turning a blind eye to the U.S. citizens that have been kidnapped from the convoy while it continues to be involved with and enable the illegal and immoral actions of the illegal occupation known as Israel. 

We are living in a moment which, when looked back on, everyone will say they have always been against these violent acts. We must keep hope, because to keep hope is to believe truly and honestly that Palestine will be free.

Israel must release all the hostages they have kidnapped from the Global Sumud Flotilla, they must ensure their safety, and they must allow aid into Gaza. As activist and arguably one of the most famous members of the Global Sumud Flotilla, Greta Thunberg, has said, “I'm not scared of Israel. I'm scared of a world that has seemingly lost all sense of humanity.” We must not lose our humanity and continue to uplift the Palestinian cause as it is just, it is moral, and it is freedom, not just for the Palestinians, but for all of us. Because none of us are free until all of us are free. We stand with the Global Sumud Flotilla, we condemn the violence and kidnapping, and we stand with the Palestinians in their hope to someday soon be truly free.