Sunday Nov. 9^th, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the shutdown. 

Despite the outrageous cruelty Trump wielded during the shutdown, including stopping food assistance to millions of Americans, Democrats had been both justified and moral in standing their ground. They were fighting to keep healthcare costs from doubling, tripling and even quadrupling for 24 million Americans. 

Last Tuesday, voters made it crystal clear that the fight for healthcare was resonating. Across the country, voters turned out for Democrats, and even Trump acknowledged that the shutdown negatively affected Republicans. It seemed like Democrats finally had leverage.

But instead of wielding this leverage and forcing Republicans to support healthcare, Senate Democrats folded. They caved to Republicans’ cruelty, with nothing but a promise that the Senate will vote on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies—which we all know the Republican majority will reject, if they keep their promise at all. (Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has already stated that he won’t allow this vote in the House.)

We don’t know why Democrats caved. Maybe they truly are naive enough to believe that ending the shutdown would end Republicans’ assault on the most vulnerable. Or maybe they capitulated to elite pressure from a coalition of hotel chains, casinos, and convention bureaus, who urged them to end the shutdown before the most “economically important” travel week of the year. Or maybe they just utterly lack conviction. 

What we do know is that establishment Democrats won’t save us. They have consistently failed to protect us from anything, because they stand for nothing. They are too comfortable collecting their checks from donors and corporations, while ignoring the people they claim to represent. It is time, instead, for working class power—a party for the working class that believes our government can and should care for its citizens. 

The Seattle Democratic Socialists of America believe that food, housing, and healthcare are human rights. We believe in putting people over profits. And we know that we, the people, are worth fighting for. 

Stand for something. Join DSA today.

1. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-johnson-says-he-wont-promise-aca-vote-in-the-house-as-part-of-a-shutdown-deal
2. https://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/UST25_Letter_ThanksgivingTravelShutdown_v6.pdf

The post Democratic Socialists Have Spines appeared first on Seattle Democratic Socialists of America.

In mid-August 2025, on a sweltering Chicago weekend, ringing with camaraderie, over 1200 socialists descended for the Democratic Socialists of America’s biennial National Convention. The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is the largest socialist organization in the United States, boasting 80,000 members nationwide. DSA, democratically run by this membership, organized in different chapters, is on the front lines of building a better tomorrow through: labor organizing, international solidarity, standing up to America’s fascist administration, and many more actions. 

The National Convention is DSA’s highest decision-making body, where the next two years of direction is decided by delegates, elected by the membership of each chapter, and the National Political Committee is elected to shepherd DSA until the next Convention. From Silicon Valley DSA (SV DSA), there were 12 delegates, from veteran attendee Chapter Officers to DSA newcommers.

DSA has several diverse tendencies, many of them disagreeing on specific issues, often vehemently. However, there is still unity in this diversity, as all DSA members share a vision for a better tomorrow under socialism, no matter what form that takes. One visiting officer commented regarding this unity at the Convention, “Being surrounded by so many like minded comrades was an energizing experience”, demonstrating that DSA’s membership has more in common than it has differences.

At the Convention, DSA delegates deliberated and debated many resolutions, putting its democratic values into practice. One item that took more than a day to debate was Resolution 22: For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA, which would reaffirm a previous resolution to “Make DSA an Anti-Zionist Organization in Principle and Praxis.” Our Chapter’s delegates, by the democratic will of the Chapter, swore to vote “yes” on this Resolution and “no” on a controversial amendment, which some (including much of our Chapter) argued would dilute the intent of the original resolution. The resolution passed with a majority of 675-524 votes. This would earn DSA the praise of groups like Palestinian Youth Movement and outlets like Middle East Eye, who noted DSA’s evolution into a truly Anti-Zionist group devoted to Palestinian Solidarity.

Additionally, on Saturday afternoon, DSA hosted its first Cross-Organizational Political Exchange from 3 PM-6 PM, where groups were invited from all over to observe the convention and how DSA’s socialists conduct themselves within the Convention. Groups represented an entire section of the left, from activists like the Palestinian Youth Movement and Sunrise to American labor unions.

However, organizations were not only restricted to the US, as comrades from around the world came to the Convention. Some, like the Democratic Socialists of Canada, were smaller and sought to emulate DSA’s internal democracy in their own country. Others, though, were much larger, including well-known parties like Mexico’s MORENA, the current ruling party of the country, and La France Insoumise, most famously represented by Jean Luc Melencheon. Other guests included members of Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL) from Brazil and comrades from Japan, Belgium, and many more. 

In this diversity of groups though, was a unified message for comrades in DSA. Of their message, our officer said: “our comrades are looking to us and relying on us to do some major organizing. We are in the heart of the Empire, and the decisions of the United States impact the organizing terrain of everyone. It was humbling and inspiring to hear that people were counting on us to have an impact and shape the trajectory of the country and the world”. Additionally, he regarded the support of American organizations as proof that DSA and its members are not alone in seeking to build a better world.

The events at the Convention show that DSA has an important role to play in building a better tomorrow not only for America, but for the whole world. As Silicon Valley DSA’s delegates returned home, they brought many lessons with them. Some like Tyler N and Fred, nicknamed “The Red”, gained a newfound appreciation for Robert’s Rules, a code of conduct that DSA uses to run meetings. “The rigidity of Robert’s Rules is worth it for large meetings where some set of parliamentary rules is required for having any reasonable debate and when the motions considered feel consequential and conducive to debate,” Tyler said regarding the rules, with Fred adding, “in the right hands, Roberts Rules can be used to ensure everyone equal access to be heard, and to weed out disruptors, ego-trippers, and saboteurs”. Such were lessons taken by our delegates to the Convention.

Times may seem tough. The government is increasing its targeting and repression of dissenters and the marginalized with each and every day, stripping away our rights. Working people seem to have less and less power every day. However, a better world is possible. And based on the lessons our comrades brought home from convention, there is only one way: working together as comrades, side-by-side. For what is weaker than the feebler strength of one? And what is mightier than the power of the masses united?

The post Thoughts on our National Chapter Convention appeared first on Silicon Valley DSA.

The High Peaks Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (HPDSA) mourns the lives of the more than 334 transgender and gender non-conforming people (TGNC) lost in 2025, including the more than 57 people who lived in the U.S. Many of those lost were trans people of color, a pattern that continues year after year, and a tragic reminder that we are failing the most vulnerable people in our communities. We are heartbroken by the loss of our comrades. 

We believe that trans people deserve to live free and full lives of peace, joy, and happiness without fear of being discriminated against, harmed, or even killed for how they choose to express their gender. We know that any lives lost–whether to direct or stochastic violence–represent a failure by all of us to address pressing issues within society. We ask everyone to stand up and defend our TGNC community at every opportunity, and push back against harmful anti-trans ideologies wherever they may appear.

We have seen an alarming increase in hateful rhetoric directed at TGNC people in 2025, along with tens of millions of dollars spent by political campaigns in recent elections to sour public opinion against them, with little political defense from the mainstream Democratic Party and its allies. Combined with influencers masquerading as experts and discredited or misrepresented studies being used as proof of harm, all backed by conservative think tanks and politicians funded with dark money, TGNC people have never been at greater risk. This damaging propaganda has led to trans people losing their jobs, new and vindictive restrictions on their ability to travel abroad safely, bans from participating in sports, and hundreds of thousands of TGNC youth losing access to life-saving medical care. Further potential injustices are a constant threat on the horizon.

“As a trans person myself, I feel the incredible pressure we’re under every day,” says Cayenne Wren, member of HPDSA. “We wake up, turn on the news, and we’re instantly confronted with unhinged social posts about us. Our very right to exist is endlessly debated about, even though we’re never included in those discussions. All too often we’re underemployed and unemployed, and when we do get a job, we are frequently harassed. Our greatest risk of harm is often from intimate partner violence and even our own family members. My heart breaks continuously for not only those we’ve lost, but also for my trans siblings who must continue to live with injustice every day of our lives. I love each and every one of you, and please know that you are never alone.”

For gay and bisexual individuals who fail to see the fight for trans liberation as central to the broader queer struggle, and for feminists who reject trans women as part of their coalition. Like Jewish liberal Zionists over the last two years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they will continue to find themselves ostracized further from the broader social justice movement, and forced into the untenable position of having to align politically with reactionary right-wing forces that subjugate them as well to uphold the white supremacist heteropatriarchal order.

HPDSA asks you to join us today in pledging to end all forms of violence against TGNC people. You can make a difference by directly donating to TGNC people in need, uplifting trans voices, showing up to public meetings to advocate for trans rights and inclusivity, being vocal against anti-trans propaganda, participating in local and state elections, and advocating for our elected officials to do more to protect TGNC in our state and provide a sanctuary for those individuals who face greater threats elsewhere. 

Together, we can make a difference in the lives of our most vulnerable community members and work towards a future where trans people can live openly and authentically without fear. 

Resources

• New York Name Change Guide

The post High Peaks DSA Honors Transgender Day of Remembrance appeared first on High Peaks DSA.

It can feel impossible to keep up with every DSA chapter across the country, even for our most active members. Luckily Democratic Left has you covered with chapter report updates from coast to coast, this time covering chapters with immigrant-rights campaigns and more. 

The post Fall 2025 Chapter Reports: Immigrant Rights and More appeared first on Democratic Left.

This article was first published in Power Map Magazine, and is being re-printed here with the author’s permission. We are including this piece as part of our ongoing debate in Maine DSA about candidates in 2026. Pine and Roses welcomes contributions. 

Earlier this year Maine Governor Janet Mills made national headlines when she quipped “see you in court” to Trump at the National Governors Association summit after he threatened the state over its laws that allow transgender athletes to play sports. In the bleak days of February, when it seemed like everyone was capitulating and few Democratic figures had yet to mobilize against the new administration, it was a bright moment for opponents of the president and trans people alike. For a relatively low profile governor from an otherwise sleepy state, it was also much of the country’s first introduction to Mills as a figure. Overnight she became a liberal icon. Sites selling shirts with her likeness and her now famous quote quickly cropped up.

Given her national reputation, one would assume that Mills’s entrance into next year’s Democratic primary race would galvanize Democrats across the political spectrum. From this outside perspective it would be easy to be confused as to why an alternative candidacy in Graham Platner so quickly ballooned when Mills was on offer. Many were quick to ascribe this to Mills’s advanced age or that Platner, as a burly white working class male type figure, had some intrinsic appeal. While both of these factors may have been in the mix, they don’t explain the full story. 

Missing from much of the discussion online is much substance about who Janet Mills actually is as a political figure. Afterall, there is a reason why I, a trans woman who is appreciative of Mills’s stance on Trump, and someone who is on the record as hating the hyper-masculine populist trend as a solution to our post-2024 woes, am so opposed to Mills’s candidacy and jumped on the Platner campaign (although now after tattoo-gate, I have jumped off it). And I am obviously not the only one, given a recent poll showing her behind by 34 points. The fact is that in Maine, and to those familiar with the state’s politics, our governor has a far more complicated history than her more recent image depicts. Far less paid attention to, for example, was what Mills was at the time doing with her powers as governor, such as (unsuccessfully) trying to cut funding for childcare, refusing to sign a bill that would end the state’s cooperation with ICE, or more recently, opposing a ballot question on Maine’s gun laws—changes being pushed in the wake of a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 18 people.

It would be easy to think from her comments to Trump that Mills is a liberal champion, but within Maine she is well understood as a moderate, leaning to the right of the Democratic Party (a party whose legislative caucus she frequently is out of step with). One should not expect her to be straightforwardly a safe vote as a senator under a hypothetical future Democratic administration trying to push anything like court packing, or trials for ICE agents. While she may not be quite the level of a Lieberman, a Manchin or a Sinema, Mills will almost certainly be in the bloc of moderate Senators who endlessly frustrate liberals with their positions, and will be a roadblock to progress—after all she’s already announced as much with her declared support for the retention of the filibuster.

It’s not uncommon for residents of a state, particularly politically active ones, to have a quite different perspective on a local figure than those looking in from elsewhere across the country. Yet the gap between how many progressives in Maine view Janet Mills, and those only familiar with her from the Trump incident, is wide and divergent. With her new national prominence, it’s worth exploring her history in detail.

First, we should give Mills a bit of credit: it was genuinely quite bold of her to stand up to Trump in the meeting. It is also not something out of character for her to do. As Attorney General, she was frequently at loggerheads with Governor Paul LePage, a far right Republican elected with only 37% of the vote, who has often been compared to the president. It was this record that helped propel Mills to victory in a crowded 2018 gubernatorial primary. And four years later she would face LePage in her 2022 reelection campaign in which she trounced him, attaining the highest vote share by a gubernatorial candidate since 1998 (and the largest by a Democrat since 1982). With Trump occupying the White House, these are certainly desirable traits in a candidate. 

At a time when trans people are under intense attack, and Democrats are under pressure to abandon trans people in the name of electability, that Mills chose to defend us is worth immense praise. Her actions put her in a tradition of Maine politicians standing up to authoritarianism, not unlike when Maragret Chase Smith (a family friend of the Mills family during her childhood) gave her Declaration of Conscience speech against McCarthyism in 1950. But it would also be a mistake to assume (as evidently many have) that the reason Mills did so is because she is a passionate defender of trans rights. Mills has a solid record on the issue—as much as any Democratic governor would—but as anti-trans bills were later introduced and debated in the Maine State Legislature, she would clarify her comments: “if [lawmakers] wish to change [the law], they have the authority to change it, but you don’t change it by executive order or by wishing it differently.” When asked about her personal stance on the issue, she declined to comment, saying the issue of trans children in sports was “worth of a debate, a full democratic debate.” Not exactly a full throated defense of trans people.

Instead these comments make clear Mill’s real passion: the law.

When Mills stood up to Trump, she wasn’t so much doing it out of strong conviction about trans issues, she was doing it because she was “complying with state and federal law.” Her disagreement with the president was around his use of executive orders to unilaterally change the law, something he straightforwardly does not have the power to do. This should not be surprising to anyone who knows Mills’s history. A graduate of Maine Law, Mills spent her whole career as a prosecutor, becoming the first female district attorney in New England in 1980, and culminating in her appointment as Maine’s Attorney General in 2009, which besides for a brief two year window, was an office she would continue to hold for the next decade. Like LePage before him, Mills is not going to simply let Trump get away with violating these laws, and the institutions she has spent decades defending and enforcing. To do so would go against the animating impulse that has defined her career. 

But there is a far darker side to Mill’s commitment to our legal institutions, and one that causes her to frequently clash with those in the state who want more out of our government and who are critical of the injustices that it has wrought. The clearest example of this is the issue of Wabanaki Sovereignty. 

Maine’s relationship with its indigenous nations can be described as rocky at best. Unlike all other federally recognized tribes, the four in Maine (the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe) have a unique set of rules that govern their relationship with the state. This is based on the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, a law passed by Congress to settle a dispute between the Wabanaki and the state government, and since then the state has used the settlement to deny these nations the sovereignty to which they are entitled. Because of this, the Wabanaki nations do not have the same rights and legal protections as sovereign nations that other federally recognized tribes hold, nor do they have the same access to federal benefits and programs, a fact that is hindering their economic development and causing the state to lose out on thousands of jobs.

In her role as governor, Mills has played a major role in enforcing this status quo, using her veto pen to oppose both sweeping legislation, and piecemeal reform. To be quite clear this is not a question of moderation on Mills part, nor is this a partisan issue, many Republicans as well as Democrats are quite supportive of changes to the law. LD958, the reform Mills vetoed earlier this year, was introduced by the Republican House Minority Leader, and passed by the majority Democratic legislature. Mills’s defense of the institution of Maine’s state government is something we may welcome when it comes under federal attack, but we can’t forget that it also limits what she is willing to support when it comes to changes, and that it leads her to support ugly, racist policies.

Since coming to office Mills has used her veto power against a wide variety of issues, covering everything from tenant protections, to the rights of farmworkers, to the rights of public sector workers (who she has been no friend to when it comes to wage negotiation). Glaringly, she vetoed a proposal to close down the infamously racist Long Creek facility, the state’s youth prison. This past session in addition to blocking the anti-ICE legislation mentioned previously, Mills also pushed back on expanding ranked choice voting to state offices (Maine only uses RCV for federal offices due to an obscure constitutional wording—again the law). One of the major wins of Mills’s time in office—paid family and medical leave—only happened with the threat of a ballot question hanging over it. Currently, as her senate campaign gets off the ground, she is doubling down on the state’s existing “yellow flag law,” a compromise that failed to prevent the 2023 mass shooting. Following that shooting, while even conservative Democratic Congressman Jared Golden was flipping on gun rights, Mills was vetoing a bump stock ban.

Her approach to the budgetary process has been similarly frustrating. While Republicans may try to frame her as such, Mills is certainly no tax and spend liberal and under her time in office, the state has taken an extremely fiscally cautious approach. During the boom years following the COVID-19 pandemic, as federal funds flowed to the states, rather than using the flush of cash the state had to improve things for residents, Mills instead opted to save, running up huge surpluses in the state’s budgets. In fact these surpluses were so significant (and continue to be so) that the state’s rainy day fund—an account where any excesses in state funds go—earlier this year reached its legal maximum. While the state’s accounts are filling up, under the guise of responsibility Mills has pushed for cuts to public services, and generally resisted funds for new programs. She has also been an opponent of new taxation, even vetoing a proposed bipartisan tax hike on the wealthy put forward by a Republican.

It should also be understood that while Mills has nothing but contempt for the LePages or the Trumps of the world, she doesn’t have the pure hatred of the GOP that the moment calls for. Coming from a Republican family, she endorsed her brother when he ran for governor in 2006. While this is somewhat understandable, more recently, and far more damningly, when asked about her soon to be opponent just a few months ago, Mills told reporters “I appreciate everything [Collins] is doing,” something the Collins camp is already taking advantage of in its ads.

It is obvious that our system is broken. Most Americans do not think it is working. Our institutions have failed to prevent Donald Trump from attempting to rule the country as a monarch. If Democrats return to power in 2028, a return to normalcy will not vanquish Trumpism anymore than it did in 2020, and we need elected officials willing to enact greater change if we hope to see it defeated. We need to be willing to overhaul our institutions if we want to protect our democracy. And that is not Janet Mills. She will speak out against authoritarianism—a brave and laudable thing to do—but will do little to go on the attack. As a trans woman living in Maine, I am incredibly thankful that Mills did not buckle when Trump threatened the state. Because of her actions (Maine did beat Trump in court) my community continues to be protected to an extent from a federal government that hopes to attack our existence. But with our country in crisis, her particular brand of politics is not suited for the moment. Electing Janet Mills in the hopes of getting the anti-Trump crusader, is likely to get you Janet Mills, the moderate lawyer. Having those sorts of senators is what got us into this mess in the first place.

The post Maine Voters Don’t Want Janet Mills for Senate. There’s a Reason for that. appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Trans workers face discrimination and bigotry on the job, but unions can provide the protection, benefits, and solidarity missing in non-union jobs.

The post Trans workers belong in unions appeared first on EWOC.

By: Jake S

Resident Advisors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute live in the student dormitories and offer services and resources to the students that live in their buildings to keep them safe and offer them help when they need it. RAs voted to form a union and affiliate with the United Auto Workers – the same union that represents graduate student workers at WPI – roughly two years ago, and have been in first contract negotiations with the university for the last year as WPI-RAU-UAW.

On October 31, they launched a strike demanding that WPI respond to their workplace needs and agree to a decent contract. 

Working Mass met with Zoey and Christian, two WPI-RAU members on the union’s bargaining committee, to learn more about their roles, their union, and what they need from WPI to do their jobs that WPI is refusing to give them.

WM: What makes these jobs important?

Zoey: At its core, this job is about people. It’s about being there for our residents in a number of ways and showing up to support them however we can.

WM: What kind of things do your residents come to you with?

Zoey: There’s a lot of things. Sometimes, they’ll talk to us if they’re really struggling with academics and they’re worried that they’re gonna fail their classes because they haven’t had enough sleep. Sometimes, they’ll come to us with mental health challenges or, you know, trouble with socializing on campus if they haven’t been able to make many connections or friends. We can direct them towards opportunities and resources and help with those things. In some cases, they come to us because it’s the middle of the night, and there’s an emergency that needs to be urgently dealt with, and they know that we’ll know how to handle it – someone’s suffering from alcohol poisoning, for example. We provide a peer that our residents can go to when they’re unsafe, or if they need access to help. We’re there in the dorms with them and they know that we’re a safe person they can go to.

Christian: The important piece is being there in the halls with the residents living alongside them throughout the academic year, because you have a chance to get to know them and build up trust and that sense that if something goes wrong – if they need to come to you for something urgent – you will be there to them and they feel comfortable coming to you for something that might be more serious.

WM: Why did you and your coworkers decide to form a union?

Christian: We formed the union about two years ago because a large percentage of the staff was really upset with constant and repeated changes to job expectations and responsibilities. There were several meetings over several months where management drastically changed what we were supposed to be doing and we got very – I believe rightly – upset with management over those repeated changes. The contract that we had originally signed did not align with the duties that we were now expected to perform. So, we formed our union in response to these actions taken by management.

We’ve been undergoing contract negotiations for nearly two years since.

WM: How has the University responded to that decision to organize?

Christian: We were moving towards our union election, and they just kind of didn’t.

WM: Sounds like they tried to ignore you!

Christian: There wasn’t very much of a response right after we had our election and our union was certified, either. We began our bargaining in late summer 2024. Not long into that process, there was an introduction of a pretty drastic restructuring of our positions that would fracture it into multiple different positions with totally different responsibilities. This particular piece has been a major part of what we’ve been fighting against for the past year, and is a major piece of why we’re on strike.

WM: Tell us more about your core demands.

Zoey: Like Christian said, the biggest thing is that we do not want this restructuring. They proposed it about a year ago, and they have made almost no changes to it, or movement on it, since they initially proposed it. And we have been steadfastly opposed to it the whole time because the positions are not well thought-out, they are not fully developed and ready to be put into practice. It’s barely a prototype that’s not ready for real-world use.

WM: You just had a bargaining session this past Monday in which they have not moved on that position around restructuring of the unit. Do you want to talk more about how it went today? 

Christian: Absolutely. Our bargaining committee has worked tirelessly to put together a full written contract proposal that has had significant and meaningful movement on our positions. We believe that the contract that we put together and presented to them today would benefit our whole community. The most important piece to us, of course, is those three roles WPI wants to recategorize us into. The solution we proposed to resolve that was to put their half-baked roles on pause and, for the duration of this contract, keep the positions as they are. But we proposed to form a committee that would do it the right way, modifying their proposed positions or developing something new with feedback from res advisors, residents, and housing staff to put together something that makes sense for all WPI residents. This was totally rejected by management, and they maintain their commitment to the positions that they’ve proposed, and still have not been moving on them whatsoever.

They claim that our proposal with this committee doesn’t meet anywhere in the middle. We disagree.

We have been steadfastly opposed to it the whole time because the positions are not well thought-out, they are not fully developed and ready to be put into practice.

WM: What do you think is motivating the restructuring of this unit?

Zoey: We’ve heard a lot of things over the months. One thing they said is that they’re not doing it for monetary reasons. They believe that the RA role as it is isn’t good enough, and they want to “modernize” it. Maybe their idea is meant to be some sort of new flashy thing that they want to advertise. It seems like it might just be sort of the pet project of the Dean of Students.

During bargaining, the Dean of Students talked with us a bit about why she’s sticking to this vision, and it was something that we’ve heard from her a bit before. Basically, it’s that four years ago or so WPI had a pretty serious mental health crisis. There were seven suicides in a period of six months. This was during the COVID pandemic, a very tumultuous time in the world, and in that span of time somebody at WPI talked to some RAs and heard that RAs were struggling to do everything that they were doing. They were expected to do too much. And this is apparently what they think the solution to that looks like. Meanwhile, we have our RAs and our whole community speaking out to tell them that this is not the path forward. 

WM: It’s interesting that, under crisis, WPI is moving to eliminate the RA role rather than to address the needs of their RAs with more support – hiring more of you, for example. A friend of mine used to serve as an RA at WPI, and it seemed like he was on call basically all the time for his floor. It was a very stressful, demanding job that didn’t give a whole lot back to him. Do you believe them when they say at the bargaining table that this has nothing to do with money?

Christian: It’s hard to know for sure exactly what they’re thinking, but of course there’s a monetary aspect to this. I mean, WPI has a lot of money… the endowment alone is massive and always growing. WPI just bought two new hotels to turn into new student housing, and we have tons of grants that continue to flow in to support different programs. I really can’t imagine why they would want to do a restructuring of our roles that they know could harm residents unless it would be for financial gain.

WPI just bought two new hotels to turn into new student housing, and we have tons of grants that continue to flow in to support different programs. I really can’t imagine why they would want to do a restructuring of our roles that they know could harm residents unless it would be for financial gain.

They claim it’s not, they claim it’s for these other reasons, but they haven’t made any movement based on the feedback anyone has given them on the basis of their supposed reasoning. That’s what we saw at the bargaining table again today. So, it makes it really hard to believe that there isn’t a financial incentive, or at least some ulterior goal from the upper administration that they’re trying to accomplish.

WM: Do you think it also has something to do with employer control in the workplace?

Zoey: Absolutely, I would say it does. In their insistence on sticking to these roles, really what they’ve been saying is that they believe it is their right to unilaterally decide what the job descriptions are, and they universally have the right to create any additional roles or additional job descriptions without talking to us about it beforehand.

As WPI’s previous president left the position, she took home a compensation package of just over $2 million. Converted to an hourly wage for a 40-hour work week, that’s nearly $1,000 an hour. Res advisors are not currently paid a wage or stipend. Many of its next top earners are administrators being paid base salaries deep into the six figures. The school’s endowment sits at nearly $650 million; its total assets held, roughly $1.3 billion.

In February of this year, WPI was recognized as an R1 research university, distinguishing it as an institution that produces a high number of doctorates and has significant resources at its disposal for funding academic research. Room and board costs for first-year students (who are required by the school to live in the dorms) have ballooned to more than $16,000 for a single academic year. And over the last ten years, undergraduate tuition has climbed steadily from roughly $45,000 to just over $60,000, representing an increase of over 30% – more than double the average rate of undergraduate tuition increase across Massachusetts.

Jake S is a Worcester DSA member and a former member of United Auto Workers (UAW).

The post WPI Resident Advisors On Strike Against Destructive Restructuring and Unionbusting appeared first on Working Mass.

This opinion piece is part of an ongoing debate in Maine DSA about candidates in 2026. Pine and Roses welcomes contributions. 

“[O]ur notion, from the very beginning, was that ‘the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself[.]’” — Friedrich Engels, 1888 Preface to the Communist Manifesto

Troy Jackson is a man that needs very little introduction within the labor movement in Maine. Troy has spent nearly half of his life in public service, having been first elected to the Maine State House of Representatives in 2002, and the State Senate in 2008, where he eventually became Senate President in 2018. During his entire time in public office, Troy has earned a reputation as a stalwart ally to Maine’s working class. 

When I first heard about Troy, I was quite dismissive. I quietly entered the labor movement with a lengthy article on the need for an independent working class party, so when I heard some of my comrades gushing about Troy as the latest reform candidate running on the ticket of a bourgeois party, I assumed that they were describing a certain kind of political candidate and electoral strategy which I had already thoroughly criticized. My position changed, however, when I had the opportunity of hearing Troy speak at the Maine AFL-CIO’s summer institute, and I saw that Troy was actually something completely different from what his supporters had described to me.

What makes Troy Jackson’s gubernatorial campaign qualitatively different from those of other reform candidates is this: unlike other mainstream reform candidates like Zohran Mamdani, Bernie Sanders, and Graham Platner, all of whom demand systemic reforms which would benefit the working class while leaving intact the system that dominates the working class, Troy’s campaign is actually demanding worker control over the levers of political power, albeit still within the bounds of the existing political system. In doing so, Troy has actually fused the economic side of the struggle for working class emancipation with its political counterpart, as opposed to “lending the economic struggle a political character” (Cosmonaut Magazine). In this regard, Troy stands leagues above every mainstream reform candidate in my opinion, even above Sanders, who Troy names as one of his personal influences. It is for this reason that I think Troy is worthy of endorsement by all self-described socialist and/or communist organizations.

Now Troy is very much not a Marxist, nor any other kind of socialist or communist, nor does Troy pretend to be any of these things. He therefore does not articulate his demand for working class political power in the same terms that my comrades and I would use. It is apparent in his speeches that Troy is driven by lived experience and intuition rather than a scientific critique of the status quo. Any excerpt I present from Troy’s speeches could therefore never make my entire argument for me, as they demand to be viewed in their full context. Nevertheless, I find the following excerpts from his speech at Bernie Sanders’ Labor Day rally in Portland to be highly illustrative, as they punctuate the end of a speech where Troy talks about the lessons he learned as a fifth-generation logger about the importance of the working class taking collective action to advance its own interests:

“I’m running because it’s time to put power back in the hands of people[…] We know that the only way to build our future, the future we want, is if we build it ourselves! That’s why this campaign isn’t just about sending me to the Blaine House, it’s about sending each and every one of you coming along with me, to restore our dignity, and fix what’s been broken for too damn long![…] It’s about time for real folks to take the wheel! Hell, we built the wheel!”

There are many socialists, however, who will acknowledge that while there is clearly a lot to like about Troy, the fact that he is not running on the ticket of an independent working class party disqualifies him from some, if not all, forms of support. While this is very close to my own general position towards socialist electoral participation, and I agree on the concrete need to establish an independent working class party which fields its own candidates in elections, the path to get there must be developed according to the time and place in which we find ourselves. Supporting a position with a strong argument is not enough to bring about change in the world—oh what a different place the world would be if that were the case!

Those who argue a priori for an independent working class party, while correct about the concrete necessity of such a party, forget that such a party has no social basis so long as the working class has not realized the impossibility of consistently advancing its interests in parties consisting of both bosses and workers, such as the Democratic Party (Cosmonaut Magazine). 

Here in Maine, the most advanced section of the working class, represented by Troy and the labor unions, are currently tied very closely to the Democratic Party. I know this quite well because I have conversed with numerous Democratic Party activists at the Maine AFL-CIO events which I have attended. The same phenomenon becomes apparent at the national level when looking at national political fundraising data available on OpenSecrets. It’s an arrangement which, owing to favorable conditions, has worked well for the Maine AFL-CIO, as it has successfully gotten numerous union members elected to seats in the state legislature on the Democratic Party ticket.

The organized and disorganized sections of the working class cannot be won over with argument alone, but must arrive at our conclusion themselves. Socialists need to aid this development by engaging in struggle and agitation alongside the workers and their representatives in the unions. To argue otherwise is to essentially insist that the working class must come to us socialists for our support. Those who commit this error forget these salient words from the Communist Manifesto:

“In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” — Communist Manifesto section 2

This is where Troy and his campaign once again enter the picture, as his campaign has already become a scene for class struggle in the political arena.

Though it is not always the deciding factor in elections, the candidate whose campaign succeeds in raising the most money generally stands a very good chance at winning their election. And since the capitalist class has the most money, the fundraising data disclosed by political candidates serves as an indicator of which candidates are preferred by the capitalist class (Cosmonaut Magazine).

At the time of writing, the available fundraising data for the most prominent candidates in the gubernatorial race is as follows: 1) Hannah Pingree (Dem.): $542,000; 2) Shenna Bellows (Dem.): $529,000; 3) Angus King III (Dem.): $434,000; 4) Troy Jackson (Dem.): $400,000; 5) Robert Charles (Rep.): $257,000; 6) Richard Bennett (Ind.): $202,000 (Maine Ethics Commission).

Were it not for small donations raised through his connections to Maine’s working class institutions, Troy would not even be on this list. It is quite telling that despite having spent the most time in office and having the most endorsements of anyone currently running on the Democratic ticket, Troy is currently being out-fundraised by someone as formidably unimpressive as Angus King III—son of former Maine Governor and sitting US Senator Angus King. The fact that Troy ranks fourth in fundraising despite being the strongest candidate clearly indicates that the capitalist class will only tolerate working people in government so long as they remain subordinate to a non-working class executive, mirroring the condition of working people in the economy more generally. Troy’s considerable resumé is irrelevant to the capitalist class. They don’t care that Troy has been a faithful Democrat for over 20 years. They don’t care that Troy is probably the candidate who is most representative of the average Mainer. They would rather have a vegetable like Angus King III in the Blaine House—leave it to the guy with the surname King to campaign on nothing other than birthright!

What excites me about Troy’s campaign is precisely what Maine’s capitalist class disdains most about Troy’s campaign: Troy Represents the conscious self-activity of the working class advancing its own interests in the political arena. I do not expect miracles from Troy if he is elected. For me, Troy has already performed his most important miracle by making his campaign a demand for direct working class political power. I know Troy isn’t the socialist movement’s ideal candidate, but he doesn’t need to be in this case. If Troy becomes Governor, Maine’s working class gets the opportunity to witness the limitations of advancing its own interests within a bourgeois government; that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for [their] own purposes” (The Civil War in France). If Troy loses in the party primaries, then it will demonstrate to Maine’s working class the problems of trying to advance working class interests in a party consisting of workers and owners—something already hinted at by the fundraising data shown above. Hence my frequent refrain when comrades ask me what I think of Troy: Maine’s working class takes a step forward whether he wins or loses. And as Marx would say: “[e]very step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs” (Letter to Bracke).

The post The Case for Troy Jackson appeared first on Pine & Roses.