By: Micah J.

Reflecting on the 2025 DSA National Convention, I feel profound joy, excitement, angst, and trepidation. The theme of this convention was “Party Building,” and the debates and resolutions were primarily focused on preparing ourselves and our organization — our Party, if I may be so bold to say at this point — for the next decade. When reflecting on this convention, I am likewise reflecting on the past decade of the DSA (the birth and maturing of what many call the “new” DSA) and on my own life. Writing this in August 2025, I am 27 years old, turning 28 this coming January. I reached adulthood concurrently with the DSA renaissance; my political awakening was the 2016 election, in which I voted for the first time, casting my vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary, and then refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the General Election.

I am seized with the joy, hope, and confidence in a better world, in a way typical of revolutionary socialists. I am likewise quick to sink into melancholy, despair, and bitterness at the state of the world, also in a way typical of revolutionary socialists. Therefore, as I reflect on this convention, I am simultaneously filled with pride in our organization, certainty in the righteousness of our cause, and assuredness in our inevitable victory, as well as with fear of our coming struggles, of the enemies we must overcome, and the possibility that — though the working class will someday triumph — we, as in the DSA, may lose. This is a possibility that all of us must honestly reckon with, and was the fate of nearly every liberatory organization (socialist, communist, progressive, or what have you) in history. This is not to say that we should approach our struggle fatalistically, with our eyes on our own destruction, as if it were a foregone inevitability, or even a purifying self-sacrifice (a la Jesus, Johnny Silverhand, or Macbeth — pick your favorite reference). It is however something that is occupying my thoughts. The ramifications of this past convention, particularly with the resolutions that were passed, mean an inevitable heightening of contradictions, both within our organization, as well as with how our organization relates to our society as a whole. We are far stronger after this convention than we were before it, and that is the point I will try to make in this piece. But as we become stronger, so do the challenges and enemies that we will have to face.

Before I plunge forward, I must make clear my own affiliations, as I was not a neutral party at this convention. I am a member of the Marxist Unity Group (MUG), and am a fervent partisan for Orthodox Marxism. I recognize and understand the central role of the mass socialist party in the revolutionary struggle. I dream of a socialist democratic republic, first in North America and then throughout the entire world, in which the working class will have taken its rightful seat as the ruling class. And I believe that the working class, by winning the battle for democracy and becoming the ruling class, will lead humanity towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society, in which the means of production are held in common and used for the benefit of all, towards a society in which human history will truly begin: communism.

The Anti-Zionist Resolution: Reification and Honesty

The first and most clear evidence of our organization’s maturation is the passing of Resolution 22, “For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA.” It is difficult to put into words the joy I felt seeing the adoption of this resolution. At long last, the Democratic Socialists of America has shed the last vestiges of labor Zionism that had so plagued it through much of the late 20th century. This is both its own qualitative, self-conscious step forward, as well as a natural, necessary advancement that was, frankly, a long time coming. I do not mean to imply that anti-Zionism is not already the hegemonic position within DSA, nor do I doubt the commitment of comrades who voted against this resolution towards Palestinian liberation (1). Rather, I liken this resolution to a person soberly reflecting on their past, realizing how far they have come, and that they are not the same person that they were only a handful of years previously. Having realized this, they then create a new path forward for themselves.

As I already stated, the underlying principles of this resolution are hardly controversial. Rare is the DSA member who in 2025 would say that they support Israel’s right to defend itself, or who are under the delusion of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, or who does not believe that the cause of Palestinian liberation is currently the nexus of the global anti-imperial struggle. Such views, though they may have been more common five years ago, or ten years ago, or certainly 20 years ago, are now rejected automatically by the newest member walking into their first meeting. What was missing was taking these principles and turning them towards programmatic ends. What does it mean for DSA to be an anti-Zionist organization? Is it enough for its members to merely chant “Free Free Palestine!”? This resolution seeks to answer that question, ensuring that DSA is firmly anti-Zionist, not just in inclination or rhetoric, but in actual practice.

Much of the content of this resolution is dedicated towards laying out groups that we must ally with, and campaigns we must join in, and the principles for future alliances, campaigns, and coalitions. These are all, to a group, chosen for their committed anti-imperialist actions and stances. The fact that these principles have been set forth, and that these groups (such as Stop Fueling Genocide, the Palestinian Youth Movement, the Palestine Solidarity Working Group’s No Appetite for Apartheid campaign, etc.) have been chosen by us to ally with, are natural consequences of the principles that all of us in DSA (and certainly all of us in Metro Detroit) hold proudly.

In light of our shared principles, we have through this resolution finally set down on paper something that we all understand and already believe: that there is absolutely no room for Zionism within DSA. Just as we will have no truck with those who say that trans liberation is a distraction from workers’ rights (as if trans rights are not workers’ rights), we will likewise not tolerate Zionism, either in behavior or in rhetoric. This resolution therefore stipulates that any member who can be shown to “have consistently and publicly opposed BDS and the Palestinian cause,” shown to be “currently affiliated with the Israeli government or any Zionist lobby,” or shown to “have knowingly provided material aid to Israel” is “thereby committing an expellable offense.” I am proud to be a member of an organization that takes such a firm, righteous stance — a stance that is a natural application of the principles of the vast majority of the national membership, and of every person within the Metro Detroit chapter.

(1) Almost every single person who thinks this way has already quit the organization, especially since the beginning of the Israeli offensive two years ago, when DSA held strong to its professed anti-Zionist stance.

Building the Party, and the Terms of our Struggle

One could say, quite honestly and accurately, that every resolution, every amendment, and every debate slot contained within it implications for what this coming “decade of party building” would be. The full scope of all of this will be elaborated in the countless reports and reflections that are even now being written. I want to home in on one particular resolution, which was, in fact, the last resolution that was debated and voted on in the entire convention — just barely squeaking in after a great deal of procedural obstruction throughout the weekend had caused massive delays in the agenda. This was the succinctly named “Principles of Party Building.” The purpose of this resolution was to go beyond implications and inferences for what the formal structure-building principles of our party may be, and states in clear, no-uncertain terms what it means for us, for DSA, to be a party in a qualified sense.

The resolution acknowledges that DSA does de facto already operate as a party, from a certain point of view. We already have a culture of political independence, we already run candidates under a DSA platform (though the explicit party line displayed on ballots still eludes us), and we are already talked about by the bourgeois press as being our own thing, distinct from all other political formations, the Democratic Party in particular. This last point especially is something that deserves its own careful appreciation. We are long past the days in which DSA and Democratic Socialists are considered a “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party, or even a fringe of the Democratic Party. Observers watching from the outside, even as the convention was ongoing, spoke of us as the center of a new type of movement. Now, to be sure, a curious liberal watching from the sidelines will have neither the understanding nor the vocabulary to describe our movement, but they can still see and feel that something is different about us.

Thus enters the “Principles of Party Building” resolution, and we have before our eyes the language that liberals lack, which we may use to describe ourselves, our Party, and our movement. In Point 1, we have the motivation for a revolutionary party program, the purpose of which would be to orient our party towards the goal of the democratic socialist republic, in which the working class holds political hegemony, acting, for the first time in American history, as the ruling class. Points 2–4 state the principles for our internal structure. We are to be a maximally democratic organization, in which decisions are made from the bottom up at general meetings, chapter conventions, and national conventions. Members shall be free to associate and group together in factions with distinct political lines, and thereby contribute constructively to the direction of our party. A diversity of views will be protected, as long as the promoters of that line are acting honestly and openly, without contradicting fundamental socialist principles, and with the understanding that after an honest debate and a vote is taken, all participants in that debate and vote will accept the results as legitimate and valid, and will be eager to carry out the decisions of the body. We most directly see this in Point 2, where we read, “Members must be able to critique the party’s program and organize to change it, as long as they are willing to accept fighting for it as the democratically-determined expression of DSA’s goals.” This is the essence of democratic centralism.

Points 5–8 state the premise and means for our operation within the current bourgeois state. We acknowledge the unfortunate reality that when running a candidate for office, we by sheer necessity will in nearly every instance be forced to run the candidate on the Democratic ballot. This is purely a tactical question, and must not be mistaken for any idea of reforming or realigning the Democratic Party. We thus are doubly compelled to build our own robust internal infrastructure and hold steadfast to our principles in order to avoid getting swallowed up in the whirlpool of the Democratic kraken. Our tactic is “party surrogate,” but always with the commitment to our own internal democracy, and with the long-term view of total opposition to the Democratic Party, the capitalist state, and all other bourgeois institutions. Properly stated, then, our formula must be “party surrogate in form, clean break in content.”

And finally, Points 9 and 10 state that though our current front of struggle is within the confines of the United States, our true fight is global, international. We are tasked to, even now, today, begin making connections and finding points of unity with comrades across the globe. We in the United States must make double — triple — sure of this, as we shoulder the burden of working within the core of the global imperialist machine. Just as the American state projects its influence throughout the globe, we must in turn form relationships and alliances with genuine socialist projects throughout the world. At convention, we heard from comrades from other nations, and in particular we received video messages from Cuba and from Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. I wept listening to the message of solidarity from our comrades to the south, in the only socialist republic in the western hemisphere, that is so cruelly kept under the boot of American imperialism. Our efforts in building solidarity with comrades in other nations must necessarily lead to the formation of a new International, through which we may struggle on every front in the global fight against capitalism. I dream of the foundation of this new International, and hope that this International will be the one that finally unites the human race.

Until the Final Conflict

And now the responsibility is ours, Motor City comrades, to take this convention, with its decisions and consequences, and march on. I will not lie to you all and withhold the fact that part of my jubilance in writing this article about this convention is because I was on the winning side of nearly all of the most consequential decisions. It is not because of any special insight or personal brilliance that I and my comrades in MUG achieved nearly all of our goals for this convention. It is rather because principled, unapologetic, proud Orthodox Marxism is the correct line. It was correct in 1871, correct in 1917, and it is correct today in 2025. Our organization, our Party, is maturing, and is therefore finding it necessary to ground itself in the proud tradition of historical Marxism. There is no shortcut on the road to power, no weird trick through which we can avoid the historical necessity of an independent mass socialist party. It is this line that I am convinced of, and because of it, I have absolute faith in DSA, and in the international working class.

This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Detroit Socialist or Metro Detroit DSA as a whole.

Fear and Resolve: My Faith is in DSA was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Seattle Democratic Socialists of America demands the immediate release of Zahid Chaudhry, a 52-year-old decorated and disabled veteran, who was detained today by ICE during a citizenship interview in Tukwila, WA. SDSA had the privilege of getting to know Zahid and his wife, Melissa, during her campaign against U.S. Representative Adam Smith in 2024. Neither Zahid nor Melissa have been informed of the legal basis for Zahid’s detention.

We must continue to stand against the unlawful detention of our community members. Seattle DSA will always stand in solidarity with all those who have fallen victim to our ever-expanding police state. While Zahid was someone our members knew personally, we know this ongoing battle is being waged with the expectation that those with privilege will not defend strangers who are not like them. In our fight against fascist violence, our mission is to deny the Trump administration that possibility. We believe that remaining unified behind those from different backgrounds and experiences is a crucial aspect of solidarity, and we take any attack on those in our communities as an attack on all of us.

Seattle DSA strongly condemns the use of immigration detention as an ongoing tool of political repression. We encourage our members, and the community of Seattle and King County, to get involved in resisting the continued kidnapping, targeting, and detention of immigrants, regardless of criminal background. When violence facing our communities comes from our own government, it is our collective responsibility to protect each other, care for one another, and keep ourselves safe.

Our Immigrant Justice Working Group will be holding a Migrant Accompaniment Training on Sunday, August 24th, and our Palestine Solidarity Working Group will be co-hosting a picnic with Seattle Families for Palestine at Columbia Park that same day. Finally, on Sunday in Tacoma at 2pm SDSA will be joining a coalition of organizations for an Emergency Protest at the NW Detention Facility. Please be sure to check our event calendar for more details. 

ICE OUT OF KING COUNTY!

The post Statement Regarding Arrest of Zahid Chaudhry appeared first on Seattle Democratic Socialists of America.

We had an absolutely fantastic time with our comrades at the 2025 DSA National Convention! Many of our Steering Committee members were serving as delegates for their chapters so we were able to catch up in person – some of us meeting IRL for the first time!

And of course – we have news to share with you regarding the direction of DSA’s national electoral work as determined by Convention as well as updates from our Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!

For the NEC, Convention kicked off with us hosting an electoral-themed social on Thursday night, where participants were invited to make buttons of their favorite nationally-endorsed DSA candidates and partook in a get-to-know-you BINGO as they mingled with our candidates and electeds. The activity prompted people to meet comrades from chapters running campaigns with national endorsement, socialize with people who serve on their chapter’s electoral working groups, and connect with comrades from a variety of chapter sizes. Participants received an NEC bucket hat!

Electoral Workshop Results

On Friday, we hosted an electoral workshop to an overflowing room of participants!

At the NEC workshop, we had attendees complete an Electoral Program Report Card where they graded their chapter’s programs according to a variety of pillars of our electoral work (endorsements, leadership development, SIO work, etc.). We got 96 responses, which provided the NEC with an unprecedented look into our chapters’ electoral programs across the country. 

The Steering Committee is pouring over the responses and will share a summary of our findings once we complete it.

Missed the workshop and want to grade your own electoral program? Check out our slides and then fill out your report card.

We also had great conversations at our table – leading to 38 applications being submitted by DSA members wishing to join the NEC. 

Electoral-Related Resolutions & Amendments Passed at Convention

This convention was a pivotal one for the future of our electoral work! Check out the following resolutions which will change the course of our electoral strategy both locally and nationally.

• NEC Consensus Resolution: This resolution sets a new course for our national and local electoral work, including running candidates on independent ballot lines, updating our national endorsement criteria, creating a national socialists in office network, and issuing best endorsement practices recommendations for locals.
• Towards Deliberative Federal Endorsements: This amendment to the consensus resolution updates our federal endorsement criteria, requiring Q&As with federal candidates and more deliberation prior to endorsement.
• Carnation Program Amendment to NEC Resolution: This amendment to the consensus resolution sets a goal of running 5 candidates for Congress in 2028 running on a platform of 5 priority issues, including ending U.S. militarism, Medicare for All, and more.
• Invest in Cadre Candidates and Political Independence: This amendment to the consensus resolution commits to prioritizing running more cadre candidates at the local level, expanding the NEC’s fundraising efforts, and increasing staff capacity to support NEC.

Next Steps

We’re very excited to begin implementing these mandates from convention, including our very own NEC Consensus Resolution. If you want to help out with this important work, please join the next all-member NEC call, or if you’re not a member apply to join the NEC!

Nationally-Endorsed Slate Fundraising at Convention

National Convention was the perfect opportunity to do some fundraising for our slate of candidates! Through the QR code at the table and promotion from Chanpreet during convention, we were able to get 104 donations during convention – 54 of which were first-time donors!

Since the start of convention, we have raised an additional $6,029.94 for our slate candidates (currently Denzel McCampbell, Jake Ephros, Joel Brooks, Kelsea Bond, and Willie Burnley Jr.) on top of the $61,659.32 we had already raised so far this year!

Thank you to everyone who attended the National Electoral Commission’s events! We hope to see you at our upcoming all-member meeting so we can get to work on implementing the mandates from convention.

Shout-out to Cleveland DSA and Snohomish County DSA for allowing us to borrow your button makers. And thank you to Nick W for your button production run prior to convention!

– Your National Electoral Commission Steering Committee

On August 23rd, Bernie Sanders will be hosting a “town hall” event with Rebecca Cooke, candidate in the 2026 Democratic Party 3rd Congressional District election, near Viroqua. This follows his June 19th endorsement of her. We, the Executive Committee of the Coulee Region chapter (CDSA) of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), denounce this endorsement and campaign event and urge Senator Sanders to withdraw this endorsement.

Senator Sanders has been a principled socialist for his entire life, and has been a leader and inspiration for millions of progressives and socialists for decades. This made his endorsement of Rebecca Cooke extremely shocking. Rebecca Cooke is no socialist, or even a progressive. She refuses to endorse Medicare For All. In 2024, she was “grateful” to be endorsed by the genocide-apologist organization Democratic Majority For Israel.¹ In June of this year, she was a featured speaker at “WelcomeFest”, a convention of the anti-progressive wing of the Democratic Party, sharing the billing with genocide-apologists and neoliberals.² In the struggle between progressives and reactionaries within the opposition to the current fascist regime, she has declared on which side she places herself- it’s not with us, and it shouldn’t be with Bernie Sanders.

There are two other candidates in this primary, namely Laura Benjamin and Emily Berge, who would make far more sense for Senator Sanders to endorse. Both have endorsed Medicare For All. Both have better stances on Palestine. Laura Benjamin is a member of DSA, is committed to socialist principles, and is a fiery public speaker. Emily Berge is firmly in the La Follette Progressive tradition and has years of experience in local elected office.

For these reasons, in the spirit of socialist comradeship, the Coulee Region chapter of Democratic Socialists Of America urges Bernie Sanders to withdraw his endorsement of Rebecca Cooke.

COULEE DSA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & CHIPPEWA VALLEY DSA OC, AUGUST 19^th, 2025

Coulee Democratic Socialists Of America can be found at https://coulee.dsawi.org/, on Facebook, on Instagram, and by emailing couleedsa@gmail.com. Chippewa Valley DSA can be reached at chippewavalleydsa@gmail.com

1“DMFI PAC announces new endorsements in Arizona, New York, & Wisconsin” https://dmfipac.org/news-updates/press-release/dmfi-pac-announces-new-endorsements-in-arizona-new-york-wisconsin/

2“I Just Got Back From the Centrist Rally. It Was Weird as Hell.” https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/welcomefest-dispatch-centrism-abundance/

The post Bernie Sanders Endorsement of Rebecca Cooke A Betrayal of Socialist Movement first appeared on Coulee DSA.

Ten years ago, the Illinois General Assembly passed a ridiculous law signaling unconditional political support for Israel. Now we have an opportunity to repeal it.

Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican and private equity investor who held the position from 2015 to 2019, was a political failure on his own terms. Once he got into office, he made it clear to the Democrat-controlled legislature that he would not sign any budget unless it was passed alongside the regressive “reforms” that constituted his Turnaround Agenda for Illinois. The legislature did not budge and as a result Illinois went more than two years without a budget. Rauner tried to take everyone in the state hostage, and he did a lot of harm trying to make the Illinois regulatory environment more like Republican-dominated Wisconsin. Today, he is remembered as a bush-league do-nothing who couldn’t get his agenda through Springfield.

But there was one thing that Rauner and the Democratic majority did agree on: that people should face consequences if they have the wrong opinion about Israel. In 2015, the General Assembly unanimously passed legislation that prevented the state from investing public pension funds in any company that participated in the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is a non-violent campaign to economically pressure Israel into adopting policies that would respect the rights and dignity of Palestinians. It functions similar to the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa in the late 20th century, encouraging consumers to spend their money ethically and pressuring businesses to divest from a country that systematically violates human rights.

Rauner drinks chocolate milk to celebrate the concept of diversity during Black History Month, February 2018.

In opposition to BDS, pro-Israel lobbying groups have convinced a super majority of state legislatures across the country to pass laws that impose a variety of legal consequences on individuals and organizations that participate in the boycott against Israel. The version that Rauner signed, which was among the first of its kind, created the Illinois Investment Policy Board. The law gave the board the authority to withdraw Illinois pension funds from any company that participates in a campaign to “penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel”. Essentially, any company that refuses to do business with Israeli companies or the Israeli government can lose investment from the state’s pension board, regardless of why or how they are choosing to sever their relationship.

There has never been a better time to get rid of this law. It does absolutely nothing to benefit Illinoisans, and it punishes constitutionally protected opposition to blatantly illegal actions taken by Israel. The law does nothing to fight anti-Semitism; in fact, it makes it worse. The law seeks to make support of Israel non-negotiable, and that position is firmly out of line with the wishes of a majority of Democratic voters across the country. As efforts to finally repeal the law escalate,  people of conscience have an opportunity to bring state law into line with the will of Illinois voters.

What the law does, and why it’s extremist.

For the uninitiated, most state and municipal employees in America are enrolled in a defined benefit pension retirement plan. These pensions pay out a set amount determined by a formula to retired public workers each month over the course of their lives, effectively acting as a 401(k) with a guaranteed payout. To ensure these benefits are funded, employees and the state government contribute money to a pool that is invested in the private sector. The returns on these investments are used to help pay for pension obligations. This model benefits everyone: Springfield uses the stability of a pension to attract workers that might otherwise pursue for-profit careers, retirees have a guaranteed source of income after they stop working, and companies receive extra investment that can help them grow. It is also very common for governments to form oversight boards to manage their pension investments. This ensures that the funds are stewarding public resources well, and they prevent state money from being invested in firms that actively harm the public interest. In Illinois, Springfield has passed laws that prohibit investment in companies that “shelter migrant children” (i.e., participate in Donald Trump’s nightmarish mass deportation plans) and companies based in a few countries that have been sanctioned by the federal government.

They also prevent the fund from investing in companies that refuse to do business in Israel. This already makes Illinois’ anti-BDS law unique compared to the other similar laws in the state; there are no other countries that companies are punished for not investing in. The law is very clearly meant to disincentivize firms from considering a boycott by excluding them from receiving any of the money that state pension funds invest in the private sector.

The law does not differentiate between motives. If a company decides to stop doing business with Israel because its board is dominated by avowed anti-Semites, then it is ineligible to receive any pension investment funds from Illinois. But what if a firm’s leadership divests because they agree with Amnesty International’s conclusion that the country is practicing apartheid? Or because they believe that what the IDF is doing in Gaza constitutes genocide? Or because the Israeli government regularly treats minorities who live in Israel as second-class or non-citizens? Or because they are disturbed by the number of Americans killed by the Israeli military or Israeli militias? Or because they are horrified by the Israeli refusal to allow food, baby formula, and medical aid to enter Gaza, resulting in mass starvation? The Illinois General Assembly made no distinctions between these reasons when it passed the state’s anti-BDS law, so the Illinois Investment Policy Board is forced to consider these motivations equally worth divestment.

This is already extreme, but the truly ridiculous part is that the law also punishes companies for boycotting illegal Israeli occupations of foreign territories. Since the conclusion of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli government has encouraged its citizens to cross the border into Palestinian territory and establish ‘settlements’ there. These self-described ‘settlers’ retain their Israeli citizenship, can vote in Israeli elections, are protected by the Israeli military, and live their lives under Israeli law. Their Palestinian neighbors who live in these areas do not enjoy any of those rights. Many of them are denied self-representation and live under martial law imposed by a government they have no say in. Palestinian families in the area are regularly dispossessed and attacked by settlers. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the Israeli government is using settlement as part of a strategy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, giving Israel an excuse to indefinitely control the region without having to offer Palestinians any sort of rights or sovereignty. Just this month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich unveiled a new settlement plan that he claimed would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Illinois prohibits investment in any company that refuses to do business in these settlements, despite the fact that they are illegal under international law and that they exist to deny the two-state solution that most American politicians claim to support. 

Embarrassingly enough, the most well-known invocation of this anti-BDS law was used to punish a company for violating this portion of the statute. In 2021, the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s (whose founders are both Jewish) announced that it would no longer sell their products in the West Bank because of the illegality of the settlements. The company also clarified that they did not support BDS as an organization. Ben & Jerry’s products would continue to be sold in Israel proper, and the company’s founders identified themselves as supporters of the country. This decision prompted the Illinois Investment Policy Board to pull any pension funds that were invested with the brand’s parent company, Unilever. Effectively, an ice cream company decided not to do business outside of Israel while continuing to do business in Israel. As a result, the State of Illinois declared it would blacklist the company and all of the firms they were associated with.

This law grants symbolic and unconditional support to Israel, including implicit support for policies that many people in the state consider to be criminal and in opposition to U.S. interests. Even if you think it’s appropriate for Illinois to engage in these kinds of sweeping foreign policy commitments, this is the wrong one to make.

The law doesn’t fight anti-Semitism

One common argument in favor of anti-BDS laws is that they are a protection against bigotry or an environment that encourages it. Rauner’s initial statement after the state’s law was signed in 2015 proclaimed that Illinois was standing up against anti-Semitism by distancing the state from boycotts. Other organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have taken the stance that BDS itself isn’t inherently anti-Semitic, but that it creates an atmosphere where engaging in anti-Semitism is more acceptable.

There is nothing about this law that actively combats anti-Semitism. It does nothing to address the enormous 900% increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the country in the last ten years, and it does nothing to discourage hateful rhetoric. It is simply a way to punish businesses for taking a moral stance against genocide or for responding to consumer demands to do the same. These kinds of laws are also an attack on the right to free speech and free association guaranteed under the U.S. constitution, and their legality is dubious at best.

There’s no actual prohibition against supporting bigotry written into the law. It punishes companies that boycott Israel, but there are plenty of disgusting people in business who say and do anti-Semitic things that wouldn’t lose out on the opportunity for state investment. Right-wing businessman and extremist provocateur Elon Musk is a perfect example. 

Not a bit from The Producers, somehow.

Regardless of whether you think Elon Musk throwing up a Nazi salute in January 2025 was an intentional expression of anti-Jewish hatred, he has a long history of embracing the kind of vile rhetoric most people would instantly recognize as anti-Semitic. Musk has indicated that he believes Jewish Americans are part of an anti-white conspiracy to flood the country with “hordes of minorities”. Under his direction, Twitter/X changed its moderation rules to allow a surge in anti-Semitic posts that have caused advertisers to flee en masse. The AI chatbot that his company built for the website has called itself MechaHitler and often launches into unprovoked rants about people with Jewish-sounding last names. Musk has received so much backlash that he’s felt the need to do damage control by visiting Auschwitz and making a PR trip to Israel alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite Musk’s repeated anti-Semitic comments and behavior, he hasn’t ruled out doing business with Israel, so Springfield is technically allowed to invest pension funds in his companies. The purpose of this law cannot be fighting the spread of anti-Semitism if it allows for Illinois to engage in a financial partnership with someone like this. Its only logical purpose is to shield the Israeli government from criticism.

Finally, it’s worth considering whether this kind of law could actually increase anti-Semitism. The State of Illinois has (wrongfully) declared to the world that it views an entire ethno-religious group to be inseparable from another country halfway across the world. They have also declared that there is no acceptable way to criticize that country, even as it engages in a genocide that most people (rightfully) find morally reprehensible. The potential effects of this kind of rhetoric were neatly summed up by New York Times journalist Ezra Klein on his podcast a few months ago:

I am a Jewish person…it is very important that it is possible and understood to be possible that you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic…you just have to be able to be against what the Israeli state has become and not be anti-Semitic. I think it is an incredibly dangerous game that pro-Zionist people have played trying to conflate those things. Because if you tell people enough that to oppose Israel is to be anti-Semitic at some point they’re going to say “Well, I guess I’m anti-Semitic”.

If Klein is right about this, our state’s anti-BDS law could be creating social permission for more conspiracy-minded people to slip into open bigotry. Is that worth risking to preserve a law that doesn’t do anything to fight anti-Semitism?

The biggest obstacles to repeal are elected officials, not voters.

All of these criticisms were true ten years ago, but it mattered very little at the time because supporting Israel has been a bipartisan project in American politics for decades. The real reason that it is an opportune moment to repeal the law is that there has been a seismic shift in how the electorate views Israel. 

Since the Israeli government launched their brutal response to the October 7th attacks, we have seen poll after poll after poll after poll showing that Americans view Israel more negatively than ever before. This is true across party affiliation, but it is especially true among Democrats. Now that Joe Biden has not been in a position to excuse Israel’s behavior and Trump is using the issue to justify illegal, politically motivated deportations, a clear majority of Democratic voters has come to sympathize more with the Palestinian cause than with the Israeli state.

There is an enormous gap between how party elites and voters think about this issue, and most Democratic politicians have yet to catch up to their base. Illinois has been no exception. Only one of the candidates running to replace retiring Senator Dick Durbin, Representative Robin Kelly, has indicated a willingness to pursue an arms embargo against Israel, and the vast majority of the Illinois congressional delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives has consistently refused to substantively criticize the government’s Israel policy. At the state level, only a minority of Democratic legislators have signaled their support for legislation to repeal the anti-BDS law.

This is disheartening regardless of whether politicians are deeply ideologically committed to what Israel represents or whether they have just decided to avoid challenging powerful interest groups. But there are signs that this gap between party elites and their voters nationwide could start to close. In New York City, home to more Jews than any other city in America, outspoken critic of Israel Zohran Mamdani handily won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a plurality of the Jewish vote, in part because of his views on Palestine. Over half of Senate Democrats recently voted to oppose some military aid to Israel, including both Senators Durbin and Duckworth of Illinois. Some Democrats in Congress have even started to call for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state. Just as crucially, it does not appear that Israel’s right-wing government has any plans to end their illegal invasion and blockade of Gaza, making the issue more pressing than ever.

It is possible to get Democratic politicians to adopt the positions their base holds under these conditions, even if it’s for entirely cynical reasons. A repeal of our state’s anti-BDS law would not just be popular, it could set the stage for even more policy changes on the national level, especially as Democratic candidates begin to position themselves for a presidential run in 2028. 

With this in mind, Illinois-based groups that have committed themselves to changing our country’s relationship with Israel like Chicago DSA should consider joining the Illinois Coalition for Human Rights as supporting organizations, and should come up with local campaigns to lobby their state officials. The ones that are planning to endorse candidates for state-level office should also take advantage of the upcoming March primaries to ask fresh faces to sign on as a condition for their support.

Like-minded individuals should also make an effort to tell their representatives this is an important issue to them by sending them messages like this one. They should consider getting involved with organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace Chicago, CAIR Action Illinois, and IfNotNow Chicago that have already signed on to stay engaged with the repeal campaign.

To steal a turn of phrase from the infamous American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), supporting Palestine is “good policy and good politics” within the Democratic Party. The only question now is whether we can get our elected officials to wake up to that reality while we have the momentum.

The post Now is the Time to Repeal Illinois’ Extremist Pro-Israel Law appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

David Duhalde’s essay, “The Long Reroute: A Historical Comparison of the Debsian Socialist Party of America and the New Democratic Socialists of America,” places debates within today’s DSA in historical context while advocating for democratic decision making as the best means for resolving them. For those not familiar with the author, it’s useful to know a little bit about his background. David’s father survived Chilean fascism and imbued in him a profound faith in democratic socialism and the working class. He joined DSA in 2003, so he is just about the oldest of the new DSA. He’s held many responsible posts—from the bottom to the top and back again—in DSA over the last quarter century and is just as committed and involved today. That is a model of leadership to which all DSA cadre ought to aspire. And, as he makes clear in a footnote—always read the footnotes—he is a member of the Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC). I consider him an outstanding thinker and a good friend. I learned long ago that making friends with politicos in competing or complementary factions or organizations is one of the best ways to keep your balance under conditions not of our own choosing.

David’s essay is divided into four parts, starting with a sketch of Socialist Party history and the long metamorphosis of one part of it into today’s DSA, followed by three punchy sections comparing debates around labor, elections, and internal party organization in the SP and DSA. David admirably compresses 100 years of history into a few pages and I think his overview is an excellent primer for new DSA members. Rather than cutting ourselves off from all that messy history, David invites us to learn from it in order to fight more effectively today. And, to put it bluntly, to toughen up. Faction fights, splits and bad tempers are just as much a part of our history as are comradeship, faith, and unity.

If I’m being a critical critic, I think the first section could have been extended to focus on the causes and conflicts that led to the SPs rise and fall. For instance, David notes that the SP “steadily declined nationally in the 1920’s” after reaching 120,000 before World War I. But he doesn’t really offer us a convincing “why.” It’s a tough question and he wanted to get to his main points, but I’d like to know what he thinks. For comrades who want to know more about the contest between the SP and the CP in the 1920s and 1930s, I’d recommend perusing David’s comprehensive bibliography. If you’re interested in filling out the picture of post-WWII democratic socialism, read Chris Maisano’s A Precious Legacy in Socialist Forum. And if you buy me a beer, I’ll tell you more than you want to know about the “takeover attempt” by Trotskyists in the 1930s.

But those are minor preliminaries. The real strength of David’s piece follows in three sections dedicated to labor, elections, and internal party organization. I’ll comment on each and then conclude with a few summary remarks. 

Labor

All socialists worth their salt have looked to the organized working class as the only force powerful enough to defeat the billionaire class. Exactly how to transform the proletariat from a class in itself to a class for itself (Marx’s old dictum) has been, and continues to be, easier said than done. David provides us with a useful crash course in U.S. labor history, from the Knights of Labor to the AFL to the IWW and the CIO and traces how competing strategies divided sections of the socialist movement. I think he’s right to highlight that today’s DSA, with the benefit of hindsight, has managed to coalesce around some of the most successful of these strategies, what we might call a flexible rank-and-file approach. As he notes, “While this strategy was not universally accepted when it was proposed in 2019—many veteran DSAers were uneasy with publicly siding in internal union disputes and elections—it has gained more widespread acceptance among different caucuses and factions of DSA over the last few years.” I don’t think it’s possible to overstate just how important this insight is and David is correct to draw attention to it. This ethos is not the property of one or another caucus, but represents the shared experience and intelligence of thousands of DSA members fighting to build durable labor unions. 

Elections

David points out that the Debsian-era SP’s electoral strategy had sought political independence from the beginning. Electoral independence did not constitute a left v. right tension. Remember, the Democratic Party of this era was the party of the Klan in the South and Tammany Hall in the North. Debs and Berger both wanted an independent Socialist ballot line. There’s a lot more to say about what happened in the 1930s during the New Deal, but David concentrates on how a section of the SP—led by Michael Harrington in the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1960s and 1970s—hit on the strategy of “realignment,” which aimed to transform the Democratic Party into a kind of social democratic party. The results were, generously, a mixed bag. 

Today’s DSA has adopted, according to David, a new strategy, “contesting Democratic primaries as the main arena for struggle,” typically conceived of as preparing for a “dirty break”—or a “dirty stay,” as David has suggested elsewhere—with the Democrats. Just how and when and under what circumstances such a break might occur, has led to “serious tensions” inside DSA today. As he puts it, “unity around the mere idea of being or becoming a party does not necessarily result in consensus around how the party and its elected officials should operate, especially together.” Although David’s SMC caucus has a definite view on this question, here David raises a political conundrum that all of DSA will have to confront, namely, “the polarization today between the Democratic and Republican parties, which did not exist when the Socialist Party operated,” adding how such polarization “makes voters more partisan and less open to new options.” He concludes that “Democratic voters may be happy to vote for socialists within primaries, but may not want to vote for the same candidate if they ran on another line.” The road to any kind of break leads through demonstrating, in practice, how to overcome this dilemma. 

Internal organization

This final section of David’s analysis contains—and it ought to—his most controversial assertions. Rather than shy away from the debate, or paper over disagreements, David makes a clear case for how he believes internal debates are most fruitfully resolved. I would characterize David’s view as a strong belief in the efficacy of conducting and resolving political debates within DSA’s structures, however imperfect they may be. There’s simply no other way to settle sharp disputes. At times, as has been common in the past, that turns out to be impossible and some comrades may decide to leave. For example, David summarizes the case of several debates around Palestine:

1. The factions and partners in the new DSA can change but the program such as Palestine solidarity will continue. 2. These disagreements are largely born out of internal, “homegrown” struggles over major strategic disagreements about how to approach politics. Both groupings who departed DSA were active in the organization as individual members, not as outsiders trying to influence DSA policy to foster splits. People leave when they feel they can no longer achieve their objectives through the existing democratic process.

Turning to factionalism, David argues there are two principle kinds: entryism and homegrown. In terms of entryism, I differ with his view—it’s overly generalized and defensive—but I’ll leave that discussion for another time. I will simply point out the danger that lumping together any future organizational merger with different political tendencies—whether they emerge from labor, civil rights, or other socialist movements—under the banner of “entryism” can be counterproductive. For instance, longtime—and now former—DSA member Maurice Isserman placed the “blame” for DSA’s forthright defense of Gaza on unnamed “entryists.”

More fruitful, in my view, is David’s description—drawing on his discussion with Bill Fletcher–of the new DSA as “an unplanned left-wing refoundation.” That is, “the idea that a stronger left is possible through both regroupment of existing radical structures into a new formation alongside the rethinking and retooling of current left-wing strategy into an alternative orientation.” Of course, there is a difference between an entryist smash and grab operation and honest regroupment, my only point is that comrades should be careful not to paint any organizational regroupment as necessarily entryism with a negative sign placed above the latter. David, I believe, provides the tools to do so by placing his matter-of-fact summaries of the many homegrown caucuses within DSA next to his observation that some of those caucuses have “external influences,” which is only natural and to be expected. In fact, those influences are a sign of DSA’s openness and vitality, not a weakness. As such, “factionalism” is just a normal consequence of any genuinely democratic organization, especially one that has grown as explosively as DSA. As David explains, 

DSA’s factionalism is homegrown. Simply put, the divisions and debates originate largely within DSA, not outside of it. For the hundreds of members who were long-time members of other organizations before joining DSA, tens of thousands more had their first experience in a political organization, much less a socialist one, in DSA. These two groups do interact with each other and many of the caucuses have external influences—both contemporary and historic. Every grouping has their own unique history.

David is, I think, right to downplay generational conflict within DSA, although he does note that older and more experienced members can have difficulty adapting to new melodies and—to extend Irving Howe’s metaphor—new and younger members might not recognize the lyrics. My only quibble here is that David’s one example of intergenerational dynamics is the resignation of some long-term, high-profile members over DSA’s forthright defense of Gaza. That is certainly worth pointing out. But I would also point out that—to my understanding—the “old guard” welcomed the transformation of the organization in 2017. That decision to turn over the keys to the newbies represents an act of political perspicacity on the part of DSA’s veterans and, in my experience, is not as common as one might hope. Of course, David’s own middling generation, those who joined between 9/11 and Bernie 2016, represented a mediating layer of cadre who paved the way for mass growth by creating institutions such as Jacobin and revitalizing YDSA. It’s a lesson that the new generation of DSA cadre should take to heart as we prepare for larger influxes of new socialists and new phases in the ongoing “unplanned left-wing refoundation.”

Lastly, The Long Reroute fits squarely into an undervalued category of what I might call cadre writing. It is a form of exposition that draws on academic and specialist knowledge, but extracts political value expressly designed to speak to socialist organizers and leaders. The general public may get something out of it, although they may well be overwhelmed by all the history and acronyms. And academics may well dismiss it as lacking in original archival research, even as the best of them engage with it. It’s just what the doctor ordered for DSA’s developing cadre, that is, our most active and dedicated members who aspire to help lead DSA on both a national and local level. David’s work provides a framework and language for raising our cadre’s sophistication and capabilities and expands the possibility for caucus and non-caucus cadre to communicate and collaborate, even while debates rage on. It is a must read.  

We’ll be hosting our next Greenville event on Saturday, August 23rd, from 2-4 pm at the Flat River Community Library.

We’ll be discussing Trump’s new ICE Detention Center in Baldwin, Michigan. The conversation will center around the racist anti-immigrant efforts rising around us, why we’re against them, and what we can do about it!

RSVP to the event here, and share the details with a friend! We’re looking forward to a robust discussion with you.

The post Concentration Camp in Your Community: Discussing the Baldwin ICE Detention Center with the GRDSA appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

by Sam K.

Rights are not rights if we don’t use them, and we must use exercise them openly, frequently, and without reservation.

I don’t usually talk about masking very much, I just do it. I find people talk to me about masking more than I talk to them about it. The act of masking causes others to reflect; perhaps to feel some sort of guilt about themselves, or judgement about me and other maskers. This one time, let me make the case for masking for 2025 and the foreseeable future.

The techno-surveillance police state is already here – its gradually cemented itself in the digital and physical world we navigate our lives through. After 9/11, the normalization of surveillance has evolved from an initial public support for sacrificing freedoms for supposed “public safety,” to the shocking revelations of Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing, to an almost pathetic view of the security theater of going through TSA. Cameras are watching us in the sky – far enough away where we cannot seem them, but precise enough to see details on the ground. Many people tend to feel hopeless about avoiding such surveillance when thinking about this – but hope is not lost. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been fighting for digital privacy rights for decades, paving the way for alternatives to Big Tech such as the Graphene OS android operating system, Proton emerging as a Google suite alternative, and the more widespread adoption of Signal. The use of these digital tools help to shield us from the surveillance state, but the digital privacy community and socialist organizers are failing to discuss how we can protect ourselves from both the surveillance state and fascist forces in public. Being tracked by the state or being doxxed and identified by fascist forces are real threats we must confront head-on.

Historically, bans on facial coverings have a mixed history in the United States. One the one hand, there were some 20th century laws passed in various states in efforts to crack down the Klu Klux Klan, while later being applied to Occupy Movements. On the other hand, In 1845, New York State passed an anti-mask law for “public safety” after a tenants’ revolt, known as the Anti-Rent War, or the Helderberg War. Many states, and the District of Columbia, either already have anti-mask laws on the books, have pushed for them recently, or likely will continue to push for them. While the legal statuses have been challenged and some have been struck down by the Supreme Court, we know these liberal institutions have already failed us, and will continue to enable fascism.

So, what happens when ICE starts going after socialists? Will you wear a mask to a protest or at court watching? What will you do when a police officer or a masked ICE agent claims you cannot wear a mask because you’re hiding your identity and you might be a terrorist? Will you comply, or will you disobey, whether legal or not? Will you start coughing, or will you verbally argue the necessity of masking to protect yourself from a contagious virus that can cause young, otherwise healthy people to become disabled and immuno-compromised? Actions speak louder than words.

I’ve now contracted covid-19 three times, the third leaving me with a compromised immune system and GI reactions to some of my favorite foods – which I had been eating during isolating and recovering from the third infection. Wearing good masks that fit your face absolutely works to protect yourself from covid-19, other viruses, and those brutal Austin allergies, too! Maybe you still don’t care about covid-19, and I don’t think I can convince you with words. But the reality is, you cannot mask only for protection from the fascist forces; you must also mask for your protection from airborne viruses. Otherwise, your masking would be atypical. It would signal a divergence in your regular behavior. Our safety and security practices are for all of the time. We always wear our seat belts, not just right before we get into a collision. Normalizing masking in 2025 and onward is a matter of practice, and just doing it. Do it at the grocery store, do it at your work place. Do it inside, and do it outside. Do it to protect yourself, and do it to remind others to do it – because actions speak louder than words. Exert your right to mask, and do it now – before its too late.

The post Exert Your Right to Mask! first appeared on Red Fault.

by Henry M.

A modern industrial society requires a democratically-controlled economy. Here is an outline of why that’s true

Few clearer exhibits of capitalism’s need for waste arrive in the mailbox than the annual Auto Issue of Consumer Reports. In it are listed and reviewed the multiple automobiles overfilling the categories (sedan, pickup, minivan, etc.) that have evolved since the Tin Lizzie went into production generations ago. (“435 Models Tested” in the 2024 edition.) The waste of labor and material involved in the manufacture of numerous candidates to fit each category, and the implications for democracy, are the subject of this brief diatribe, using the ubiquitous Sport-Utility Vehicle (SUV) as an example.

The SUV is a kind of mix of station wagon, minivan, sedan, and sports car. The general type really is useful, whether electric, hybrid or gasoline-burner. But so many of them!

Ten interchangeable models (with romantic names) just among the “Midsized 3-Row SUVs”! This overpopulation situation comes about because manufacturers want to maximize their profit, to fulfill the dreams of their managers and investors. This drive leads them to try to wrest away a portion of the market from one another. In this effort, they must differentiate their SUVs from those of their rivals. The cost in terms of finance they do not hide. But the hidden costs undercut democracy.

Bringing each SUV to reality and ultimately to the driveway of the buyer is not trivial. Each of the ten requires the fabrication of enormous metal-stamping molds for each body panel, of which there are a multitude on each different model. High-strength steel is fashioned into these giant molds, which must withstand the tremendous forces and the friction associated with crushing a big piece of sheet metal into the desired shape, requiring rare alloying elements.

Moreover, each mating mold pair, male and female, must be designed by skilled tool designers and fabricated by skilled toolmakers. And the body panels themselves: their shape emerges from the combined imaginations of Marketing and Industrial Design. Every swoop and curve, every seam, bulge and fin is wrestled over by trained professionals and reviewed by Management before the tooling is released for production…and they must all fit together perfectly, and not look quite like anyone else’s SUV. (A cursory inspection of a few SUV makes will reveal the differences among, for example, the front fenders.)

So thousands of labor-hours and refined talent are expended just on the body of each individual model…and that’s without looking at integration of the seats, the dashboard, the wipers, the door latches and the all-important cup holders. All these features, different for each, for every single, 3-row SUV, and we’ve ignored dozens of body categories (two-row SUVs, small sedans, etc.) Each of these models is dumped into the chaos and uncertainty of the marketplace; the makers must wait to see if their huge bets pay off in sales. Secrecy is crucial to profitability, an imperative of competition; none can afford to actually fabricate and test-market their creations among the public, as would be routine in a democratically-directed economy not dependent on secrecy. In the parts of our society permitted to operate along democratic principles, we discuss publicly and know in advance what policies will be adopted…not so when it comes to the operation of our enormous economy!

Now this is a critique of capitalism. So what’s to critique? Well, the flagrant waste. Among other things, the hoary Principle Of Interchangeable Parts is flung down and danced upon; standardization is spurned. If we as an electorate had dictated this state of affairs back in the Martin van Buren Administration and bequeathed it to our progeny for generations to come, it would be one thing. But that’s not how it happened. Over a century ago, when industrialization was young, people who had money to invest joined with others and built physical plants to manufacture cars. Others sought to compete with them. Millions went to work, of necessity, for the resulting corporations. Those manufacturers and their heirs have dominated our economy ever since. In requiring huge percentages of the population to engage in duplication of effort to earn a living, the economy misuses their labor.

But we are democrats. We believe ourselves capable of making the most important decisions in our society. Given the opportunity, we might not elect to make so many functionally interchangeable, but part-wise unique cars, each with its own infrastructure of parts and dealers. Socialism gives that opportunity.

Only socialism recognizes this silly duplication as a problem and proposes to correct it. Socialism, as a rationalizing force, would place direction and management of such an important part of our economy in the hands of the citizenry, for example through elected managers, like our choice of political candidates in conventional elections. All these manufacturers worked hard to provide us with things we don’t need, wasting resources, clean air and the labor of countless Americans. Socialism, somewhat more fundamentally than police and gender reforms, would impose order and planning, and democracy, on the productive capacities of our economy, and Consumer Reports would become thinner.

Respectable, proud democracy cannot coexist with this wasteful mode of industrial organization.

Henry M is an Automotive and Mechanical Engineer.

The post Democratic Socialism and the Automotive Industry first appeared on Red Fault.