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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Eric Herde

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

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

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

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

The post Political Cartoons, April 2026 appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Read more at Memphis-Midsouth

Smile, Las Vegas! You’re on Camera.

Imagine you’re driving to work and stop at a red light. Without your knowledge, a camera on the street pole has taken a picture of your license plate, your car’s color and make, your tire brand, any dents, and even your bumper stickers. This data uploads immediately to a searchable nationwide database. Officers in other states you have never visited can pull it up without a warrant, without suspecting you of anything. These assaults on our privacy are already happening, and they are victimizing our most vulnerable.

The Las Vegas Democratic Socialists of America (LVDSA) have a new target on our radar: Flock Safety. This private company has quietly built one of the largest mass surveillance tracking networks in American history. Controversial for racially profiling targets and making grave algorithmic errors, this company has recently become notorious for its integral collaboration with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In Las Vegas, a city built by immigrants, ICE actively and secretly scours Flock data to target and arrest them, destroying lives. While some states have taken measures to protect people from this abuse of power, Nevada has not. Flock has covered our city in cameras– a “gift” from elite powers who seek oppression and control. Whether used to track innocent people’s movements, instill fear in diverse urban areas, or hunt down our immigrant neighbors, Flock cameras have no place in Las Vegas. We, the LVDSA organizers, are sounding the alarm.

What is Flock?

Flock Safety is a private tech firm that sells AI-powered surveillance systems to police departments, homeowners’ associations, and private businesses. Their Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) is a camera mounted on poles at busy intersections and neighborhood streets that photographs every passing car, 24 hours a day, every day.

All of that data gets channeled to a central database that police across the country can search. With over 1 billion data points collected per month, 99.5% of the vehicles scanned belong to people who have done nothing wrong.

Why We Care, Even Though We Have Nothing to Hide.

Our daily movements tell an intimate story about who we are, and Flock captures it all. Here’s what their own contract states they can do with our data:

“For clarity, Flock may access, use, preserve, and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties…”

Third parties–that means companies and advertisers.

More urgently, we care about our Black and brown neighbors disproportionately targeted by ALPRs. In Oak Park, Illinois, for example, 84% of people flagged and pulled over by Flock cameras were Black–despite Black people making up 19% of the population. Flock uses AI to bolster a system already corrupted by decades of racist police enforcement, and it’s not that intelligent.

Flock’s Many Mistakes Take a Devastating Human Toll. 

The historic brutality of the police against people of color underscores Flock’s many disastrous errors. These ALPR glitches also create traumatic encounters for young people who are innocently going about their day. Here are just a few examples:

In Baltimore, 16-year-old Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school, waiting to be picked up after football practice, eating Doritos. An AI gun-detection system misidentified his bag of chips as a firearm. Eight police cars arrived. Officers with drawn guns approached him, forced him to the ground, and handcuffed him. Taki said the first thing he thought was, “Am I about to die?” When shown the image that triggered the alert, Allen explained: “I was just holding a Doritos bag – it was two hands and one finger out, and they said it looked like a gun.”

In Aurora, Colorado, a mother and her children were pulled over at gunpoint and forced to lie face down on the hot pavement. An ALPR system mistakenly matched their license plate to a stolen motorcycle in Montana. After a loud public outcry, the family was awarded a $1.9 million settlement from the city.

In Espanola, New Mexico, police officers held a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint because an ALPR camera misread a number on her sister’s license plate–a 2 that the system read as a 7. One month later, in the same region, a 17-year-old honors student was held at gunpoint on his way home from school after officers mistook his vehicle for one associated with an individual sought in connection with a string of armed robberies.

Cops are Using Flock to Stalk their Exes and Enemies.

Flock’s marketing materials don’t mention that the technology gives officers full rein to weaponize it against anyone they want. They have been brandishing this power against ex-romantic partners and personal rivals.

• One Kansas police chief used Flock to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner over 160 times.
• A Wisconsin officer used Flock to run his ex-girlfriend’s plates five unauthorized times in a single month.
• A Milwaukee officer ran a personal target’s plate 55 times and another’s 124 times over two months.

This is what happens when we allow unlimited, warrantless access to technology that can track anyone’s movements anywhere in the country, with no oversight. We cannot trust police officers to use it properly; what can we expect from ICE agents?

ICE is Already Exploiting Flock.

While Flock Safety does not have an official contract with ICE, federal immigration agencies have accessed Flock data through secretive backdoor deals with law enforcement agencies. This consolidation of power is another tool of terror wielded against immigrants.

In Washington state, researchers found that at least 10 police departments had Flock data accessed by the U.S. Border Patrol through backdoor access—meaning agencies that didn’t explicitly authorize federal immigration enforcement were still having their data searched. ICE has exploited Flock data in cooperating with local law enforcement agencies to locate and detain immigrants–often in cities with policies to protect them.

In Las Vegas, ICE is using Flock cameras right now, with the help of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). This is especially problematic, as ICE and LVMPD signed a 287(g) agreement in 2025, enabling Metro cops to execute immigration warrants on people held at the CCDC. The agreement also allows people to be held for an additional 48 hours after their release time, so that ICE may take them into custody. Therefore, Metro officers can use Flock data to track a brown-skinned person, pull them over for a trivial reason–like having a faulty brake light–and act as an ICE agent, detaining the driver in the name of immigration enforcement. Once detained, the victim has little recourse, thanks to the 287(g) agreement. (The ACLU of Nevada challenged the legality of the 287(g) agreement in court, but the case was dismissed on technical grounds. The ACLU of Nevada has vowed to continue the fight.)

While some Nevada leaders have expressed concern over the sinister and pervasive spread of Flock cameras and the vast surveillance machine they feed, none have introduced legislation that would protect our privacy from ICE. Governor Joe Lombardo has already granted ICE permission to enter our schools and churches without a warrant, and he caved to Donald Trump’s insistence that Nevada is a sanctuary state that requires the National Guard’s ICE enforcement support. Now it is more crucial than ever for everyday Las Vegans to protect the safety and dignity of our immigrant neighbors. Every Flock scan, every plate logged, is a potential family separated, a worker missing on the job, a life destroyed.

No Limits in Nevada.

Las Vegas residents are especially vulnerable. Clark County has at least 200 Flock cameras operating right now, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) signed Flock’s contract without any public discussion–no city council vote, no press release. Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz side-stepped the necessity for public discussion by donating approximately $6.3 million to a private foundation, Friends of Metro, which then gifted the Flock contract to LVMPD. And so far, the reported lack of oversight for this powerful tool is incredible. Nevada is one of 34 states with zero legislation regulating ALPRS. While other states enacted legislation to curb Flock, no bill was introduced in Nevada in 2025. For us, Nevada residents, there are no restrictions on federal sharing and no prohibition on selling our data.

LVDSA organizers are calling on Clark County to immediately suspend the privately-funded LVMPD Flock contract, demand a full public accounting of every search conducted, and pass an ordinance requiring City Council approval before any further surveillance contracts are signed.

The Good News: We Can Get Flock Off the Block.

Solidarity is working. Cities where residents have organized and demanded regulation have won protections, such as mandatory written consent for data sharing, strict limits on which “hot lists” cameras can scan, requirements that data be deleted after 21 days, and absolute prohibitions on sharing data with entities not subject to US law. Two Virginia cities–Charlottesville and Staunton– banned Flock entirely. Las Vegas can follow suit.

Here’s What We Can Do Right Now. 

1. Visit deflock.org– a map of known Flock cameras across the country.
2. Find out if your plate has been scanned – visit haveibeenflocked.com.
3. Sign this petition to demand action from our local officials. Make them answer on the record.
4. Attend our protest outside Mayor Shelly Berkley’s State of the City address on Wednesday, April 22nd, 5 pm at Reynolds Hall (361 Symphony Park Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89106).
5. Spread the word. This technology is expanding because most people either don’t know it exists or don’t understand its reach. Tell your neighbors, post about it, bring it up at work, and at your HOA meeting–because your HOA might be feeding your data to the system right now.

Flock Off.

Flock Safety secretly built a nationwide surveillance system that tracks our every move without cause. It does not reduce crime, but it has repeatedly made dangerous errors that result in innocent people being held at gunpoint. It is being used excessively in Black and brown communities, and unstable police officers use it to stalk women. ICE agents use it to hunt and detain working immigrants. In Las Vegas, its reach will continue to expand until we do something to stop it.

We, the LVDSA organizers, proudly stand with all Nevada workers, regardless of their immigration status. We believe in the complete abolition of ICE and entities like Flock that empower them. We advocate for a city where our neighbors don’t fear the drive to work, the grocery store, or home from school. We demand our friends, neighbors, and coworkers not be targeted and silently tracked based on their status–they are our valued community members, not criminals. We deserve a city that safeguards everyone’s 4th Amendment right to privacy. We demand privacy, accountability, and a voice in what happens. For our neighbors, for ourselves, for our future, it’s time to get the Flock off the block.

By Jill G. & River T.F.

References:

Aldrete, I. (2025, Aug. 8). Lombardo to authorize the Nevada National Guard to support ICE operations. The Nevada Independent. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-national-guard-authorized-to-support-feds-with-immigration-enforcement 

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (2025, Oct. 23). LVMPD Ignores Underlying Nevada Court Order in ACLU of Nevada’s 287(g) Challenge and Transfers Detainee to ICE Custody
https://www.aclunv.org/press-releases/lvmpd-ignores-underlying-nevada-court-order-in-aclu-of-nevadas-287g-challenge-and-transfers-detainee-to-ice-custody/

American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma. (2023, Dec. 21). The threat to privacy and civil liberties from automatic license plate readers.
https://www.acluok.org/en/news/threat-privacy-and-civil-liberties-automatic-license-plate-readers

Aurora Police Department bodycam. (2020, Aug.). Officers force an Aurora, Colorado, family of Black girls to the ground at gunpoint after Flock misreads the license plate. The Associated Press.

Chronicle Media. (2023, Dec. 21). South Side.
https://chronicleillinois.com/tag/south-side/

DeFlock. (2026). DeFlock: Find nearby ALPRs. https://deflock.org

Denver7 News. (2020, Aug. 7). Prosecutors reviewing actions of Aurora officers during the mistaken traffic stop of Black family.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/prosecutors-reviewing-actions-of-aurora-officers-during-mistaken-traffic-stop-of-black-family

Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2023, Oct. 1). Street-level surveillance and ALPR technology.
https://www.eff.org

Flock Safety. (2026). Technology and services overview.
https://www.flocksafety.com

FOX5 Vegas. (2025, June 9). Nevada governor vetoes bill aimed at protecting students from ICE [Video].
https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2025/06/09/nevada-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-protecting-students-ice/

Have I Been Flocked? (2026). Have I Been Flocked? https://haveibeenflocked.com

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). (2020). Predictive policing and racial bias.
https://naacp.org

The Nevada Independent. (2026, Feb. 22). Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department surveillance reporting.
https://thenevadaindependent.com

The Nevada Independent. (2026, Mar. 22). License plate reader cameras abound in Nevada. The state has no laws to regulate them. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/license-plate-reader-cameras-abound-in-nevada-the-state-has-no-laws-to-regulate-them

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2026). Data access and surveillance practices.
https://www.cbp.gov

On March 18, a Maine Superior Court judge summarily rejected the latest attempt by landlords to gut Portland’s rent control law and stifle the power of tenant unions. In fact, in her sweeping decision, Justice Darcie McElwee solidified rent control’s power to keep rents affordable in Maine’s largest city in a way many of us have been fighting for since it was enacted. 

This is a big moment, and Portland administrators, as well as those looking to confront the housing affordability crisis across the state (I’m looking at you, candidates for governor), should take notice.

Here’s the story: The landlord in this case – the notorious Geoffrey Rice, who lost a three-year court battle to break the tenant union of which I am a founding member – filed an appeal to overturn a recent rent board ruling that had forced him to roll back rents three years, reimburse hundreds of thousands of dollars in tenant overcharges, and pay $170,500 in fines. Mr. Rice made six arguments, all of which Justice McElwee tossed out.

The first was that the rent board, an administrative body appointed by the City Council, didn’t even have the legal right to adjudicate the case. This argument, made by many landlords, is that the city permitting office is the place to decide these matters. If tenants don’t like what the city says, they can go to court. Obviously, that’s a costly process that few tenants can afford, which is why landlords want it that way.

Rice also argued that the rent control ordinance is too vague. We often hear this from landlords who are still furious that tenants wrote and passed this law through citizen initiative, without their corporate lobbyists at the table.

On these two arguments, the judge ruled decisively. Yes, of course the rent board can hear these cases, and no, in fact, the ordinance is not vague. It is crystal clear.

Satisfying though these two rulings may have been, they weren’t the most important. Those were the precedent-setting rulings that tenant unions have standing to file complaints on behalf of any and all tenants, and that landlords who are serial violators of rent control lose the right to raise rents on any tenants until they clean up their act.

These two points are ones tenant rights activists in Portland have argued for years, both in front of the rent board and to the city of Portland.

On the first point, the landlords have always argued that a tenant union should only be able to represent tenants who officially disclose their membership in the union (about 30 of the over-150 tenants signed this formal complaint). The first problem with that, of course, is that many tenants fear retaliation if they openly confront their landlord. The second is that the law makes clear that getting a tenant’s permission is not a requirement, just as it would not be a requirement to get a tenant’s consent before reporting a landlord-created fire hazard.

The judge saw through the landlord’s argument immediately, simply quoting the text of the ordinance, “[a]ny Tenants Union shall have standing as a party to assert the rights or interests of any Tenants.”

On the second point, the issue is whether a landlord loses the right to raise any rents when they are a serial offender, or whether they must only pay back increases on the units where the violations occurred. But the latter is obviously no penalty at all. It is simply a requirement that the landlord pay back what they have stolen.

Imagine the run on banks if the law was, “those who rob a bank and get caught will only have to pay back what you stole.” No jail time. No fines. Heck, we’d all give it a shot.

Thankfully, the judge saw through this one too. Serial violators may indeed be forced to forfeit all rent increases. The city has been reluctant to implement this interpretation in the past. Hopefully that now changes.

Last, but not least, the judge reminded all of us why this law is here by quoting its stated purpose:

“…to address increasing rental costs within the City of Portland; to promote neighborhood and community stability; to protect the City’s tenant population; to limit arbitrary evictions; and to stabilize and make more predictable future rent increases…”

Having helped write those words six years ago, it was a good reminder even to me. Protecting Portland as an affordable place for everyone to live is paramount to our city’s survival. 

This judge did her part. Now the city must do theirs by enforcing this precedent setting ruling. And the next governor must pass similar protections for tenants statewide.

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post Maine Court Slams Landlords, Confirms Rent Control Laws Initiated by Maine DSA appeared first on Pine & Roses.

By SacDSA Steering Committee

Sacramento DSA condemns Donald Trump’s threats against Iran, including his April 7th statement on Truth Social that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” We also fiercely condemn Israel breaking another ceasefire by continuing its bombardment of southern Lebanon.

Imperialist war only serves capitalists and billionaires, not working people. As socialists we stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and condemn the senseless strikes which have led to the deaths of over 2,000 Iranians. We also extend our solidarity to the people of Lebanon, as Israel bombs infrastructure, displaces more than a million civilians, and attempts to occupy land south of the Litani River.

Trump’s escalating threats to wipe Iranian civilization off the face of the Earth are despicable and dangerous. While this is an escalation of rhetoric, it is also simply a more blatant demonstration of the warmongering which has been moved through implication, propaganda, and political and economic pressure by every administration over our entire nation’s history. As such, we must be aware of the ways reality is invented for us through the use of well timed propaganda and the mainstream media’s delegitimization of targets of the US empire.

No conflict can be viewed in a vacuum when the influence and weight of capitalism is ever looming, twisting the narratives and undermining legitimate resistance movements. The capitalist class always moves with an eye on increased profits, decreased input costs, and demonization of workers and grassroots movements working for the rights of people everywhere.

To oppose the imperialism of the capitalists and the billionaires, we must work together. One step you can take to fight back against the capitalist interests pushing us into this unjust war is to commit to boycotting Chevron. Chevron is one of the largest suppliers of natural gas to Israel, even as they bomb homes and schools in Gaza and Lebanon. This imperialist war with Iran has, perversely, destabilized Chevron’s activities in Israel, opening a window for organizers to push for a permanent end to their investment in genocide. Join the Sacramento DSA International Committee’s Boycott Chevron campaign to demand Chevron stop fueling genocide and to begin to build the foundation for international working class solidarity from Palestine to Iran and beyond.

We have a world to win. Let’s get to work!

• Steering Committee of Sacramento DSA

This is an opinion piece written by an individual member and was not voted on by membership. Opinion pieces from members do not reflect the opinions of other members and are not chapter approved statements.

The conjunction of Zohran’s victory and the redistricting of CD-1 put the Salt Lake DSA (SLDSA) in a position where it was necessary to relate to and organize around both developments simultaneously. The sudden nationwide interest in the DSA led to a huge influx of members who were willing to organize to elect their own “Zohran in Utah,” and the excitement around CD-1 redistricting presented an obvious opportunity to realize this goal. Though winning a federal congressional campaign is far beyond the objective organizational limits of SLDSA, it was clear that if we did not run a candidate in CD-1, someone else would take advantage of the larger stage and define what a “Zohran in Utah” would look like for their own careerist aspirations. After a difficult period of deliberation (which is interesting in its own right but not relevant to this article), SLDSA activists ultimately decided (and I supported) to run a smaller race, Taylor Paden for State Senate District 13.

Abstaining from CD-1 has had political consequences for the popular understanding of Democratic Socialism in Salt Lake County. Two candidates have chosen to identify with the label to some degree, Liban Mohamad and Luis Villarieal, both of whom sought an endorsement from Salt Lake DSA. Additionally, Nate Blouin secured an early Bernie Sanders endorsement and has secured the strongest “Berniecrat” position in the race. Though he does not identify as a Democratic Socialist, the popular understanding of the aesthetic political brand of the left Democrats is bound to be confused and identified with the politics of the DSA. He has not sought endorsement from SLDSA, likely because he sought endorsement 4 years ago for his state senate campaign and failed. Chapter leaders from the time said simply, “he’s not a socialist.”

It will not be clear to people why there is very little interest in endorsing any candidate in CD-1 from SLDSA activists, nor will we be able to meaningfully communicate why due to our (probable) abstention. After all, if our goal is to further the socialist movement in Utah, how could we not endorse any one of the three “left” choices in CD-1, especially those adopting the label of Democratic Socialist? In this article I intend to communicate my own reasons for advocating no endorsement in CD-1, as well as some of the reasons that I think the average SLDSA member is uninterested. 

(For additional context, here are the candidate interviews for Luis and Liban)

What is the point of candidates and endorsing them?

Running candidates for office is often uncritically accepted as useful on its own merits because this is the hegemonic theory of change. To improve society, well meaning individuals are inspired to run for office, and, by the strength of their capacities and willpower, they use the institutions that are ostensibly designed to empower them to do so. Even when politicians engage with a broader mass movement, they do so assuming they are over and above it, commanding the grassroots to empower their personal campaigns and further their political position. This is not necessarily cynical; they genuinely believe those political positions occupied by “good people” is what results in a linear improvement of society over time. This default understanding of social change is also prevalent amongst the activist base of DSA, who sometimes assume that the steady increase of self identified Democratic Socialists in office will eventually lead to a fundamental change in society.

(This point is probably why most of the activist base of SLDSA is uninspired by Liban or Luis. Neither can win, with or without our endorsement, and so they can’t contribute to the increasing number of DSA electeds in office, no matter what they believe.)

This perspective is a misunderstanding of where power actually lies in society and how the working class can affect meaningful change. As socialists, we understand that all sections of society, both within and without the government, are controlled by the capitalist class. It is not a conspiracy but the natural consequence of class society, wealth, and power. Wealthy and powerful people will, more often than not, choose to concentrate and increase their wealth and power. They use it to shape society for their benefit and collaborate with other powerful people to maintain the systems that serve them. There is no secret plot; it is simply logical for them to do so. 

This means that even on the rare occasions where well meaning, working class people acquire positions of power in the government, they discover that the strength of their argument and their heartfelt appeals to the rights of common people cannot change the basic realities of living in a capitalist society. Any reform which is possible through legislation is inadequate to the scale of the problem, and even occasional consequential changes will be fought by the capitalist class with every tool available to them. This is why the greatest progressive moments in American history, though often resulting in legislative reforms, were at the end of intense social upheaval and mass actions i.e. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the New Deal, the Civil War. 

A genuine socialist candidate must therefore have a fundamentally different strategy. They will not view the primary mechanism for change as legislation, but will instead take a class-struggle approach. By their connection to the mass movement and the organized socialist core, they use the position of elected official to reach a larger audience, show the illusions of the capitalist parties, educate people on the nature of class society in their messaging, and contribute to the independent organization of workers outside the government in any way they can. They will not be deluded into believing that the legislative process alone can fundamentally alter class relations. Their success can only be measured by the forces they politicized and organized to fight for reforms in their class interests against the capitalist class, not by the number of bills passed.

It is important to stress that a socialist in office is not useful because of what they believe. Belief in fighting for a better world is useless for the struggle of the working class if it does not result in concrete action. Utah Democrat Party politics shows the uselessness of abstract belief. Because of the conservative supermajority in the legislature, any meaningful progressive reform has no chance of being passed through the legislative process. As a result, Utah Democrats spend their entire careers proposing bills so diluted they’ll pass a conservative legislature, or bills they know will fail for the purpose of performing their virtue on the campaign trail. But without an actual plan to win, there is no consequence of these politicians’ beliefs. Some typical canned responses, “at least they’re trying” or “at least they’re better,” might have a certain narrow truth, but it does not help us advance the organization and consciousness of the working class. It is not wrong to tell people what society should look like. But if you don’t understand and articulate the scientific steps necessary to get there, there is no substance. It is an essentially magical theory of change which assumes that good heartedness has an effect on the structures of capitalist oppression. 

Instead, the socialist in office is just one lever in the process of organized struggle, and demonstrates that role by consistent building of and commitment to that struggle. DSA candidates must prove that they are able to use their position to contribute to mass movements, not for the purpose of securing their next campaign, but by winning genuine reforms. Every left Democrat says they are building a movement; socialists must actually demonstrate they can do so. People are generally not convinced by rhetoric; they learn through concrete struggle. 

There’s two candidates that are using the label of “Democratic Socialist,” doesn’t that make them part of or contributing to the socialist movement?

In order for us to believe a person can contribute to the socialist movement as a candidate, it is helpful if they have to have done so already. To be sure, Luis Villareal and Liban Mohamad have decided to adopt the label of Democratic Socialist to varying degrees. However, both of them cannot demonstrate a commitment to mass movement politics and independent working class organization. This is not because they are bad people or are intentionally duplicitous. Both attested, and I believe, that they do find Zohran’s campaign inspiring and are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the Democratic Party. They both attested they want society to be more equitable and serve the needs of working class people, and I believe them. However, neither can demonstrate a commitment or understanding of the steps that it will take to get there, either by their ideas or their political history. Neither has a history of organizing social forces in struggle against the capitalist class. Neither could contextualize their campaign’s strategy with the organized socialist movement, DSA or otherwise. Neither has a significant describable and specific history of activism in the mass movement. Both decided to run because they think their personal virtue and social position will lend itself to governing, which is admirable in a certain way. But ultimately they cannot have a conception of how to win the reforms they are running on by mass action because they have no experience doing so.

All this would be fine if it was possible for SLDSA to turn their campaigns into movement oriented campaigns anyway. If we were deeply involved from the beginning, the candidate forefronted their Democratic Socialist identity, committed to a Socialist in Office Committee relationship, and we had the organizational ability to realize those movement goals, the specific beliefs and experiences of the candidate would be secondary. It is helpful to use our current campaign as a counter-example, from an organizational perspective. If Paden had no previous experience union organizing or was not a member beforehand, but committed to the organizational relationship we have with him now, the campaign would probably have the same political character. It is helpful that he has those personal qualities, but they are secondary to the organizational relationship.

Why not just endorse the “most left” candidate, even if they cannot win, because the campaign will attract people to DSA?

A DSA electoral campaign should have two goals. Primarily, the campaign should clearly articulate a socialist politics and move people to action on those ideas. This does not mean adopting the “left wing of possible,” as most left Democrats do i.e. identifying the most acceptable left positions that will still probably get you elected. It means using the platform and attention to make connections between the present struggle and the socialist horizon in the minds of the public. Plainly explaining the illusions of the two party capitalist political system, the need for people to organize to improve their lives, the actions necessary to do so, and the basic reality of class society, even if it reduces the chances of the candidate’s victory.

The second goal is to develop the sophistication, ability, size, reach, political consciousness, and leadership of the DSA. We lend credibility to the campaign’s message through strong organization and coalition building. Most people will not seek out and respond immediately with action to even the best articulated socialist positions. If this were true, we’d have a revolution by now. The organization which builds the campaign must demonstrate its capability by extending the reach beyond the activist base and into the general public. This does not necessarily mean a winning campaign, just one that the public must take seriously. Our goal as a socialist organization is to win the confidence of the masses as leaders of the struggle for their own liberation. If we endorse and organize unserious campaigns, it will only serve to perform some rhetoric for the tiny minority of people who already agree with us. 

Luis and Liban’s campaigns can do neither of these things, for our organization or for the broader movement. They developed their platform, branding, strategy, and communications as individuals before seeking endorsement, resulting in a muddled political outlook and a lack of clarity. Though they assure us they are Democratic Socialists in private conversations, their messaging does not convey that either in substance or explicit mentions of the word socialism. It gives the (perhaps mistaken!) impression they adopted it to the extent they could get the endorsement of Salt Lake DSA and branded as Utah’s Zohran, but did not want the word “socialism” to affect their chance to win. It’s almost more frustrating, personally, that they don’t understand that these tepid capitulations are not worth making for our endorsement. SLDSA is a small organization; our endorsement and participation is not going to outweigh the political costs of actually adopting a socialist platform in a capitalist party primary.

Obviously, neither campaign is credible, whether or not we organize to support them. I don’t think it’s helpful to list reasons why I think neither campaign can make it to the ballot because it is a secondary question. Though it must be said that although Liban has taken a more serious approach to campaigning and appears more viable, this is due to his history of working inside Washington DC with and amongst capitalist politics, not because of an understanding of organization. His background working at TikTok gives his campaign the aesthetic of a professional and serious campaign, similar in “vibe” to Zohran’s. However, it is very important to understand the relationship in NYC-DSA’s strategy between communications and organizing the field. The purpose is not to look flashy and get clicks, it’s to create a narrative that clearly communicates the politics of the campaign, a politics which motivates people to get involved on a deeper level. Aesthetics can help deliver a message, but they do not make up for a weak message and an inability to turn that flashy messaging into organized action. Though he appears to be doing an admirable job of collecting signatures, he stated in the interview this is because he is paying for signature gatherers, not because the campaign is organizing volunteers.

(Additional listening on the Zohran campaign strategy, The Dig episodes “Three Million Doors” “Zohran’s Message” “How Zohran Won w/ NYC DSA”)

For these reasons, this means that an endorsement in the present conditions would be nothing more than our logo on their campaign websites. Over time, DSA activists are becoming more critical of their use of the endorsement and are shying away from “paper” endorsements, meaning one which just exists as a rubber stamp on the campaign website and isn’t associated with any action from activists. This is how endorsements from most non-profits, unions, and Democrat aligned groups work, perhaps with a cash donation. Instead, a DSA endorsement means that we are going to move people to action, both inside and outside the activist base of the chapter. We’ll do that difficult work because we think the campaign can increase class consciousness and working class organization, which is the primary goal of a socialist campaign. This is an important part of the scientific approach to socialism; actually fighting for something in the world, not just writing down an endorsement statement on a page that almost nobody will read all the way through. If we do paper endorsements, it teaches our base that we think rhetoric alone is an effective form of political action. To those outside our base, it teaches them nothing, because they won’t have reason to care.

Then what are the next steps for SLDSA?

All of these arguments are not being made to the public, because we abstained from the race. It is not persuasive to the public to abstain from struggle, especially in the current situation of generalized disorganization, lack of left leadership, and low level of class-consciousness. I don’t believe I’m making a sectarian argument for no endorsement, rather an acknowledgement of our objective limitations as an organization in relative infancy taking its first steps. If we were more organized and identified a stronger candidate for CD-1, then the best course of action would have been to run in CD-1, but I agree with the direction we chose. SLDSA should continue to organize to create the strongest possible campaign in State Senate District 13, develop new connections, widen our activist base, qualitatively change our organization to a real power player (however small), and then use the campaign as a springboard to a struggle for a concrete reform. I believe the Paden campaign has already demonstrated that the Salt Lake DSA is capable of taking on a bigger fight for a specific reform. It is hard to say the precise form that will take, an evaluation in June after the primary ends will be necessary before we can say. But an endorsement in CD-1 would be a distraction with no obvious positive outcomes.

The post A Case for No Endorsement in CD-1: Some assertions about socialist electoral campaigns in DSA first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.