by Rajesh Barnabas

“Laundering Black rage means trying to get at something maybe even worse than co-optation, an actual means of governing people’s rage—to take that threat and then use it against them as a means of keeping them within the very framework that they’re pissed off about.”

• Too Black, author of Laundering Black Rage: The Washing of Black Death, People, Property, and Profits 

Kendrick Lamar, once considered the torch-bearer of conscious hip-hop, is flaming out. His rise as a social commentator, with albums like To Pimp a Butterfly and DAMN., made him the poster child for progressive, “woke” hip-hop. However, Lamar’s success has come at a price: compromising the authenticity of his message to fit the broader commercial mold. This phenomenon isn’t unique to Lamar but is part of a larger trend among entertainers and activists in the face of mainstream capitalism. 

Jay-Z’s role in the NFL’s “social justice” initiatives is a prime example of how those who were once considered radical in their activism are increasingly co-opted into serving corporate interests. Both Lamar and Jay-Z represent a shift in how the industry harnesses their influence for commercial purposes—turning revolutionary symbols into sellouts.

Kendrick Lamar’s Evolution: A Shift From Activism to Mainstream Success

Kendrick Lamar’s evolution as an artist is both a story of artistic brilliance and subtle co-optation. In the early stages of his career, Lamar presented himself as a staunch critic of systemic racism and inequality. His 2015 album, To Pimp a Butterfly, was a ground-breaking piece of work, using jazz, funk, and spoken word to explore Black identity, social issues, and institutional oppression. The album’s themes of Black empowerment were undeniably aligned with the ideals of the Black Lives Matter movement, and Lamar became a beacon of socially conscious hip-hop. However, as Lamar’s career continued, there was an increasing disconnect between his art and the world he once criticized.

Released amid the rise of the BLM movement, Alright (2015) became an anthem of perseverance for activists fighting against police brutality and systemic racism. The song’s chorus, “We gon’ be alright,” provided a mantra of hope, but the track itself stops short of advocating direct action or systemic overhaul. While Lamar acknowledges racial struggle in his verses, he ultimately turns to a spiritual and internal reassurance rather than a call for revolution. Compared to the more confrontational energy of protest movements at the time, Alright was powerful yet palatable—used in marches, but still digestible enough for broad consumption. 

It was reminiscent of an artist of the past who also provided transporting and calming tones to his tumultuous era. Louis Armstrong’s What a Wonderful World (1967) emerged during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, a time of immense racial tension, protests, and radical demands for justice. The song’s serene imagery—“The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky, are also on the faces of people going by”—paints an idyllic picture that stands in stark contrast to the violence, segregation, and social upheaval of the 1960s. While Armstrong was a respected Black artist, his song did not reflect the direct struggles of the movement in the way that contemporaries like Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam) or James Brown (Say It Loud – I’m Black and I’m Proud) did. Instead, What a Wonderful World functioned more as an escapist salve rather than a militant cry for justice.

A new documentary, Soundtrack to a Coup d’état (2024) details how Louis Armstrong and several other jazz legends of the 1960s were sent as “cultural ambassadors” to Africa, but dualed as decoys in the CIA’s plot to assassinate Congo’s prime minister Patrice Lumumba. Both Alright by Kendrick Lamar and What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong offer uplifting messages within their respective eras, but they also dilute the radical energy of the times in which they were created.

Lamar, like Armstrong, wants to float above it all. In the music video for “Alright”, Kendrick is hovering around the city of Oakland, while all sorts of chaos and partying and joy is happening below. It is a fitting image for the voyeuristic relationship Kendrick has with the streets, where he has the privilege of picking and choosing when he will embody the drama or escape from it. He is a butterfly that remains cozy in his capitalist cocoon, collecting massive royalties from fetishizing mass movements and cornering the market on obtuse political gestures. It is no wonder the weekend social justice warriors love him so much, he’s “just like us”. 

Dilution + Misdirection = Co-option

The indirect or “stylistic” effort from Lamar, veers sharply to the center when compared to the direct “Fuck The Police” messaging of the earlier South LA hip hop era—a legacy Lamar flaunts his intimacy with at every opportunity (see Grammy Acceptance Speech, 2025).

While his lyrical content still touches on issues of race, wealth inequality, and the struggles of Black America, his persona has increasingly been polished and marketed to a mainstream audience. One key indication of this came in 2015, in reference to the uprising in Ferguson following the killing of Michael Brown. In an interview with Billboard, Lamar said:

“I wish somebody would look in our neighborhood knowing that it’s already a situation, mentally, where it’s fucked up. What happened to [Michael Brown] should’ve never happened. Never. But when we don’t have respect for ourselves, how do we expect them to respect us? It starts from within. Don’t start with just a rally, don’t start from looting—it starts from within.” 

This two-tongued quote could have easily been ghost-written by Barack Obama. With his brand of ‘pull your pants up’ messaging to Black people, the President perfected a call to ‘sit-down-be-humble’ in the face of mass movements; inspiring meaningless individualized action and inaction. The shift in his role should be expected, given Lamar’s vaulted position in the highly commercialized music industry and his growing ties with brands and high-profile corporate deals. Lamar’s business decisions, including signing endorsement deals with companies like Reebok and Apple ensure his loyalty to the system. While it is understandable for artists to capitalize on their success, the sheer volume of commercial endorsement deals raises questions about whether Lamar’s message of resistance has been diluted in favor of fame and profit. 

As one critic that goes by the moniker The-CollegeDropIn put it: 

“How can Kendrick go from making an album about labels pimping artists and robbing them of their creative visions, while calling out corporate fat-cats who are partially responsible for the suffering poor blacks face, to literally making an album for corporate fat cats who produce the most vapid, meaningless shit. People acting like Black Panther has anything to do with being black, or being Afrocentric. ‘Oh look guys, we have a black director’, who’s literally no more than a tool of old white people who tell him how to make the movie as vapid as possible.”

Moreover, Lamar’s participation in major award shows, like the Grammys, often blurs the line between activism and entertainment. Though he sporadically uses his platform to address systemic racism, his affiliation with the corporate sponsors of these events—who often profit from the very systems he critiques—raises concerns about the veracity of his activism.

“This is what it’s about, man. Because at the end of the day, nothing is more powerful than rap music. We are the culture. It’s gonna always stay here and live forever.” He continued his vague inspirational platitudes with this: “To the young artists, I just hope you respect the art form, get you where you need to go.”

Lamar’s ascension in the industry was directly related to his transformation into a West Coast Drake, excavating his eclectic inner emotions and existential struggles. Again, from The_CollegeDropIn:

“Nowadays he is just music for white kids at a frat party. Humble is a good song, but it’s no more than a banger for a bunch of white kids doing E, with one or two middle class Black kids acting like it’s the most fire shit ever, dabbing and yelling. Kendrick is just too popular now for his own good. Everyone just sees him as this ‘woke, deep’ rapper, but since his audience is now a bunch of white kids who play football, he can’t rap about anything woke or deep, so he raps about stupid ‘internal struggles’ and stuff, because that’s the only ‘struggle’ rich white people can relate to.” 

It is this metamorphosis that distinguished Lamar as the “Patron Saint of the Literati” as music writer Taylor Crumpton described him, “the darling of the Grammys.” Only then is he canonized by the all-white Pulitzer Prize committee, with their refined tastes.  

In essence, Lamar’s presence in these spaces shows that more often than not, artists take the easier path, and become subservient to the systems that be.  

Jay-Z: The NFL’s New “Social Justice” Mouthpiece

While Lamar’s evolution into a mainstream figure may reflect the natural course of a successful artist’s career, Jay-Z’s involvement with the NFL represents a more explicit and calculated effort to suppress the militant response to racial injustice in America. In 2019, Jay-Z struck a deal with the NFL to become the league’s “social justice advisor” and oversee its entertainment programming, including the Super Bowl halftime show. On the surface, this seemed like a victory for social justice—an attempt to incorporate activism into the NFL’s platform. However, beneath the surface, Jay-Z’s partnership with the NFL can be viewed as a strategic maneuver to placate the militant sentiments within Black America.

Kaepernick’s protest against police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem ignited a national debate and ultimately led to his exclusion from the NFL. The NFL’s response to Kaepernick was a blatant display of how corporate interests can quash social activism when it becomes too inconvenient. Jay-Z’s involvement with the NFL was seen by many as an attempt to neutralize the growing outrage surrounding Kaepernick’s treatment. Eric Reid, who took a knee alongside teammate Kaepernick summed up Jay-Z’s dealings with the NFL this way:

“Jay-Z doesn’t need the NFL’s help to address social injustices. It was a money move for him and his music business. The NFL gets to hide behind his Black face to try to cover up blackballing Colin.”

By taking a seat at the table, Jay-Z could be positioned as a middleman—someone who understood the concerns of the Black community but was willing to work within the system to create incremental change. Recall now Jay-Z’s legacy of being a go-between for the capitalist class and activists. During the Occupy Movement in 2010-11, he donned an “Occupy All Streets” t-shirt, which his Rocawear company sold with the intention of “reminding people that there is change to be made everywhere, not just on Wall Street.” This kind of “All Lives Matter” misdirection was an intentional ploy to water down the political outrage of the times. In his own words: 

“Yeah, the one per cent that’s robbing people, and deceiving people, these fixed mortgages and all these things, and then taking their home away from them, that’s criminal, that’s bad,” he told Zadie Smith in the Times. “[But it’s] not [bad] being an entrepreneur. This is free enterprise. This is what America is built on.”

Jay-Z had officially joined the Obama cult of two-tongued liaisons of the oppressor class. With a networth of 2.5 Billion, Jay-Z was obviously wary of the broadside indictment on the 1% club he was now a member of.  

Fast-forward to 2020 and Jay-Z’s decision to work with the NFL is widely criticized as an opportunistic move. Jay-Z, who had built his brand as a socially conscious rapper, was now merely serving as a tool for the NFL to manage its public relations crisis. In his piece Jay-Z Isn’t a Sellout, He’s a Capitalist, sports writer Dave Zirin described the deal this way:

“With the subtlety of a blowtorch, they staged this [press announcement] on the third anniversary of Kaepernick’s first anthem protest. The message was clear: This was about turning the page on Kaepernick and any protest that would directly confront racism either in the NFL or on the platform the league provides.”

Rather than pushing for radical change, Jay-Z’s NFL partnership ultimately served to whitewash the league’s history of racial discrimination, positioning him as a figurehead for a more palatable, corporate-friendly form of activism.

“The Art of the Deal” and the Commercialization of Black Resistance

It all came together—two titans of the hip hop world united at this moment, Jay-Z and K-dot, producing their own version of the “The Art of the Deal” on the highest stage—Superbowl Sunday, February 9, 2025. 

Enter Lamar, who spent much of last year invoking Tupac’s name, in his corporate-approved pickleball battle with Drake, because he can’t stand on his own revolutionary anti-establishment legacy. Kendrick’s vocal delivery (sounding like a chipmunk on these latest tracks) and politics becomes more and more shrill, that is why he is acceptable for the military-imbued, Air Force fly-over NFL showcase event. Drake may be good for listening to in places like Target, Kendrick is good-listening for the  Blue MAGA, blue chip neoliberal “conscious” activists. It’s a one-size-fits-all messaging for anyone on the front lines of their own personalized existential conflict who needs abstract anthems to justify anything “We gonna be alright…”—the lyrical equivalent of “Just Do It”.

Kendrick claims to be no one’s Savior, nor should entertainers be, but his move to play during the capitalist half-time showcase seems especially tone deaf, given the US/Israel genocidal program in Palestine. And afterall, have the We Charge Genocide conditions for Black Americans, that Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to, really changed in the decade since he took a knee?  But when white supremacy is on the rise or in doubt, send in neoliberal necromancers Kamala and Kendrick, America’s DEI special agents of the moment to smooth over imperialism. 

So desperate for a win, the K-hive was all about it, interpreting all sorts of deeper mysticism and political meaning to the halftime show. The euphoria over make-believe political moments was reminiscent of the bonanza over the Black Panther movies. How much kool-aid was imbibed to think Wakanda and the Superdome were real places? Lamar’s act may have been subversive 25 years ago, when Spike Lee’s film Bamboozled (2000) came out, but presently it seems like he and Jay-Z are the ones donning blackface for flimsy dog and donkey shows; super performative politics for the Super Bowl. 

“Not Like Us” could easily serve as the perfect anthem for MAGA members of the audience and their Tsar. It is a hyper nativist screed, scapegoating a foreign competitor who really isn’t the source of your problems. That this becomes high art, Grammy garnering, Taylor Swift shimmying material, is in direct relation to its commercial service as a misdirection tool, a political distraction from the real culprits.   

Kendrick Lamar and Jay-Z have thus become master magicians, meta artists of misdirection. Their respective transformations highlight the higher level reality within the entertainment industry: the cleansing and commodification of Black resistance. The initial raw power of Lamar and Jay-Z’s messages has been diluted, as both artists’ platforms have been absorbed by larger, profit-driven systems. Lamar, once hailed for his incisive critiques of American capitalism, has found himself pimped, playing by the rules of that very system. Similarly, Jay-Z, a figure who once prided himself on his ability to challenge the all-white managerial class, has become a key player in a corporate machine that thrives on stifling dissent.

Both Lamar and Jay-Z’s actions speak to a broader issue within the world of hip-hop and activism. The mainstreaming of Black resistance often comes with a heavy price. What was once radical and confrontational is transformed into something palatable for the masses—an acceptable form of activism that doesn’t challenge the power structures that created inequality in the first place. The irony of Lamar’s success is that his music has been sanitized by the very systems of capitalism, corporate sponsorship, and celebrity culture that he once criticized. The irony of Jay-Z’s NFL deal is that, despite his commitment to social justice, his partnership with the NFL league has failed to deliver any meaningful change, instead offering the illusion of progress.

Conclusion: Action Speaks Louder than Lyrics

Kendrick Lamar’s transformation from an artist rooted in Black resistance to a mainstream celebrity reflects the challenges of maintaining authenticity in a system that thrives on profit over principle. Meanwhile, Jay-Z’s involvement with the NFL demonstrates how corporate interests can weaponize activism to undermine more radical, transformative movements. Both men have navigated the complexities of fame, capitalism and activism, but in doing so, they have softened their stances, trading authenticity for visibility and influence. As the commercialization of Black activism continues, the question remains: how can artists and activists remain true to their cause without becoming instruments of the very systems they aim to dismantle?

Finally, for further investigation and possible solutions to this dilemma, we could simply turn back to Lamar’s original work To Pimp A Butterfly, a metaphor for society’s “pimping” of young Black men for their artistic talent —the butterfly, while simultaneously driving them towards materialistic self-destruction. A deeper look at the political art of deception is found in Laundering Black Rage: The Washing of Black Death, People, Property, and Profits, by Rasul A. Mowatt and Too Black. Provided in its description:

“[It] Examines how Black rage—conceived as a constructive and logical response to the conquest of resources, land, and human beings racialized as Black—is cleaned for the unyielding means of White capital. Interlacing political theory with international histories of Black rebellion, it presents a thoughtful challenge to the counterinsurgent tactics of the State that consistently convert Black Rage into a commodity to be bought, sold, and repressed. Laundering Black Rage investigates how the Rage directed at the police murder of George Floyd could be marshalled to funnel the Black Lives Matter movement into corporate advertising and questionable leadership, while increasing the police budgets inside the laundry cities of capital — largely with our consent.”

“Rage is not enough. What are you going to do in response to that issue? The further the response is from the issue that produced the rage, the more it opens the doorway for laundering.”

— Rasul Mowatt

The post Jay-Z & Kendrick Lamar: A Case Study in Laundering Black Rage & The Subtle Erosion of Wokeness first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By Henry De Groot, Travis Wayne, Reid Jackson, Aaron Hall

Timeline:

1. Tuesday, March 25: ICE abducts SEIU member Rümeysa Öztürk in Somerville
2. Wednesday, March 26: Thousands enraged at Somerville’s Powder House Square after mobilization in 6 hours
3. Thursday, March 27: Hundreds swarm outside Somerville City Council to apply pressure on councillors to vote for BDS. ICE abducts another SEIU member: Lewelyn Dixon
4. Wednesday, April 2: Labor, both grassroots locals and SEIU International, rally against ICE abductions in Boston
5. Saturday, April 5: Free Rümeysa movement joins with anti-DOGE movement with rally of 20,000 on Boston Common
   

Tuesday, March 25: Tufts Union Worker Detained By ICE In Somerville

By Henry De Groot

SOMERVILLE, MA – Tufts University PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the evening of March 25, 2025. According to Öztürk’s attorney, sources report, Öztürk has a valid F-1 visa and was returning home to meet with friends and break her Ramadan fast when she was detained by federal agents, near Electric Avenue and Mason Street in Somerville, just a block away from Tufts’ campus in Medford. Some reports indicate that agents had been circling her neighborhood in unmarked vehicles for several days.

The university administration reports they were told that Ozturk’s visa has been terminated. They shared the following statement:

In March 2024, Öztürk was one of four authors of an Op-Ed in the The Tufts Daily, the school’s student newspaper, titled “Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions.” The article called on the universities’ administration to implement the anti-genocide resolutions adopted by the Tufts Community Union Senate.

Öztürk is a member of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 509. Her attorney, Mahsa Khanbabai, filed a petition of habeas corpus in Massachusetts federal court for her to be released. US District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a 3-page ruling that Öztürk was not to be moved out of the state without prior notice, but the Trump Administration ignored the judicial order and moved her to Louisiana — where the Trump Administration has detained several targeted immigrant workers targeted as part of the Palestine movement.

The action comes as ICE reports that it arrested 370 migrants across Massachusetts after a multi-day raid targeting over 350 immigrant workers.

Öztürk’s detention is just the latest in a series of actions targeting university students, workers, and faculty as Trump carries out his election promise to deport foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian and anti-war efforts. Öztürk was listed by the right-wing doxing website Canary Mission back in February 2025.

Our coverage at Working Mass of Rümeysa Öztürk’s abduction played a role in national attention: within a few days, over 1 million viewers had seen the footage with tens of thousands of interactions. As of this writing, 8 million viewers have seen Working Mass’s thread.

Wednesday, March 26: Somerville Stops Short of Escalation in Powder House Square

By Travis Wayne

Somerville, MA – On March 26, the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation at Tufts and the Palestine Youth Movement organized an emergency protest against ICE with dozens of other groups – notably unions, like Rümeysa Öztürk’s own Local 509, within six hours the day following the abduction of Tufts grad worker Rümeysa Öztürk. Union members reported to Working Mass that the local’s members embedded in the same higher education sectors of the union as Rümeysa organized heavy turnout. Foot traffic converged across the city as thousands descended upon one site: Powder House Park, the same hill where crowds decided to organize the Minutemen information network that sustained the American Revolution to throw off British rule. Rally organizers were aware of the symbolism. Powder House Square was where one tyrant’s end began; “We are about to do it again,” tour docent Mary Mangan shouted. Boston DSA released a rapid-fire email before 9 AM calling for mobilization to Powder House. The Somerville branch of the mass organization conducted direct outreach to hundreds of active members and supporters to mobilize their relative networks to the square. 

After two hours of speeches, including rights training and mass education on the LUCE hotline for reporting ICE, the rally dispersed. Organizations returned to their networks to discuss how to translate LUCE hotline information into other languages and how to host similar rainings to raise community defense in their own constituencies. Willie Burnley Jr, DSA elected and Somerville City Councillor, sent out the LUCE flyer to his mass base. Somerville DSA members targeted pedestrian hot spots with hundreds of such flyers alongside organization meeting information on the hotline for reporting ICE and scheduled a Somerville ICE Watch guest speaker to conduct training for their next meeting.

Thursday, March 27: Cops Fight Off Hundreds from Entering Somerville City Hall in Support of Palestine

By Travis Wayne

Somerville, MA – On March 27, the day after thousands swarmed Powder House Square, masses of people surged at the guards of Somerville City Hall. Hundreds more than anticipated showed up at Somerville City Council’s meeting, thundering slogans.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHuKd3nM-26/?igsh=MWFmeXM5b2o2d2Y0ZA==

People were responding to an action call from Palestine organizers uniting to free Rümeysa Öztürk at Powder House Square the day before: support Somerville for Palestine‘s measure to end Somerville investment in Israeli apartheid by vote.

Despite hundreds shouting slogans outside, Somerville City Council chose to require Somerville for Palestine to organize to place the BDS municipal resolution on the November ballot instead of make a clear vote. “To get this question officially on the ballot, we need to collect signatures from at least 10% of Somerville’s registered voters,” organizers reported. Only two city councilors voted with Somerville for Palestine: DSA elected officials JT Scott and Willie Burnley Jr., endorsed a week later on April 6 by Boston DSA in his campaign for highest office in the area: Mayor of Somerville. Burnley expressed his frustration with fellow councilors to Working Mass:

I am deeply disappointed that my colleagues refused to honor the efforts of Rümeysa Öztürk and the advocates in our community that have called for divestment from companies complicit with Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and genocide by refusing to take this vote. As always, my faith remains in the people to struggle for liberation and dignity of us all.

The same day, ICE abducted Lewelyn Dixon – a lab technician and member of Local 925 of SEIU.

Dixon was the second SEIU member kidnapped by ICE.

Wednesday, April 2: Labor and Mass Organizations Unite Against ICE Abductions

By Reid Jackson

BOSTON, MA – After thousands flooded Somerville’s Powder House Square to protest the abduction of Rümeysa Öztürk before nearly overwhelming guards at Somerville City Hall for Palestine the next day, labor and local mass organizations united in Boston City Hall Plaza across the Charles River on April 2. Öztürk’s own Local 509 was joined by its Service Employees International Union raging against the abduction of two of its members, United Auto Workers, Boston Teachers Union, and the MIT Graduate Student Union, along with Boston DSA and other labor-oriented mass organizations, all came together with a message: demand for the immediate release of union siblings Rümeysa Öztürk and Lewelyn Dixon from ICE custody. The rally was attended by hundreds of union members and unorganized workers supporting labor that filled the crowd in front of the John F. Kennedy Federal Building. 

Protesters came with signs, homemade and provided by the unions, each with their own message urging for the release of Rümeysa. A twenty footlong custom banner with Rümeysa’s likeness drawn read: “writing an op-ed is not a crime!” referencing the alleged reason for her abduction. Working families brought their kids in strollers and bundled them up for the brisk April weather. No chant went unanswered as the crowd rumbled through building canyons around.

Come for one, face us all! Free Rümeysa, free us all!

These chants were led by speakers who spoke on a platform and podium brought by labor to the face of the imposing JFK Federal Building. Among the speakers were April Verrett, President of the SEIU; Patricia Jehlen, State Senator for the district Rümeysa lived in; and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu on the need for the city of Boston and the Commonwealth itself to unite to protect our neighbors who could be the next targets of the Trump Administration. Verrett from the SEIU stood defiant:

We dealt with the dreams deferred too long. We’ve got to seize this moment and make it ours. We’re right here. We’re not backing down. We want Rümeysa back. We want Lewelyn Dixon back. We want every single person who has been detained. We want them back.

Two nights later, SEIU projected two messages over the Boston Common: “No Scabs, No Fascists.” Another showed Rümeysa’s face with the message “Free Rümeysa Now!”

Image of projections from Boston Common by SEIU. Photo by SEIU Local 509.

Saturday, April 5: “Hands Off Boston” Rallies Over 20,000 to Boston Common

By Aaron Hall and Travis Wayne

BOSTON, MA —- In the late morning of April 5, 2025, over 20,000 protestors gathered in the warming Boston Common to demonstrate against Trump and the billionaire clique’s rapid power grab overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) abducting people like Rümeysa Öztürk. The event was sponsored by around 118 organizations, from unions to volunteer organizations, including the Federal Unionists Network (FUN) recently founded by militant workers organizing their coworkers whose jobs and union contracts are under direct siege in the tens of thousands by DOGE.

The protest connected the movement to Free Rümeysa with the movement to defend union jobs and social services under attack by the Trump Administration. The event coincided with a historic wave of 1,200 similar protests worldwide that roiled everywhere from coastal cities to inland conservative towns under the banner of “Hands Off 2025.”

At 11:20 am, the “Hands Off” masses marched on Boston City Hall for speeches by Sen. Ed Markey, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Director of APICAN Jaya Savita, Massachusetts AFL-CIO president Chrissy Lynch, AFT-MA president Jessica Tang, AFGE Council 215 president Rich Couture, and co-founder of Trans Resistance Chastity Bowick. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu made a surprise appearance.

The abduction of grad worker Rümeysa Öztürk from Greater Boston was front and center for many speakers, as it was in Washington. The day before, a judge ruled her case would be considered in Vermont instead of Louisiana (which would prove only a temporary victory, as U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III would on April 7 deny the request to order ICE to release Rümeysa). Speakers fused their calls for her release with the specter of the billionaire capture of the federal government and the continued genocide in Gaza. Protestors carried signs painting Trump and Elon Musk as Nazis and the administration’s actions as fascistic.

The mass scale of “Hands Off” could mark a shift in public opinion against the Trump Administration, as well as bridging between the struggles to Free Rümeysa, free Palestine, and free the masses from the billionaire capture of the U.S. federal government. Speakers spoke against wealth inequality and blatant corruption in the state. Sen. Ed Markey called out billionaires for “standing right behind [Trump].” And as liberal organizations delivered speeches, Boston DSA mobilized a legion of organizers to hold organizing conversations to ask rally attendees to fight fascism with long-term organizing while distributing Workers Deserve More pamphlets to demonstrators gathered across the Boston Common.

The demonstration ended with the Dropkick Murphys performing a labor song pulled from the 1930s: Pete Seeger’s “Which Side Are You On?”

That day, Rümeysa released a statement through her attorney:

When the crowd of tens of thousands dispersed from the Boston Common, opinions were mixed. The movement had swelled with popular support fueled by outrage at the abduction of a community member along with a slew of other grievances against the billionaire’s assault on working people. But popular support for the shared demand to free Rümeysa did not mean everyone was a socialist. Liberal flags for every cause were seen beside socialist banners, including at least a few “Hands Off NATO.”

Nonetheless, the local movement did signal a newly-fused political coalition. Corey S, co-chair of Boston DSA, told Working Mass:

As a person of color, Rümeysa Öztürk’s abduction has been a stark reminder that none of us are safe when ICE is able to roam freely. . . but something heartening to see out of all of this is the cooperation between two groups that historically weren’t as aligned: pro-Palestine groups and labor.

Neither flashes of militancy nor mass popular demonstration across Greater Boston has won Öztürk’s release, but ICE abductions of union workers activated new swathes of labor against the Trump Administration. That includes grassroots locals like Öztürk’s SEIU Local 509 and its powerful international SEIU. The largest private sector union is now in open confrontation with the Trump Administration, joining federal workers already organizing against Trump and Musk’s attacks in defense of their jobs and social services that union workers provide to the people. Coalition partners in the Palestine movement continue to rattle Greater Boston with their demands — including divestment, as Rümeysa Öztürk called for in her op-ed for which ICE abducted her. Both movements are working closer together.

Nonetheless, for now, Rümeysa remains unfree.

Henry De Groot is the managing editor of Working Mass and a member of Boston DSA.

Travis Wayne is the deputy managing editor of Working Mass and co-chair of the Somerville branch of Boston DSA.

 Reid Jackson is a contributing writer at Working Mass and a former member of the University of Rhode Island YDSA.

Aaron Hall is a biotech worker and a contributing writer for Working Mass.

The April 5 Hands Off! protests were not the first against Trump and his cronies and they won’t be the last. Indeed, April 5 would not have been possible without unionized federal and postal workers and teachers and students marching and sticking up for themselves. But Saturday saw more than a million people demonstrate their willingness to fight back and that has changed the mood. Millions of people passed over from shock and awe to hell no!

But our unions, communities, and social movements are suffering from decades of free-trading and neoliberal attacks and racist, sexist, and anti-LGTBQ+ bigotry, all of which have weakened our organizing capacity. Trump does not yet care about opposition from below. He’s golfing. We’ll see which way the markets go in the coming days. Big investors may force Trump to modify his tariff trade war in their favor, or they may simply ride it out in exchange for massive tax cuts. And if the courts have shown a willingness to slow down his blitzkrieg, when it comes down to it, relying on the Supreme Court to reign in Trump means relying on Brett Kavanaugh… a grim prospect indeed. Either way, it would be a mistake to underestimate MAGAism’s staying power and the administration’s willingness to stick to its guns. Remember, Reagan used the 1981-82 recession to smash unions and attack social spending.

How do we confront this situation in the immediate and medium term? The long term matters as well but it will be conditioned by what we are able to accomplish in the coming few years.

[Read next: Thousands say Hands Off Maine!]

We all belong to some kind of organization or community. And some have deep roots and traditions anchoring them in decades or centuries of struggle. For instance, the Wabanaki people have endured 500 years of colonial assault and today form one of the most effective and sophisticated political powers in what we call Maine. The Maine AFL-CIO brings together more than 200 unions, representing 40,000 workers across the entire state with a proud history of strikes and struggles. The Maine Council of Churches builds bridges between congregations and faiths and has long stood for social justice. Advocacy organizations like Maine People’s Alliance, Equality Maine, and the League of Conservation Voters shine a light on discrimination and speak up for poor and marginalized communities. The Maine Immigrants Rights Coalition, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, and Presente! Maine all give voice and provide legal and mutual aid to New Mainers. The Maine Coalition for Palestine and Bowdoin Students for Justice in Palestine have forced us all to confront our own elected officials support for the genocide in Gaza. The Maine Democratic Socialists of America is one of the new kids on the block, but has demonstrated an ability to work on multiple fronts, including winning office and important reforms in Portland. And Indivisible and Maine Resists provided the infrastructure for the April 5 protests themselves. There are, of course, hundreds of local and statewide groups I can’t list here. The point is, Maine does not suffer from organizing capacity. 

All these organizations have different levels of capacity and bring different expertise, resources, and priorities to the table. It is rarely possible to agree on everything, but under certain conditions, a great deal of unity can be created—not in the abstract—but in action. And this is exactly what we need today. Maine needs a united front to defend ourselves from Trump’s attacks and build a powerful enough movement to turn the tide back towards The Way Life Should Be for all of us. 

[Read next: Solidarity against Trump means joining an organization]

The first thing to keep in mind is that a united front is a process. Building unity between different social and political forces takes time, both to build up a set of common experiences and develop the necessary trust to withstand setbacks and differences of opinion. Some may say that time is precisely what we don’t have, instead, we must act now at all costs without patiently building up the durability of our own peoples movements. This is how Trump wants us to think. We can’t fall for it. This doesn’t mean we can’t act quickly, but it does mean that we must move together and, like it or not, that takes time to plan.

Here are some ABCs to begin thinking about how to accomplish this. 

Bring together organizations facing a common threat who see the need to build solidarity to defend themselves and to defend the rights and well-being of others. No one organization or community claims to speak for all of Maine. If we want to create a real democratic power, we must recognize that power can only be assembled by mutual recognition. 

Make decisions openly and democratically. This is easier said than done, but it is essential for building an effective movement. Trump wants to destroy democracy, if we want to transform our community groups, unions, and organizations into centers of people power, then we should give people a place to practice it. We open the DOOR: Discuss and decide. Organize and act. Observe and assess. Repeat and improve. 

March separately, but strike together. Partners in a united front can agree on basic points of unity and basic norms of cooperation. All groups should promote common objectives and actions, for instance, we will all cooperate to organize at X time and Y place or places on May Day. However, each group retains the freedom to publicize and promote their own particular political program and organize their own independent actions. Trust and credibility are the ties that help bind us together when inevitable stresses arrive. 

Solidarity and action are the keys. A united front is not a political party. It is not a debating society. It is not a walk in the park. It is an agreement between organizations to take concrete action to defend one another and to tilt the balance of forces towards the common good. Rather than writing long treatises, united fronts work best when they focus on concrete action. 

Leaders, organizers, artists, participants all play a role. We ought to make it as easy to participate as possible. This means publicizing events and inviting people through all available means, but especially through face-to-face discussions. We need organizers who are willing to dedicate time to running committees. We need artists who can make our work beautiful and fun. And we need leaders. Leaders in a social movement are not appointed. They have to earn their stripes by strengthening common bonds and articulating mutual aspirations as well as developing useful strategies and tactics. 

Organize locally, coordinate statewide. Maine is a big state and no town or region has to wait for anyone’s permission to call a local meeting and start organizing. United fronts can begin in a town, a county, or a region, or among students at different schools, or members of different unions or community groups. The more organizing going on at the local level, the more powerful our efforts will be when we combine into coordinated statewide action. Local and statewide actions can be mutually reinforcing. 

What does this mean in Maine? A couple weeks ago, the Chicago Teachers Union hosted people from more than 200 organizations to plan for a mass action on May day. As Bernie might say, it’s going to be HUGE! We face different circumstances here and there is no ready-made blueprint. We may fail or only partially succeed at first. But practice makes perfect. And what other choice do we have? May Day in Maine is a good place to start. 

If you’re looking for a place to get involved, email info@mainedsa.org

The post We need an anti-Trump united front in Maine appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Upcoming Events

Tuesday, April 8 (7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.): Abolish Rent Reading Group session 3 (In person at 438 Haight)

Wednesday, April 9 (6:45 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.): April General Meeting (Zoom and in person at Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Thursday, April 10 (5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.): Education Board Open Meeting (Zoom)

Thursday, April 10 (5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.): Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group (Zoom)

Friday, April 11 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.): Office Hours (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, April 12 (10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.): No Appetite for Apartheid Training and Outreach (Meet in person at 518 Valencia)

Saturday, April 12 (1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Training and Outreach (RSVP for location information)

Saturday, April 12 (1:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.): Muni History Walking & Riding Tour (Meet at Kearny & Market)

Monday, April 14 (5:50 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): Electoral Board Meeting + Socialist in Office Hour (Zoom)

Monday, April 14 (6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Tenderloin Healing Circle (In person at Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate)

Monday, April 14 (6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Regular Meeting (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Monday, April 14 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Labor Bord Meeting (Zoom)

Wednesday, April 16 (6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): What Is DSA? (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Wednesday, April 16 (6:45 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Tenant Organizing Working Group Meeting (In person at 438 Haight)

Thursday, April 17 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Immigrant Justice Working Group Meeting (Zoom and in person, location TBD)

Saturday, April 19 (12:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.): Tenant Organizing Mission Canvass (Meet in person at Café La Bohème, 3318 24th St)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

Events & Actions

No Appetite for Apartheid Outreach Training & Canvassing This Saturday

No Appetite for Apartheid is a campaign aimed at reducing economic support for Israeli apartheid by canvassing local businesses to boycott Israeli goods. Join the Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group at 518 Valencia St this Saturday, April 12 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to learn how you can help and take steps to make the Bay Area apartheid-free!

We will be doing a training on how to talk to stores in your neighborhood, then going out and talking with stores together!

Come Join the Tenderloin Healing Circle on April 14 and 28

All are welcome to attend the Tenderloin Healing Circle. The healing circle is a great way to connect, reflect, and share food with other DSA members and folks in the Tenderloin community. The Healing Circle will be meeting at the Kelly Cullen Auditorium at 220 Golden Gate Ave on April 14th and 28th from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Food is provided, and masks are provided and encouraged.

Office Hours

Co-work with your comrades! Come to the DSA SF office and get your DSA work or work-work done, or just hang out. We’ll  be at 1916 McAllister from 12:00 p.m to 5:00 p.m. on Fridays.

Capital Reading Group

DSA SF has started a Marx’s Capital reading group! We’ll be meeting every other Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at 1916 McAllister St. and also on Zoom. We’ll meet on April 20th to wrap up our discussion of chapter 1 and cover chapter 2 and the afterword to the second German edition. We’re reading the new translation published by Princeton University Press. You can also join the #capital-rdg-group-2025 channel on the DSA SF Slack for additional information and discussion!

Urban Ore Picket Line Reportback

On March 30th, at 900 Murray St., DSA members and Urban Ore workers held the picket line for a strike that started on March 22nd, demanding that the owners bargain in good faith with workers who formed a union with IWW IU 670 in April 2023. Despite claims since at least 2017 that they would like to transfer ownership to workers “as soon as possible,” the owners have been absent from or cancelled bargaining sessions and have not provided financial information necessary to bargain.

DSA SF Labor Board’s presence brought the picket line total to 15. Workers were able to deter about 50% of visitors from crossing the picket line. DSA SF also stood at the donation area at the back of the warehouse to encourage those unloading to take their salvage elsewhere. In addition to avoiding bargaining, the owners have threatened layoffs to keep the business afloat during the strike instead of coming to the table. The Urban Ore strike fund is currently at 91% of their goal and keeps costs low for workers. Please spread the word to support these courageous comrades and get them to 100%! For more strike and bargaining updates, check out @Urban_Ore_Workers and @sfbayareaiww on Instagram.

Behind the Scenes

The Chapter Coordination Committee (CCC) regularly rotates duties among chapter members. This allows us to train new members in key duties that help keep the chapter running like organizing chapter meetings, keeping records updated, office cleanup, updating the DSA SF website and newsletter, etc. Members can view current CCC rotations.

To help with the day-to-day tasks that keep the chapter running, fill out the CCC help form.

The post How to Organize Memphis Midsouth DSA Style first appeared on Memphis-Midsouth DSA.

• Our Stitching Social is this Saturday April 5th at noon, at the Northside Branch Library. Bring a craft project you're working on and chat with comrades!
• We are co-hosting a Happy Hour with Abortion Forward on Thursday, April 10th 7:30 PM at Urban Artifact! This is a great chance for our members to build relationships with pro-choice organizers in Cincinnati and across Ohio!
• Our series of Self-Defense Trainings continues this Friday April 11th at 6:00 PM! As always, we're joined by an experienced self-defense instructor. There will additionally be a social at about 7:00 PM following the self-defense course.
• We are co-hosting a Death of Stalin movie showing with Topia Coffee Cooperative on April 12th at 6:00 PM, located as always at Topia Coffee Cooperative! This is a movie rated R, so be mindful of childrens' attendance, but it's a lot of fun as well! Drinks and snacks will be available for purchase, but RSVP quickly-we have a maximum capacity of 20 for this event!

A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

-- Karl Marx

Sophie Garner is the state co-chair of the Maine Democratic Socialists of America. She spoke to thousands on April 5 assembled to demand Hands Off! federal union contracts, trans rights and immigrant rights, and democracy. More than 10,000 people gathered across the state in more than a dozen cities and towns. As Trump provokes a global trade war and continues flashing the green light for genocide in Gaza, protests look set to continue on International Workers Day, May 1.

Thank you for being here. I’m Sophie Garner, Chapter Chair of the Maine Democratic Socialists of America. I’m a grad student at Northeastern University and an advocate focused on violence prevention policy and research. I work for a national gun violence prevention organization, and most recently, I was a lead organizer on a ballot initiative to put an extreme risk protection order on Maine’s November 2025 ballot. I hope you vote yes this fall to protect our schools and communities from gun violence. 

When writing this speech, I realized I don’t need to list all the horrific things Trump and his billionaire buddies are doing—you already know. That’s why we’re here. 

[Read next: Thousands say Hands Off! Maine]

However, I want to talk about another reason we are here. We are here because we know that change doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens in the streets, in our neighborhoods, in conversations among people who refuse to accept the status quo. It happens when we build community, not as a concept, but as a force that moves us forward.

But what does it mean to build community? And more importantly, where do you fit in?

Community isn’t just about showing up—it’s about bringing what you have, when you can. Every one of us has a skill, a strength, an experience that can push this movement forward. Maybe you’re an organizer who unites people, a strategist who crafts a plan, or an artist who shapes the message. Maybe you’re a teacher, a healer, a researcher, or a builder. Whatever your skill set, the movement needs you. If we want to end this nightmare and rebuild, we need our own infrastructure.

Too often, we think activism belongs to those with the loudest voices or biggest platforms. But history tells us otherwise. Movements are built by ordinary people showing up, consistently, with intention, and together.

And that’s the key: together.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the labor movement, where unions have proven that collective action wins. Better wages, safer conditions, dignity on the job. That same power of solidarity applies to every fight we’re in today—whether for reproductive rights, trans liberation, Palestine liberation, or any of the struggles happening right now. Not only are they interconnected, but they require the same commitment from all of us.

But let’s be real, while this might resonate with many of you, many of us are also exhausted. Change feels daunting.

I know many of you wake up, turn on the news and think: This country is so fucked—but at the same time, I need to walk the dog, finish work, and have free time? You ache for change. But you wonder, Where would I find the time to do anything? What could I even add to this?

I get it. We all do. Life is overwhelming, especially now. But here’s the hard truth: nothing changes if we don’t make the time.

Movements are built by people just like you—people with jobs, families, responsibilities. You don’t need to give up everything. You don’t have to burn out. But you do need to commit. Because no one is coming to save us. We have to save each other. 

So when you go home today, ask yourself: What do you bring to this movement? Who will you stand beside? Will you stand up for workers fighting for fair pay? For renters demanding affordable housing? Organizers knocking on doors, making calls, building the resistance? And after you reflect—act.

Because solidarity isn’t just a word, it’s an action. And it’s the foundation of every victory we’ve ever won, and WILL ever win.

Building a better world starts with small, powerful decisions—to contribute what you can, when you can. When we bring our skills, energy, and commitment to the movement, we turn collective power into real change.

One important step we can all take together is celebrating May Day, International Workers Day, which is May 1st. We’re planning a protest in Portland, and we’d love to see actions all over the state supporting workers. If you’re interested, please get in touch with us. 

[Read next: New England DSA protests ICE detentions]

But my big ask here today: Join an organization. If you don’t have a political home, make one. We’d love to have you—Maine DSA needs you. Join us at mainedsa.org/join. If not us, then plug into an organization that’s already doing the work.

Please do not just go home and wait for the next protest. Protesting is only one piece of this. Make a commitment today towards building this resistance movement. 

Show up. Bring your skills. Be part of the fight.

Because movements don’t just need supporters—they need builders. And that means you.

What do we do when workers are under attack? Stand up, fight back!

What do we do when immigrants are under attack?

Stand up, fight back!

What do we do when our LGBTQ friends are under attack?

Stand up, fight back!

What do we do when our communities are under attack?

WE stand up, and WE fight back!

[Read next: The method to Trump’s Medicaid cut madness]

The post Solidarity against Trump means joining an organization appeared first on Pine & Roses.

As a matter of survival, socialists need to move past models from professionally-managed organizations that focus on campaigns and trainings, and think about long-term organization building through the transformation and empowerment of members.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN was an Alinskyite organization that at its height in the early 2000s had something like 150,000 member families, just about all of them poor, and the majority of them Black and Latino. They boasted the ability to “activate” people in more than 700 communities across the United States. In 2009-10, as a result of a bogus scandal based on a fabricated video, ACORN collapsed in the matter of a year or so. While various chapters survived in different forms under different names, they are a shadow of what ACORN was. 

ACORN fell because it was not resilient or durable under intense pressure, not because of the scandal itself. The organization knew they had a target on their back. Attacks from the right and center were not a surprise. But because that attack undercut the leadership of a fundamentally top-down organization, the absence of member democracy made the organization easier to knock over. 

ACORN provides lessons. Many are positive, like their dedication to organizing some of the poorest workers, often in Black and brown communities. Their downfall teaches us a lot by negative example. 

Over time, ACORN’s non-ideological, very locally focused and staff-heavy community organizing relied on more and more grant funding. This meant they had to show results on a grant cycle. That consistently nudged them towards mobilizing more than organizing. To show numbers, more than to politically empower and transform members into political actors. Eventually their policy campaigns had their members acting more like public relations than political leadership. But a truly mass movement is owned by its participants. That’s why it can’t be decapitated easily. It is not one that will be prone to being co-opted by funding and institutional jobs. 

Emma Tai touches indirectly on the problem of professional campaign-focused “mobilizing” models in a recent essay in Convergence. Tai makes a broad case against “anti-politics,” and the role of “professional democratizers” — organizers with movement jobs — in building the movements we need to resist and ultimately defeat the right. Tai’s essay is a welcome contribution to the discussion on this point.  As one of the architects of Chicago’s United Working Families, Tai can fuse both theoretical understanding with deep and broad experience in local politics and organization building. 

Tai’s experience prompts her to ask a series of questions that get to the heart of what building a truly democratic movement organization means: “How many dues-paying members does an organization have? What decision-making power do they have? Do they elect their own leaders? Do they vote on a platform or political endorsements? Do they move with discipline once that vote is cast[]?” The questions about dues-paying (i.e., direct) members and their decision-making rights is of particular interest, particularly given the historical models NGOs and unions have pursued when building coalition-style movement organizations: where organizations join a coalition institutionally but have little incentive to have their own members join directly, that leaves decision-making in the hands of movement professionals or parochial leaders concerned only with the narrow interests of their own organization. This dynamic alienates members from that umbrella group, undercuts the unity of action Tai asks about, and leaves coalitions prone to infighting between leadership groups. It is why political advocacy coalitions or “networks” so rarely, if ever, amount to more than the sum of their parts.

The problem Tai is grappling with is essentially the problem of movement bosses–of the fact that “the left” generally has drifted towards undemocratic and top-down models that treat democracy with hostility. Democracy is hard, sometimes chaotic, and — crucially — sometimes binds leaders to decisions they don’t personally agree with. That phenomena isn’t unique just to just political advocacy NGOs but also pervades many of the most influential unions. The logic of NGOs has pervaded and become the logic of left organizations and that has created a strata of professionals who step in and “absorb” working class self activity at its critical moments. 

It is the problem with which many of even the most successful movement organizations and coalitions have found themselves struggling. Self-reflecting, two early leaders of the Sunrise Movement, the climate-action youth organization, talk about some of the contradictions and internal tensions that arose as a result of their structure and organizing approach. One thing that shows through is the distinction between “staff” “core” and “volunteers.” These three groupings are discussed as being at odds with each other at a few different points throughout the essay.

As the mass movements of the early and mid 20th century have faded out of living memory, “mobilization” has been treated more and more as the same as “people power.” That assumes that numbers alone are proof that a movement is “mass.” 

We know that numbers aren’t enough. “Mobilizing” large numbers of people is not equal to a movement, especially when that mobilization needs little decision-making or commitment from participants. Hundreds of millions of people vote in elections; millions of people respond to fund-raising texts from Democrats; millions fill out auto-generated emails to Congress. These individual acts accumulated do not mean a movement. 

At the same time, we know that “democracy” in the abstract is no guarantee of revolutionary, radical, or even progressive politics. European far-right parties have used referenda to stoke xenophobia and confused nationalism. “A lot of people voting” does not guarantee a progressive result. No; there is a much more challenging and interesting relationship at work.

Mass movements have to be democratic so they’re not easily knocked over. So that the mistakes or corruption of leaders can’t undermine or destroy the project. They have to be democratic to resist being co-opted. Proximity to power is intoxicating, and only an engaged and empowered membership can be the designated drivers who can snatch the keys away from distant leadership. 

Still, mass movements have to be informed and led by cadres who were themselves changed through class struggle, whether against bosses, landlords, or arms of the oppressive state. Leadership requires “mobilizing” — putting members into motion in class struggle in order to both change the world and change themselves. So mobilization  is also an essential part of the project of building a durable mass movement. 

The mobilizations we prioritize have to be democratically developed and carefully chosen. They can’t just be anything; they should come up from members’ experiences, molded with more experienced comrades, and include political education to help members understand why they are experiencing what they are experiencing and give it a broader meaning. Mobilizations should be easy to access for busy people without being empty of political content or requiring little active participation. 

That is the virtuous cycle of building a durable, democratic mass movement in organization. Putting people into strategic motion to sharpen their class consciousness analysis of the world; developing them into cadre political leadership; bringing their fellow members along with them; and so having socialist outcomes to democratic processes. This virtuous cycle contrasts with focus on campaign models that gained popularity in professional movement NGOs since the 2010-11 uprisings in the US. 

The “Momentum Model” was Made for Grant Cycles

Sunrise, like many progressive nonprofit organizations and coalitions over the last decade, has in its lineage something called the Momentum Model, an organizing “community” that developed the “Momentum Living Model,” an approach to progressive or “social movement” organizing. For a number of years this model was widely adopted. If you’ve come across “train the trainers” or “campaign in a box” style of organizing approaches, then you’re somewhat familiar with it. Momentum cites Justice Democrats, IfNotNow, and Sunrise as three of its successes. 

The model is a bit difficult to explain in plain language or concrete terms. There is a lot of organizer-speak in the formal explanation on their website, but in short, the Momentum Model seeks to fuse mass protest direct action with “structure-based organizing,” a generalized term for what is essentially Alinskyite organizing.

Mass protest is clear enough: minimal structure and leadership, appeals to the general public, and putting as many people on the streets as possible. Mass protest relies on moments of public and community outrage, combined with charismatic leadership and deployment of forms of communication, like local press, radio, church pulpits, social media networks, etc. 

Alinskyite community organizing, of which ACORN is the most successful example, is the local and issue-focused work of building small organizational “bases” in contained areas where there can be a relative advantage for a base of well-organized people. Alinskyite community organizing relies on paid organizers who develop organizational (not political) “leaders,” who in turn cultivate volunteers or activists. Staff is necessary because the work is very intensive and incremental. Small wins prove the value of the organization, which helps develop more leaders and recruit more activists etc. 

The Momentum Model “hybridizes” these two approaches into a “cycle” (this cycle isn’t quite described as being sequential): “escalation,” where people engage in mass nonviolent action (like the summer 2020 uprisings against police violence); then “absorption,” where these newly activated people are “brought into the movement,” which means directing people looking for political direction towards “asks” or simple tasks–another way to say “mobilizing.” This is a quote: “Absorption can mean new people signing an online petition, joining a mass call, or attending an orientation training.” Note the examples used. 

It goes on: “Good absorption doesn’t just move people onto a ladder of engagement — it puts them on an elevator of engagement so that the most enthusiastic new leaders can step into high levels of responsibility quickly.” It is unclear what the practical difference between a “ladder of engagement” and “elevator of engagement” is, unless it is meant to suggest that whereas a ladder requires the person climbing it to put in effort, an elevator allows people to passively move upwards. (Note, the Momentum Community website has recently become private, thus the lack of links). 

After “escalation” and “absorption” comes “active popular support,” which seems to be the articulation of specific demands on power (“defund the police”), which after being made can both “absorb” people and contribute to “escalation” into mass protest or direct action. 

Whether the Momentum Model is good, or works, is not really the point. Clearly it has been effective sometimes and less effective at other times. This isn’t a wholesale critique of that model. What is interesting for us is that the Momentum “cycle” is not a model for building a democratic, mass organization. The words “democratic” and “democracy” do not appear anywhere in the thousands of words describing the Momentum Model. 

It is a model for building campaigns. It developed in a material system where metrics and engagement are critical to getting grant funding; campaigns show good metrics through  “engagement,” (“volunteers sent one million texts”). That can certainly be effective for building an organization. The more effective your organization is (or looks) the more easily money will flow into the organization, whether from major foundations or from other types of “partners,” like large progressive unions, who see it as a viable partner on a particular issue.

But just because campaign engagement metrics impress funders and influential progressive leaders, that does not mean it will bring masses of people into it in a sustained way that will keep them engaged and committed to the organization for years. 

The Work is Important but Needs Meaning 

Obviously a political organization has to do things–it has to run campaigns, it has to show that it can be effective and win things. But winning campaigns is not the same as building a resilient and democratic organization. To the contrary, a rapid cycle of campaigns that rely on intense staff involvement and reliance on a “core” of super-activists can be a recipe for burn-out, disappointment, and, importantly, frustration with the speed of decision-making that excludes deliberative and collective decision-making. Deliberation and decision-making have to work, together with the experience of struggle in campaigns to change a person and win their loyalty for a lifetime. That forms a strong foundation that makes a movement and an organization difficult to destroy. 

Socialists shouldn’t idealize democracy or confuse “meetings” with “organizing.” But we should deeply connect the two things. Deliberative democracy and organizing activity have to be so deeply entwined with each other that they cannot be separated. Members have to, to the maximum degree possible, feel that they are the collective owners of the organization. Organizations should strive for bigness; should try to break out of the “anti-politics” of parochial localism; and should build for resiliency and durability, even when it is less exciting than a short-term win or the allure of proximity to power.

The post Break the Cycle appeared first on Midwest Socialist.