by Kevin N

Sometime in my early twenties — way, way back in the early 2010s — for reasons I’m still not entirely sure about, I suddenly stopped being a nihilist apolitical punk who couldn’t be bothered with activism because he had more important things to drink. I was first radicalized around the issue of campaign finance reform, and got involved with a national organization called Wolf-PAC. I spent a few years lobbying Ohio’s state representatives regarding campaign finance laws — they were invariably bemused each time I walked into their offices with long hair and a patchy leather jacket. In spite of my ratty appearance, I did manage to personally convince a Republican State Representative to change his stance on campaign finance laws after a series of meetings at the Mentor Public Library, although he still wouldn’t sponsor our Wolf-PAC resolution for fear of political backlash. I learned a lot about political advocacy through that experience, but that’s another story.

At some point, I got an email from a group dedicated to campaign finance reform that called itself Democracy Spring. They were organizing a protest in DC, with the intention of having as many people as possible perform an act of civil disobedience by willingly getting arrested for protesting without a permit on the steps of the Capitol Building.

I was absolutely thrilled at the idea. I had romanticized 1960s images of crowds of protestors in my head, and they had convinced me that this was the sort of direct action that would affect real change (that was, indeed, the depth of my analysis). So I threw everything I had into the organization. After months of working with the Democracy Spring organizers in DC, I was able to organize a small contingent of Clevelanders to travel to DC by train and participate in the protest. All in all, there were some 1,300 people who were arrested on the first day of the protests, the largest number of arrests at the Capitol since the Vietnam Protests. More would be arrested in the week that followed.

I spent a week in DC protesting, and it was one of the most exciting weeks of my life. I marched, chanted, and commiserated with like-minded activists. I have a picture somewhere of me getting my hands zip-tied behind my back, but I have no idea where. Rosario Dawson and Cenk Uygur got arrested with us. One of my favorite political commentators at the time, Lawrence Lessig, spoke at the rally. Bernie Sanders gave us a shout out on social media. Cory Booker and John Lewis came out to speak with us and encouraged us to continue. Elizabeth Warren admonished the rest of the Senators for ignoring us during a speech she made on the Senate floor. I even made my first semi-viral Twitter post. It truly felt like the beginning of something important — I left DC feeling downright euphoric.

But that was it. Nothing changed.

Aside from CNN showing a single 30 second clip of the protest, no mainstream news media covered us. Someone at Vice wrote a piece on us, but nobody ever really took them seriously anyway. After it ended, nobody in the government ever referenced the protest again. I’m quite certain most of you reading this have never heard of the protest in the first place. It was like we had plowed the ocean.

After I got home, I was undeniably elated by the experience, but in the back of my mind I was still somewhat conflicted. It seemed like we hadn’t actually accomplished anything, despite all that effort.

Luckily, I learned from the organizers that there would be a coordinated follow-up effort: the country would be divided into smaller regions, and local organizers would recruit supporters (there was no formal membership process) by staging smaller protests at local political events. Then after two years of building support, we would return to the Capitol and stage a repeat of the original protest, but larger.

This was promising! Again, I threw everything into the effort. I drove to Columbus once a month to meet with Ohio’s organizers, and got another small contingent of Clevelanders to go to protests in an effort to build support for our nonpartisan campaign finance reform movement. 

Then Trump got elected.

The Spring Dries Up

Suddenly, all of the emails from Democracy Spring stopped talking about campaign finance reform and were just focused on “resisting” Trump. Okay, that’s fine. But how? Are we still meeting in Columbus to coordinate efforts? No, those regional meetings around the country stopped pretty abruptly. Are we trying to organize another big protest in DC? No, the communications were just filled with vague calls to “Resist!” and unoriginal, unremarkable statements about the gravity and urgency of the political threat posed by Trump. Lacking any formal structures, the organizational movement in Ohio and around the country dissipated faster than it came together.

But emails from Democracy Spring’s leadership (the only remaining form of communication they sent out) kept coming. I wasn’t clear on what they were doing now, but I continued to read them since they had been such a big part of my life for nearly half a decade. On Trump’s inauguration day, I went to DC to protest — although, admittedly, I ended up disgusted and depressed by the whole spectacle and spent the day in the Holocaust Museum instead.

I touched base with some of the Democracy Spring organizers who were in DC as well. They said they had something big planned for the inauguration, and I was confused as to why there hadn’t been a more concerted effort to recruit people. Regardless, I hadn’t planned to get arrested again, so I declined to participate.

Later that day, I got this email:

The email went on to detail the efforts of “six brave democracy defenders” — a far cry from the 1,700 who joined them just two years prior — and they claimed it as a massive victory. In the weeks and months that followed, similar emails with subject lines like “Trump Disrupted!” and “Two Democracy Spring Leaders Arrested at Sit-In!” followed, each containing photos of the same handful of participants engaged in various innocuous acts of “resistance” — and typically accompanied by a request for donations. The emails eventually stopped.

The Democracy Spring organization (if you can call it that), once able to mobilize thousands of people across the country, had dissolved into a vanity project for its leadership clique. All it took was a single political crisis (Trump’s election, in this case), and the structureless network of dedicated activists from across the country fell apart into a harmless, toothless display of performative “Resist!”-ance.

I was devastated. I felt like I had totally wasted those years of my efforts with Democracy Spring. I dropped out of activism altogether and probably (definitely) started drinking too much. I got into activist journalism instead, and made a few locally-focused documentaries about homelessness that won some awards at some film festivals around Ohio. But I stopped engaging in direct political activism, for the most part, aside from attending one-off protests or local community-building events.

I’d occasionally talk with the organizers of these events, and when I asked them what their long-term strategy was, they would invariably offer vague, starry-eyed platitudes about “building the movement” and “Resist!”-ing without offering anything concrete. It was always too reminiscent of the empty rhetoric I heard from Democracy Spring’s leadership for me to buy into their passion again.

Luckily, I had also been a convert of Bernie Sanders in 2014, and canvassed for him in 2015. Exclusively thanks to him, I spent the following years reading and unlearning all of the misconceptions that I didn’t know I had held about the word “socialism” (on my own, since I still mostly liked to hang out with nihilist apolitical punks who all thought I was annoying for being “political” and reading). It took a long time! Anti-socialist propaganda dies hard. I’m still unlearning stuff. At some point in 2023, I saw a post made by an old college friend (shout-out Julie) about a DSA event and decided that I’d better attend if I were going to be calling myself a socialist. It was my socialist “put up or shut up” moment, if you will.

Democracy In Action

In Cleveland’s DSA chapter, I found tons of committed members working together in an organization that was structured in its composition, serious and thoughtful about its rhetoric, deliberate about its strategy and tactics, intentional about political education, and focused on efforts that did not just consist of protests and petty acts of civil disobedience. But most importantly, it was democratic, directly accountable to its membership, and committed to building its members into leaders — instead of having them orbit around an insular group of self-proclaimed leaders who lead through force of personality alone.

The chapter’s model of organizing, as opposed to just mobilizing and advocacy, was nothing short of inspiring. According to what a given situation demanded, the organization’s goals were both long-term and short-term, widescoped and narrow, national and local, and with a calculated strategy to achieve all of them — with the right kind of deliberate and thorough organizing, of course. Most importantly, the chapter had a priority structure that allowed its membership to pivot and focus their limited capacity on issues as needed, so the organization wouldn’t crumble if the national political situation demanded a change of course.

In short, DSA was everything that Democracy Spring wasn’t.

I want to clarify that I don’t expect or even want you to be disillusioned by protesting. It was a real bummer of a process to go through, and I’m happy for folks who don’t feel the same way I do. I’m also not trying to use my personal experience as a demand for deference — although if you’re someone who is shallow enough to grant political weight to this sort of activist credentialism, feel free to defer to me if you want to — nor am I trying to say “I know better than you, so you should think like I do.” My intentions are solely to give an example that illustrates the clear limitations of protest-based activism. The trend I laid out in my personal story about one protest movement is observable in varying degrees across all protest movements.

Protesting is an acceptable way to “fight back” precisely because the ruling class thinks protesting is ineffective. And without a deep commitment to organizing, it is. The word “demonstration” is suggestive of the performative nature of protests — which there is a time and place for! But protests are by no means the most important tool in our toolkit. Without clear follow-up, without a commitment to building ourselves and each other into leaders, without a plan to build working-class power — in other words, without organizing — protests achieve little beyond making the attendees feel good about themselves. And to amplify the social standing of the self-proclaimed “leaders” in liberal activist circles, of course.

(By the way, the French word for “protest” is “manifestation,” which is more befitting of their culture of resistance; the average French protest would be called a “riot” if it took place in this country. But that’s a separate discussion.)

Again and again, when I see a political crisis emerge in this country, I watch the liberal activist groups in this city circle their wagons and start mobilizing for protests. I see the same people attending every time. And when the crisis passes, the mobilizing stops. There’s good work being done by these liberal activists, for sure. But every time a new issue emerges as the crisis du jour, the same pattern plays out: new coalitions with catchy names (but composed of the same people), emergency protests, vague calls to “Get organized! Join an org!”, and then — once public perceptions of “crisis” and “urgency” have faded — nothing. That sort of Sisyphean ambulance chasing is not organizing for change — it’s just performative “Resist!”-ance.

I often hear that we have a bad reputation among liberal activists in this city. Quite frankly, I don’t care. I’m not really all that impressed with those groups. That’s why I’m in DSA instead. Our DSA chapter is one of the largest, most coordinated, and most capable independent political organizations in the city, so let’s act like it. Liberal activist groups should be more worried about what we think of them. There’s nothing to be gained from deferring to liberal activists and giving undeserved weight to their criticisms of our chapter. We should absolutely work with them where our interests align, but at the end of the day, they need us more than we need them. After all, they wouldn’t be so desperate for us to endorse, support, and attend their events if that weren’t the case. Let them work for our approval instead.

I’m in DSA because I think it’s the organization best poised to stage a serious, coordinated, and multifronted resistance against capitalism and fascist reaction — not because it just happens to be “one progressive org out of many” that I happened to join. But if we treat this organization like it’s just one of many generally progressive orgs, it definitely will be.

Organizing, Not Just Mobilizing

I have nothing against attending protests. I attend and will continue to attend protests. People should attend protests; they’re cathartic, empowering, and publicly visible. But we have to recognize the strategic limits to endorsing and attending protests just for the sake of endorsing and attending protests. And if we do endorse a protest, we need to be deliberate about turnout.

The March 28th No Kings protest is coming up and there are questions over whether we should endorse it or not. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. Unless we’re doing something tangible at it like collecting signatures for our Gender Freedom Policy Petition, simply showing up, as good as that might feel, will accomplish as little as any other protest.

If we endorse a protest and only about 10 people show up, that misrepresents the actual power in this chapter and perceptibly brings our nearly 700 member org to the level of the myriad small, disorganized activist groups in the city. So, there is a potential cost associated with the optics of being present at these protests as well as the potential benefits to which folks are appealing; but those benefits only manifest if our turnout is strong.

Protesting alone isn’t going to stop Trump, Zionism, or ICE — it won’t stop any form of fascist reaction, for that matter. What will stop these things is organizing people into DSA and building it into a formidable political force that can leverage its power from below. As long as we’re not making a concerted effort at doing the latter, the former holds.

On a positive note of what can be possible at protests: at the last anti-ICE protest I attended, I connected a group of student activists at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) with the state Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) coordinator, and they’re currently organizing a new YDSA chapter on Case’s campus. This, in my opinion, is the sort of thing we should be aiming to do at protests.

Without organizing — and I mean organizing — mobilizing attendees for protests has an inherently limited impact. I think many comrades think “organizing” simply consists of getting people to show up at events, direct actions, canvasses, and training sessions; but that’s only mobilizing, not organizing. Without a deep commitment to developing one another into leaders both inside and outside the organization, we are not organizing.

Internal organizing is just as crucial a part of “the work” as our outward-focused efforts in the community. Without either, we stagnate.

To be clear, nothing should stop us from attending, endorsing, or supporting protests when they’re aligned with our values, but we need to be deliberate and calculated about what we’re doing when we go. Otherwise we’re just chasing the tail of the liberal activist movement — and I don’t know about you, but I joined DSA because I found that movement lacking.

We can attend these protests, demonstrate resistance to ICE and fascism, participate in direct actions/responses, and be serious about organizing people into DSA at these events — all at the same time. As one of our comrades likes to say, “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.” Another likes to say “We just have to do it.”  Again, I fully agree — we just have to be deliberate and strategic about it. The urgency of the situation demands nothing less than a principled and coordinated organizational effort, not just blind faith that “Resist!”-ing at protests is enough to change anything on its own.

Solidarity, comrades.

The post Why Protesting Isn’t Enough: The Limits of Protest Activism appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

[[{“value”:”

By: Chris Brady

Teamsters’ International President and Medford native Sean O’Brien took the stage at the 2024 Republican National Convention, upending decades of precedent in organized labor’s reliable standing as a Democratic bloc. O’Brien’s appearance wasn’t shocking so much as symptomatic. Labor is in political freefall. Workers have correctly identified that Democratic politics have left them behind; a new populist right has fomented an ideological pitch to try and fill the absence. This new political movement, constituted by labor bureaucrats, pseudo-populist politicians, and disaffected working class voters is increasingly shaping the labor movement with a new right-wing force, animated and with collaboration of a wing of labor leaders and strategists. Although O’Brien frustrates principled organizers everywhere with politics and his love for podcasting more than doing work, the significance of his 2024 speech was the open display of the  forces which propelled the labor leader to try to court a new audience.

Meeting of the minds. (Credit: Mediaite.com)

Oren Cass’s Ideology 

The intellectual base behind labor’s rightward shift is being spearheaded by a different Massachusetts native: Oren Cass. Cass crystallized his maverick identity after working on Mitt Romney’s failed 2012 presidential campaign. 

According to Professor of Labor Studies at UCLA Kit Smemo, Cass lamented following the loss that:

“The Republican Party’s ‘blind faith in free markets’ left it unable to win elections, much less address the gnawing social (and moral) crises left by decades of austerity, deregulation, and privatization.”

This sentiment may seem ludicrous coming from a Republican, as even most Democrats will not verbalize anything close to the critique of neoliberal doctrine as Cass has. 

But the GOP is no longer Romney’s party. National politics has struggled to meet the collective shedding of the neoliberal paradigm, and in Washington, D.C., where Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith, and an army of upper-middle class striving 26 year-old Hill staffers excrete propaganda that somehow evolves into law – establishment forces have left a vacuum for politics that is interested in workers, at least on the surface.

Matt Yglesias, the chopped man and hot-take centrist whose readership includes most Democratic establishment players. (Credit: Current Affairs)

This realization led Cass to found American Compass, a think-tank that defies conventional GOP orthodoxy and attempts to articulate a Republican worker agenda fit for the Trump moment. Its policies combine a family-centered conservatism with a seemingly genuine assessment of the economic crises workers face in the United States. Acolytes include Vice President J.D. Vance, Senators Hawley (R-MO) and Cotton (R-MO), and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Cass has even appeared on Sean O’Brien’s podcast. Compass advocates for a focus on the nuclear family, deportations, regulation of Big Tech, and, incredulously, is critical of the financialization of the United States economy by Wall Street. Of particular emphasis, however, is Compass’s self-identified advocacy for labor and workers.

According to their policy page:

“Organized labor has traditionally been the mechanism that gives workers an institution of solidarity, power in the market, and representation in the workplace. Strong worker representation can make America stronger.” 

In 2021, Cass gave a lecture titled “Why National Conservatism Needs Worker Power.” This rhetoric is a far cry from the more familiar Republican establishment lines, drunk off of Koch funding, pushing right-to-work laws and demanding that greater shares of surplus value fall to Capital. While a Republican operative ostensibly supporting the labor movement may reflexively seem refreshing, if not confusing, the actual policies being proposed by the American Compass labor desk are different than either the mainstream of labor or the rank-and-file movement.  For example, Compass is emphatically critical of the National Labor Relations Act, which resulted in the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), due to its institutionalization of bargaining power monopolies by labor unions instead of its suppression of worker power. Similarly, Compass has expressed skepticism of the DSA-endorsed PRO-Act, which would increase worker organizing through these channels.

Instead of the current system of labor,  Compass prefers non-union “works councils” in European Union style, where although workers may not earn collective bargaining power, they at least offer new, more bureaucratic channels to communicate with management. 

The Role of David Rolf

This concept, surprisingly, does not stem from some Jack Welsh union-busting fever dream, but in part from David Rolf, former President of SEIU 775 and member of the American Compass Board of Advisors. Rolf has spoken out extensively in support of ‘labor movement innovation,’ including while teaming up with libertarians. 

What does David Rolf believe in? We just don’t really know – which makes him a great token labor leader for Compass.

American Compass is staunchly opposed to labor unions acting politically.Citing a survey they conducted themselves, Compass claims that workers would prefer their unions to exist solely to improve their working conditions, siloed away from politics, and that the progressive projects pursued by leadership are actually unpopular with rank-and-file workers. Predictably, Compass is opposed to labor’s work stoppage tactic, calling strikes “unproductive,” in the sense that withholding labor is inefficient for the economy. This analysis counters prolific labor activist Jane McAlevey – and all historic labor scholarship and praxis – that indicates that strikes are the most effective tools the working class has.

Smemo articulates that Compass’s role is to coerce a conservative-friendly compromise between capital and labor. “[Cass] sees this as a way to harmonize business interests and profitability with workers’ demands for more pay. But of course, in a very conservative sense, the strategy has to be calibrated to what ultimately is going to keep workers in line. How do you increase worker power without empowering workers?”

The danger, here, with this sort of political project is that it threatens to take the teeth out of the labor movement. If Cass had it his way: unions are no longer political, no longer strike, and increasingly sympathetic to nativism and nationalism. Instead, Cass wants labor to work out better wages with management through legal maneuvering and arbitration. That’s certainly a nice thought, but in practice it’s how you de-fang one of the few institutions that actually fights for working people. Unions didn’t win the 8-hour workday from bureaucratic dexterity.

With a sizable coalition of Congress bought into the mission, the concepts American Compass espouses are no longer just words on a policy proposal. They’re real threats, and they’re infiltrating the labor movement.

The Rank-and-File Alternative

In Philadelphia, well outside of D.C.’s theoretical fetishization of working people and in the real world, a more traditional labor leader is utilizing tried and true class politics. Richard Hooker Jr. is running against Sean O’Brien for the Presidency of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, currently serving as the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 623.

Hooker’s assessment of O’Brien’s leadership was grim. He cited the federal gutting of collective bargaining rights, NLRB, and OSHA, blaming the Trump administration that O’Brien has courted. 

“That does not sound like a party who cares about workers. And unfortunately, our general president has aligned with that party.”

Hooker is running on a slate aimed at making the Teamsters more democratically structured. 

“Once you create that more democratic union, you’re going to get members to fight more against the company and that’s what we need. We need our members to fight more against the employer class, the ruling class.” 

Hooker uses class-war language, not mutually beneficial worker-employer MBA speak, because that’s what his membership responds to. This is in stark contrast to O’Brien’s argument for labor leaders to meet the most reactionary segments of their membership, and consequently to the concepts proposed by American Compass. Hooker maintains that unions are political organizations, that workers come to union leadership to solve political problems regarding ICE, safety, and affordability. 

As for ending the option to strike, Hooker was incredulous:

“Eliminating strikes? That’s crazy. Why be in a union if you can’t withhold your labor? If the company is going to continue to exploit you and not give you what you demand and deserve. Look what happened back in Haymarket in 1886.”

Richard Hooker Jr. (center) campaigning with Teamsters at UPS. (Credit: Richard Hooker Jr.)

American Compass As A Prevention, Not A Solution

Governor Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Bill into law in 2006, creating the foundation for what would soon become the Affordable Care Act. The move may seem odd – why would Mitt Romney choose to pursue healthcare reform as a signature policy achievement? After its passing, Romney declared it as the end of the “single-payer canard.” Whatever the merits of the bill, it effectively closed-off any potential for more radical universal healthcare reforms.

The Romneycare bill was successful in making the healthcare system a little bit less depraved, but it failed to address even most of the problems associated with the quasi-privatized healthcare system. It did, however, take out all of the momentum behind a statewide push for universal healthcare. In essence, Romney’s calculus was in part to sacrifice some healthcare concessions in order to protect the market system from the potential of a future universal healthcare plan.

American Compass likely serves a similar purpose. Workers are converting to more radical politics – DSA has eclipsed 100,000 members – and the labor movement has made moderate gains in organizing and militancy in recent years. Compass is not a solution for the economic plight of workers, but a mechanism to contain and diffuse political pressure that workers are building.

Oren Cass has correctly identified where the winds are blowing, and that conservatives didn’t have an answer to meet a moment where workers are learning to wield their power. The solution, like for his former boss Romney, is to develop policies with the aesthetics of populism and worker advocacy, while in reality accomplishing anything but that. If successful, capital will be able to stave off a labor movement on the offensive, just like they beat us on healthcare two decades ago.

Smemo said:

“There’s been rising labor militancy and organizing. Workers are not simply accepting this intolerable inequality lying down. I think Cass has recognized that you can try to obfuscate, you can try to misdirect attention, but ultimately, it’s going to be something you have to reckon with. And it’s going to require some preemptive moves in the hopes that this can prevent far-reaching labor militancy and insurgency.”

Chris Brady is a member of Boston DSA and an editor of Working Mass.

The post Who Are The ‘Pro-Worker’ Republicans? appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]] 

The story of a windfall invested in left-wing organizing in the 1920s provides provides insight into problems facing the Left yesterday and today.

The post Last Flight of the Radical WASPs appeared first on Democratic Left.

Labor activists are front and center in today’s fight against ICE and for the dignity and rights of immigrants and workers of color. 

The post Hate injustice? Join the labor movement.  appeared first on EWOC.

What the latest political science can teach us about effective organizing.

The post Organizing with Evidence appeared first on Democratic Left.

The 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant” offers urgent lessons for beating ICE today.

The post We’ve had a nationwide immigrant strike before. We can do it again. appeared first on EWOC.

by Alexandria R

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become infamous, particularly in the past year, for brutal tactics, intimidation, and even murder. In 2025, 32 people lost their lives in ICE-related incidents. Some of the agency’s more lethal crimes have drawn major headlines – particularly the most recent killing of two US citizens in Minnesota. While ICE as an agency has gathered a popular reputation as a secret police force, the agency and its activities date back to March 2003, when it was formally created and mobilized as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Its tactics, including infiltration and disruption activities akin to COINTELPRO, have not changed. ICE has acquired Israeli-manufactured spyware known as Graphite, developed by Paragon Solutions. The software is capable of hacking encrypted drives and phones, including live location data, photos, and encrypted messages. Additionally, the agency embeds itself within local law enforcement, often making use of Flock license plate readers and shot spotters to target migrant families and coordinate its operations. Officially, Flock denies that this cooperation exists. 

The agency’s effective infiltration and lethality is concerning, especially when their official mission is taken into account. DHS effectively functions as an organ of the state dedicated to mass internal surveillance and policing. ICE has a mandate to use children to draw out their parents, and detain people based on their outward characteristics. 2026 is a little over two months old, and in that time, ICE has murdered more than six people. Some of them are activists. Other American citizens have been threatened with detention or death for interfering with ICE business. Of particular concern are reports from activists in Minnesota, which echo strange occurrences reported by other activists since at least 2020. Judy and Noah Levy were stopped by ICE agents while observing agency operations in St. Paul. The couple noted that their license plates were photographed. Jarringly, the agents addressed Judy by her name when they came to speak with her. Recalling the incident, Judy said that she was shaken, but continued to follow the agents and their caravan. That’s when ICE vehicles turned onto Levy’s street. 

“Our street is off the beaten path,” said Noah, “You don’t go down our street to get to anywhere. I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t intimidating.” 

In September, ICE spent millions on technology to surveil social media and the dark web. The software, called “Tangles,” creates a daily life profile of the people it surveils by mining social media for their posts, contacts, locations and events they attended, combining it with any information leaked about them online. While the agency has been using AI to “crawl” social media apps and sites, ICE is also putting together a surveillance force for 24/7 social media monitoring. DHS wants your data, but surveillance of public information is not where ICE stops looking.

The Guardian first broke the story of DHS/ICE’s acquisition of Graphite. Stephanie Kirchgaessner’s report details the capabilities of the software, noting that Graphite can “hack into any phone. By essentially taking control of the mobile phone, the user – in this case, ICE – can not only track an individual’s whereabouts, read their messages, and look at their photographs, but also open and read information held on encrypted applications, like WhatsApp or Signal. Spyware like Graphite can also be used as a listening device, through the manipulation of the phone’s recorder.” The agency’s contract with Paragon Solutions dates to late 2024 under the Biden administration. ICE’s mandate to spy on members of the public originates with the founding of its parent organ, DHS. 

Infiltration via spyware is not the only point of entry into personal and private data. It has always been important to be aware of your safety when disclosing personal information online, such as location “check-ins” and specific information about shops or restaurants you frequent. Securing information that can be used to track you and your activities can be difficult when you don’t know what people are looking for. The many different ways that federal agents gain access to sensitive details about ICE observers and their affiliates certainly don’t make it easier. Agencies often infiltrate group events and Signal chats by posing as a concerned member of the public or as an activist. This can be mitigated by ensuring that people are who they say they are via connections to the community, but informants and state collaborators could be anyone. I do not encourage readers to start viewing their comrades with suspicion – only to be wary of sharing specific, personal information, even among friends or comrades, as much as possible.

Internal policing and surveillance have always been the mandate of DHS. Though the agency’s tactics have shifted recently to become more ruthless, the existence of ICE has been maintained and expanded upon by every administration since George W. Bush. The contradiction is glaring. Internal policing and anti-migrant policies such as forced deportation of asylum seekers have no place in a society that calls itself a nation of immigrants, and we as citizens have an obligation not only to inform the public of the tactics and goals of these entities, but also to actively work against them.

The post Every Step You Take, ICE is Watching You appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Sanders' progressive politics put him closer to capital-p Progressive Bob La Follette than Karl Marx.

The post Bernie’s Politics Are Part of a Proud American Tradition appeared first on Democratic Left.

[[{“value”:”

By: Jason M

MARLBOROUGH, MA – On Sunday morning, February 15^th, Stop & Shop workers organized under United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1445—which represents nearly 8,000 Stop & Shop workers across northeastern New England—held a critical vote deciding whether to accept a new 4-year contract or to authorize a strike.

The date, February 15, 2026, was chosen as a result of a coordinated effort among UFCW Locals 328, 371, 919, 1445, and 1459, which represent a combined 28,000 Stop & Shop workers across New England. The date, which was two weeks before the then-current contract’s expiration, set a hard deadline for Stop & Shop to offer a good agreement, or face a potential strike. Jack Kenslea, a representative of UFCW Local 1445, provided Working Mass with comments regarding the challenges faced by the union during the bargaining process.

When asked about the choice of February 15^th as the date for the vote, Kenslea said:

We made it clear to the company that we would either vote on a recommended tentative agreement or ask for a strike vote if we did not have something we could feel confident in recommending. This set a hard deadline for the company, as they knew they would have to get serious early if they wanted to avoid a strike authorization we could have in hand to bargain with and campaign around.

Healthcare, Wages, and Pensions Major Issues For Stop & Shop Workers

Healthcare, wages, and pensions were all major issues for the Stop & Shop workers during the collective bargaining process. In a time when rising healthcare costs and insurance prices are putting increasing financial burdens on working-class Americans, affordable healthcare was a must-have for Stop & Shop workers in their contract.

For UFCW, keeping healthcare costs low while seeking wage increases for their members was a major challenge. Kenslea indicated:

Given the overall climate in healthcare these days when many people are seeing their premiums jump by thirty or fifty percent, in some cases even higher, we are extremely proud that we were able to control these costs and maintain our strong, comprehensive healthcare plan for our members. It was clear that this was a high priority for many, many people, and there was a lot of uncertainty over what it would end up looking like. Controlling these costs while still seeking yearly wage increases was far from a guarantee, and it took a lot of work to get there.

Another major issue during the bargaining process was the reintroduction of a meat cutter apprenticeship program at Stop & Shop. In 2018, Stop & Shop removed in-store meat cutting from their stores. “This was something where the reaction of customers played as big of a role as the feedback from the workers,” said Kenslea. “It was clear the company had suffered as a result of removing it in 2018, as customers simply did not buy as much meat from Stop & Shop as they had in the past.”

A Victory Won By The Rank-And-File

A key factor in winning a good contract was the organizing done by the rank-and-file at Stop & Shop and their involvement in the bargaining process. Dialogue between the bargaining committee and the union’s rank-and-file ensured that the union would secure a strong contract.

There were numerous pieces our rank-and-file made possible. We deployed a negotiations survey at the beginning of last fall, so we had a very clear sense of what our members’ priorities were as we began the process of deliberation. We had a proposals subcommittee that reviewed where we stood as we headed into each session that provided an extra sounding board for our bargaining committee on how the language would impact members in the stores.

Jason M, a contributor to Working Mass, attended the contract vote alongside fellow Worcester DSA members. The proposed contract passed with a strong majority of union members voting yes. In a joint statement, the five UFCW Locals asserted that, “These agreements reflect the strength and unity of Stop & Shop workers who stood together to secure a contract that addresses their priorities.”

A UFCW spokesperson elaborated further, stating:

Through collective bargaining, our members achieved wage increases and protected strong health and pension benefits that working families rely on. When workers have a fair contract, it strengthens the stores they run every day and supports the customer experience and communities they proudly serve.

Speaking on the bargaining process, Kenslea argued:

Bargaining is frequently an uneven process of fits and starts. It seems slow and unproductive at the start, and then things start moving a lot quicker as you get closer to the deadline. All five of the New England locals were very clear from the beginning about what our priorities were, and we had a sense despite the slow start that we would get a deal before the expiration of the contract.

Fighting for higher wages, better healthcare, and better conditions is never an easy task. But there is no power greater than that emerging out of the union of workers. In the case of the contract won by Stop & Shop workers, many of the core demands of workers have been secured through 2030.

Jason M is a member of Worcester DSA and a contributor to Working Mass.

The post UFCW Local 1445 Secures New 4-Year Contract for Stop and Shop Workers appeared first on Working Mass.

“}]]