Note: posts by individual GMDSA members do not necessarily reflect the views of the broader membership or of its leadership and should not be regarded as official statements by the chapter.

After reading that Burlington’s legendary music spot Nectar’s had permanently closed, GMDSA Secretary David Wilcox wrote to Seven Days to propose municipalizing the venue. His letter, printed on 8/20/2025, is republished below.

In response to the shutdown of Nectar’s, I’d like to suggest a solution: Why not have the city government take over and run Nectar’s? There’s nothing radical or unprecedented about the City of Burlington running a popular music venue, given that it owned and operated 242 Main for 30 years. And I would argue that a venue like Nectar’s, one that’s synonymous with the general idea of what Burlington is, contributes far more to the city’s bottom line than its own financial numbers would indicate.

Without venues like Nectar’s, Burlington loses its aura as a cool, desirable place to live. And if Nectar’s has seemed like a shadow of its former self in recent years, why not try to revitalize it under new (public) ownership? Especially since the final shutdown of Nectar’s was due to a dispute with a landlord. The city has already forced the sale of one Handy property (184 Church Street) for the greater good of the community. Surely, there’s a way to make all this happen with enough political will.

I, for one, am sick and tired of passively accepting the loss of important places and services due to “the market,” which is every bit as much a human-created institution as laws and governments. The Burlington renaissance began with then-mayor Bernie Sanders (whose administration founded 242 Main) refusing to accept the market dictating that we couldn’t have nice things. If we want Burlington’s glory days to return, we need to rediscover that energy.

David Wilcox
Winooski

by Reese A

This piece was written 08/15/25

Last week, I had the honor of representing the Liberal Arts and Science Academy chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), at YDSA’s 2025 annual national convention. It was a true honor to be their co-chair, and to serve them once more as their delegate.

Ultimately, however, I came away from the convention concerned for our political future as a movement: We were decisively against organizing students. We failed to pass crucial resolutions that would strengthen the student movement, including R23: Building Campus Consciousness, Democracy, and Militancy through Student Unions and R10: Building an International Student Movement. R23 would have provided crucial support to mass student organizing in the form of student unions, a formation that can mobilize large numbers of students in solidarity in a way that YDSA cannot. The success of the student union formation is outlined below with Students United by LASA YDSA, and I think that failing to bet on mass student organizing via student unions will remain one of the biggest lost opportunities of the convention. Additionally, R10 centered our internationalism around building relationships with student organizations as YDSA, something that must be centered in order to build an international coalition to win student demands and ultimately socialism.

Instead, we focused on gatekeeping durable socialist organizing to only people with “real” ties to the class struggle (current laborers) and building value-pure socialist groups to recruit students into. We passed resolutions like R12: For a Campaigning Internationalism and R18: Recommitting to Running Strategic Campaigns as Unapologetic Socialists, which aren’t obviously bad, but show a clear focus away from larger mass movement organizing of students towards socialist groups. This tendency fundamentally doesn’t believe that students have a claim to power, but rather we must take a backseat to the “real” working class and focus on political education, supporting their cause, and running smaller campaigns as socialists to pressure the campus. It doesn’t believe in the mass student movement or their own claim to power and representation.

This is a mistake. If we want to win material change, at our schools and in the world, we have to be comfortable organizing the people around us, having conversations, and building power. As students, we represent some of the most diverse, progressive and willing bodies of people in America, and our organizations should strive to organize and mobilize as many students as possible to win. Some might argue that students don’t have the correct “class character,” and I must disagree. We are forgetting what the root of working class is – people who are not owners, people who do not control capital. Just as unemployed people are part of the working class, so are students. Additionally, others argue that students inherently aren’t worth organizing because they’re a transient group. The student movement has built some of the strongest organizations and movements in American history, from Vietnam and Students for a Democratic Society, to divestment from South Africa and winning the collapse of apartheid, to fighting for a free Palestine today. Turnover is not a valid reason to avoid organizing – if that were true, we wouldn’t be organizing Starbucks and Amazon. Yet regardless of the excuses people give for abandoning students, none of them give a valid reason to leave them unorganized and retreat to our comfort zone of like-minded socialists. They’re progressive, willing to fight, and have organized throughout history. It would be a shame for YDSA to give up on student mass organizing, let alone for the wider socialist movement to do so, yet increasingly that seems to be the trend.

It’s important that we organize the entirety of the working class by building durable organizations to fight for change, not because that we think only the working class can win socialism, but because we truly believe in each and every one of our neighbors as people. In this time of rising fascism, believing in people is more important now than ever if we want to defeat it. Yet the socialist movement seems to be retreating into hiding, requiring that people come to our doorstep instead of organizing our neighbors en masse for change, because we no longer find hope in them. We vote down student organizing, we vote down protest organizing, we stop committing to the rank-and-file strategy and make connections with the union leaders instead. This is what fascism wants of us: to feel hopeless and that your neighbor is untrustworthy, to build division in order to cement the ruling class. Instead, we must meet neighbors where they are, with organizations that can represent them both to their schools and to the wider world, and build committed comrades out of this bond.

At LASA YDSA, we organized a student union, Students United, to serve as a durable student bargaining representative to fight for fairer learning conditions and mental health support. We currently have over 8% of the student body supporting our bid to unionize by signing Union Authorization Cards. This union attracted a wide range of people because it was rooted in a collective movement, representation, and demands for change – a movement from which we were able to build committed socialist organizers out of. While YDSA could never legitimately claim to be a representative of students and demand bargaining rights, a union could, because a union’s legitimacy comes exclusively from its status as a representative of the students instead of ideology or self-interest. YDSA can lead the movement, YDSA can build organizers from the movement, but YDSA must commit to empowering the working class to seize power for themselves. This is an important distinction because it’s both an optical, political and communal one – it’s the difference between one-party rule and a worker’s state for the people. Democratic socialists should commit to people power and democracy first and foremost, not try to make a utopian socialist society concocted out of thin air and imposed on the people.

We will not win by building a cadre vanguard that people do not feel a connection to. We will not win by treating our neighbors as peasants to be strung along. We will win through class struggle and a mass movement of each and every one of us, that, through solidarity, can be built in any community and especially within students. We must not give up on student and wider working class solidarity. We must not give up on our own communities. We must commit more, organize for power, and organize to win socialism.

The post In Defense of the Student Movement first appeared on Red Fault.

As part of a city-wide crackdown on our homeless neighbors, the City of Madison is unfairly targeting the Social Justice Center, demanding that the SJC removes its food pantry, public health vending machine, benches, and public art, in an attempt to drive away unhoused people who rely on the SJC and the organizations it houses for shelter, safety, healthcare, and support.

Madison Area Democratic Socialists of America recognizes the effort the Social Justice Center puts into addressing the housing crisis that this city ignores, and we stand with the SJC and all who rely on it.

There is no denying it: there is a crisis in Madison. Rents get higher and access to affordable housing gets more limited by the day, forcing more and more people from their homes. Public restrooms are not open early or late enough. Overcoming addiction is nearly impossible when one’s basic needs for survival are not met. Each of these problems is a rung in the ladder of capitalist oppression, which forces the working class into worse and worse conditions until they have nowhere left to go.

The city’s approach to this crisis is unjust and unhelpful. We cannot disappear the unhoused population. We must house them. We must give them safety, security, and support. They are our neighbors, community members, and constituents of the politicians who claim to represent us. Any one of us could be a layoff or medical emergency away from joining them. This crisis is a reminder to the rest of the working class that the ruling class will turn its back on anyone who isn’t making them profits.

The Beacon, Madison’s primary day shelter, is beyond capacity, so people look for shelter in other parts of the city. The city’s proposed new men’s shelter won’t be ready until next year, and will only have 250 beds – not nearly enough to meet the well-documented need.

But instead of fully funding and expanding the sorely needed homeless services and meaningfully addressing the housing crisis that makes them necessary, the city is cracking down on neighbors helping neighbors – by increasing police presence at and making punitive demands of the Social Justice Center, by threatening to close down the Dairy Drive campground with winter just around the corner, and by sweeping the encampment at the Wisconsin Veterans’ Museum.

“Solving” homelessness with incarceration is more expensive per person than harm reduction centers and housing first policies, and only perpetuates the cycle.

As community members, it is our responsibility to provide what the city will not, and the Social Justice Center aims to do exactly that. We also have to fight for a just future in which everyone has what they need. MADSA stands in solidarity with the Social Justice Center, and calls upon the Madison Common Council, Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, and the Dane County Board to do right by our neighbors:

1. Stop targeting the SJC for stepping up where the city has failed.

2. Continue to fund the Dairy Drive campsite, a crucial transition program.

3. Support the Dane County Homeless Justice Initiative’s demands to fully fund homeless support services.

4. Cure the root cause of the homelessness crisis by building affordable, desirable, and dignified public housing where our neighbors can thrive, not just survive!

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

To my comrades in the arts,

I write to you today, hopeful that I can answer one of the most important questions of our time.

This question sits at the back of my mind, and no doubt, most likely yours. It festers and manifests into either hope or defeat.

It inspires many, but it also leaves us with feelings of conflict. This, combined with the constant attacks from those in power and those who have been brainwashed to believe they will someday join their oppressors on that blood-soaked throne, can even make us feel unworthy and like impostors to the cause.

The question I’m here to ask today, to you, myself, and our allies across the nation and around the world, is this: How, without taking up arms, can I truly call myself a revolutionary?

We watch as the vampiric class takes our pleas for a better society as at best a tantrum, and at worst, an attack on their so-called “free world.”

We watch as the left hand of the establishment monster pats us on the head and sends us on our way, then reaches over to the right to collect its share of the wealth and power. All the while, that same right hand just moments before, with a clenched fist, slammed down and snuffed out the cries of the working class.

It’s by acknowledging that these are the likely outcomes that many of us may be too afraid to march or speak out, with the fear that you can just be abducted, sent to a place you may not even know, or risk losing what little stability you have in an already broken, unjust, and unstable system.

And all this, again, begs the question: How, without risking what little I have, can I truly be a revolutionary?

And throughout countless hours of reflection, sleepless nights, and a painful analysis of the hate rampant on social media, it’s that I’ve recognized what can be one of the most revolutionary acts of our modern times.

And that, my friends, is to create.

For too long, they have told us that our lives as creatives are meaningless. That our pursuit of the arts and knowledge about everything that makes us human is not worth it because it is not profitable.

That to live a fulfilling life, you need to give yourself to a system that does as little as possible to ensure your wellbeing in the name of profit.

Sacrifice what little time you have to pursue your passions to make even more money, and to leave little energy in your reserve so as not to question or step out of line.

To that I say, be relentless in your rebellion.

And by that I mean we must execute the perversion that is this self-hatred and submission to capitalist degradation.

Creativity feeds the human spirit, consequently fueling the desire to learn, and as we’ve seen, education is what tyrants fear most.

Because it’s through education that we can make vital steps toward achieving solidarity and collective class consciousness.

So take everything going on around you

And write a poem,
Draw a picture,
Make a song,
Pen an essay,
Record a video,

Use the arts to fuel the revolution. To create the blueprint for a world that values people over profits.

And if you say to yourself you’re not an artist, I challenge you to prove yourself wrong.

And when you do, you will realize that you are a revolutionary.

The post You Are a Revolutionary: A Letter to Working-Class Creatives first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.

Kids in Vermont have gone back to school. On their first day after the summer vacation, Windham County students may have expected to say hello again to their usual bus drivers, but that'll have to wait. Travel Kuz, the supervisory union's transportation contractor, has locked out members of Teamsters Local 597 and brought in scabs.

Bus drivers and monitors responded to their bosses' refusal to bargain by organizing pickets. On Wednesday, Travel Kuz sent them a cease-and-desist letter, calling a demonstration at Brattleboro Union High School "unlawful" and "unsafe." Local law enforcement disagreed.

The Teamsters want Windham Southeast superintendent Mark Speno to pressure Travel Kuz to end the lockout and have encouraged allies to contact him. Tell Speno (802-254-3730, mspeno@wsesdvt.org) to support the transportation workers' fight for fair wages and benefits. You can even attend the next school board meeting.

Follow Local 597's Facebook page for the latest updates. An injury to one is an injury to all.

And speaking of the Teamsters, you may see some of them in Burlington at the Labor Day Solidarity March, Rally & Picnic. Dozens of unions and activist organizations (including Green Mountain DSA) have endorsed the event.

You can help us get ready by joining us at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington) today (8/30) at 4 p.m. to create art for the rally. Feel free to bring materials.

We expect a massive turnout for the rally itself. Meet us at Battery Park at 1 p.m. on Monday, Sept 1. Labor Day belongs to workers.

Unfortunately, as the schoolkids already know, Labor Day also means that summer is over. Thanks for the memories – here are a few shots from our chapter's barbecue at Oakledge Park.

GMDSA MEETINGS & EVENTS
🚲 In order to avoid a conflict with the Labor Day rally, GMDSA's Urbanism Committee will meet on Tuesday, Sept. 2, at 6 p.m. on Zoom.

👋 Find out how you can help our Membership Committee improve recruitment and involvement in our chapter on Thursday, Sept. 4, and Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 6 p.m. on Zoom.

🧑‍🏭 Our Labor Committee will hold its next meeting on Monday, Sept. 8, at 6 p.m. on Zoom.

🔨 Talk about your job and learn about shop-floor organizing from peers at Workers' Circle (co-hosted by the Green Mountain IWW) on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, including Sept. 10, at 6 p.m. at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington).

🍿 Socialist Film Club will host another backyard screening in Burlington on Friday, Sept. 12, at 7 p.m. Please email us for more information if you're interested.

🗳️ The next meeting of our Electoral Committee will take place on Wednesday, Sept. 17, at 6 p.m. on Zoom.

🤝 GMDSA's East Branch and West Branch will come together for a general meeting on Saturday, Sept. 20, at 11 a.m. at Montpelier's Christ Episcopal Church (64 State St.), with an optional orientation for newcomers at 10 a.m.

🍉 Our Palestine Solidarity Committee will meet on Monday, Sept. 29, at 7 p.m. on Zoom.

STATE & LOCAL NEWS
📰 GMDSA-endorsed state senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden-Central) toured Ukraine, meeting with activists, politicians, students, and trade unionists.

📰 Protesting the Trump administration, Vermonters and Quebecois gathered at the US-Canada line in an expression of international solidarity.

COMMUNITY FLYERS

Since March 2025, Buffalo DSA has endorsed LOLA’s Communities Not Cops campaign, with overwhelming support from our general membership. As this project begins to receive the citywide attention and debate it deserves, the Buffalo DSA Steering Committee reaffirms our support of efforts to educate and agitate against a police training facility and shooting range on Paderewski Drive. We also urge all members of Buffalo DSA to follow LOLA’s calls to action re: demanding Common Councilmembers vote “NO” on the rezoning of the Paderewski Drive location, as listed on their Instagram page.

The creation of a police training facility increases the Buffalo Police Department’s capacity for targeting working-class Buffalonians through violent interventions, especially those in minority ethnic groups and within our city’s poorest communities. This is especially heinous considering Paderewski Drive was once home to a community center; we are disappointed to see the city invest in more militarized policing, rather than restoring a public civic space. This is completely counter to the just city we deserve – not just for those in the immediate neighborhood, but for working class communities citywide. We have been disappointed by the limited scope of debate around this project to this point, which suggests that only the immediate neighborhood will be impacted by this facility. We encourage comrades and neighbors to consider the larger ramifications of a police training facility of this kind.

Said limited scope of debate stems from a source actively collaborating with the Buffalo Police Department to push this project through. The Central Terminal Neighborhood Association is claiming a mandate to speak for the entire area, despite reports that opposition to the project has now spread beyond LOLA’s initial campaign, and to Broadway-Fillmore community members who have just learned about the project relative to its progress. Neighbors deserve fair representation of the project to them, rather than vague promises of a “community benefits agreement” with BPD – the details of which include only surface-level commitments toward “youth programs” in part of the facility and keeping neighborhood trees intact. We also condemn undignified smear tactics, printed or otherwise recorded publicly, that concerned citizens across Buffalo are only seeking cameras or clicks.

As the Common Council, the Buffalo Police Department, and other crucial city officials collude to advance this project via their Sep. 2 vote, we once again doubt their belief in democratic processes, and question the Central Terminal Neighborhood Association’s mandate to speak for the city on the matter.

Our chapter’s vision for demilitarized policing takes from the rich history of American socialism, notably from the legacy of American socialist Eugene V. Debs. Debs stated in 1918, after his conviction for violating the Sedition Act:

“While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

While we cannot speak for a long-deceased comrade, Debs’ rhetoric throughout his life demanded the liberation of the working class from oppression and tyranny. To aid and abet the tyranny of modern policing is antithetical to the American socialist tradition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labor

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

Elections

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

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

Internal organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Aidan P and Carl H

Right now, people in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, and Hillsborough, as well as in Alamance and Chatham counties, are recovering from the severe and costly flash flooding brought on by Tropical Depression Chantal. We know that the climate crisis is making weather disasters more frequent and more intense, and our region is now threatened by supercharged floods, heat waves, and hurricanes. Even areas that were thought to be relatively safe are at risk. For example, North Carolina’s Appalachian Mountains, once seen as a refuge due to the cooler climate and inland location, were hit hard by Hurricane Helene in September 2024. Entire districts of Asheville were destroyed, tens of billions of dollars in damages were sustained, and many rural mountain communities were devastated. 

But even though climate change is now a manifest reality, our leaders have utterly failed to meet the moment. At the federal level, investments and incentives for renewable energy are systematically rolled back, public lands are threatened, environmental regulations are aggressively slashed, and proper forecasting equipment and personnel are thrown to the wayside with deadly consequences. At the same time, big tech’s extremely dangerous and ecologically costly gamble on a mass buildout of deregulated nuclear plants to power AI datacenters continues to accelerate. State leadership is hardly any better. Duke Energy, with the help of politicians on both sides of the aisle, continues to drag its feet on cutting emissions, instead investing in new fossil gas infrastructure. Most recently, the state legislature overrode Governor Josh Stein’s veto and dropped North Carolina’s interim 2030 decarbonization goal, removing incentives for Duke Energy to shift to renewables and encouraging continued use of fossil gas. According to an analysis by NC State professor Joseph DeCarolis and his colleagues, this destructive bill will lead to a 40% increase in fossil gas generation in our state between 2030 and 2050. This is only the tip of the melting iceberg when it comes to Duke Energy’s disastrous activities, which also include greenwashing and mass deception, systematic subversion of democracy, and an allegedly cavalier attitude towards nuclear safety, among others.

Besides emitting greenhouse gases, burning fossil fuels also emits a huge quantity of toxic pollution harmful to natural ecosystems and human health, causing asthma, cancer, and heart disease. Furthermore, as anyone who lives near one of Duke Energy’s coal ash deposits knows, the ecological and human costs don’t end with emissions, also including the leaching of heavy metals linked to cancers, reproductive harm, and heart and thyroid diseases into soil and groundwater. In addition to the impacts on our communities and our health, the climate crisis compounds the more general ecological crisis as animals and plants struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

In contrast to burning fossil-fuels, solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity, avoiding greenhouse gasses and other toxic emissions. Increasing solar electricity generation is an important step in the transition to renewable energy and a sustainable economy. The Triangle region receives abundant sunlight, an average of 4.5-5.4 hours of peak sun per day. Thanks to technological advances, solar panels today are efficient, long-lasting, and low-cost compared to other ways of producing electricity. Renewable energy sources like solar also stabilize energy prices, as they are not prone to the periodic severe price shocks experienced by volatile fossil gas markets. 

While it is possible to fund solar installations through regular budget measures, this creates a false conflict between money for solar and money for other important public services. A bond resolves this, helping to facilitate the large scale solar projects necessary for a swift and comprehensive energy transition. 

The solar bonds we are advocating would borrow money specifically to fund solar installations on public buildings like schools, libraries, public housing, and government buildings. Any renewable energy installations funded by these bonds should be publicly owned, and money saved that previously went towards paying Duke Energy's high electricity rates should, after paying off the bond, instead be allocated to improving public services or helping to raise the wages of sanitation workers, teachers, support staff, and other low-wage public sector workers. 

These bonds are also a climate resilience measure. The importance of a climate resilient grid cannot be underestimated: this can be a matter of life and death during a climate disaster. For example, when combined with infrastructure hardening and the development of localized microgrids, the solarization of public buildings can ensure that our most critical public facilities stay on during the power outages that often accompany weather emergencies.

Depending on the specific needs of each county or city in the Triangle, these bonds could also fund other critical resilience, renewable energy, and energy efficiency measures. For example, a broader bond referendum could be used to fund efficient HVAC systems for our schools, improve stormwater infrastructure for our towns and cities, or even acquire property for new public housing. We encourage anyone familiar with the needs of their community to contact us and share what similar measures they would like to see included in local bonds.

Many cities and counties in North Carolina and across the South have already passed bonds to fund sustainability measures, including solar installations on public buildings. In 2020, Buncombe county, the city of Asheville, and Asheville’s Isaac Dickson Elementary School agreed to collectively spend $11.5 million on solar facilities capable of generating seven megawatts of power, mostly for public buildings -- schools, community colleges, community centers, and fire stations, among others. The majority of this money ($10.3 million) came from a bond issued by Buncombe county, approved unanimously by Buncombe county commissioners. Even Republican county commissioners voted to approve the bond, citing the cost savings, which more than covered each year’s bond payment. A 2024 initiative in San Antonio, Texas, provides a second example. Here, a total of $30.8 million was raised ($18.3 million from bonds, $10 million from Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, and $2.5 million from the State Energy Conservation Office), partially to solarize a variety of municipal facilities, such as municipal building rooftops and parking lots. San Antonio expects to pay off all debt within 10 years using savings accrued through the project, which also makes substantial progress towards the city’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Locally, a 2022 Durham County schools bond included funding to solarize Lyons Farm Elementary School, which now supplies about 20% of its electricity from rooftop solar. 

While we encourage local governments to adopt renewable energy measures through their regular budget proceedings, as Democratic Socialists we wanted to bring the issue directly to voters -- giving regular people a real say in important and economically consequential decisions brings us a step closer to the democratically organized economy we ultimately envision.

Currently, our goal is to get solar bonds on the ballot for Orange, Durham and Wake Counties, as well as for our smaller municipalities (Carrboro and Chapel Hill) and our larger cities (Durham and Raleigh)  But make no mistake -- a solar bond is only the beginning. Powerful forces stand in the way of the comprehensive energy and sustainability transition our society needs, especially in North Carolina. To overcome these forces we need to build a mass movement that centers the multiracial working class and all the oppressed and colonized peoples of this land. One of the core goals of the mass movement must be to establish an energy system owned and planned by and for the people, an energy system that puts our interests and our planet over corporate profit. We invite you to join us.

Interested in helping? Triangle DSA’s Solar Bond Campaign Committee meets every other Tuesday at 6:00pm online, and is open to the general public. The committee has already reached out to potential coalition partners, and plans to build support through tabling and canvassing campaigns. The committee is also in the process of meeting with elected leaders to advocate for the bond. You can reach out to us directly to join in this important effort by contacting nctdsa.solarbond@gmail.com, or you can simply show up to a committee meeting!