On independence day during the first year of his second term, President Donald J. Trump signed budget reconciliation bill H.R.1 into law. Dubbed by conservative lawmakers as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’, H.R.1 was the catalyst for a tumultuous legislative cycle defined by rewrites, carveouts, and dishonesty. While the president claimed this bill would address inflation and the deficit and put money back in the pockets of Americans, realistically this bill functions as the continuation of the immense wealth transfer towards the ruling class that has been poorly masked in this country for decades. 

H.R.1 is abundant with cuts to multiple institutions that sought to uplift those in need. Perhaps the most dangerous of these gut the public health systems across the country, resulting in billions of dollars stripped from hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare services that millions of people rely on every day. Silicon Valley DSA believes healthcare is a fundamental human right. The Trump Administration and conservative lawmakers, who kowtow and walk in lockstep with everything the president demands, seek to deny this right to those who need adequate social safety nets to uplift and propel the community. 

Some of the more alarming cuts for the community Silicon Valley DSA calls home are those that impact Medi-Cal. Santa Clara County relies on approximately $3.5 billion in federal funding annually, and the cuts within H.R.1 are anticipated to cause losses of nearly 30% of that funding, which goes towards essential healthcare services within the community, including but not limited to emergency rooms, trauma response units, mental health programs, cancer treatment centers, community clinics, and the only burn unit in the Bay Area, one of only three such facilities between Los Angeles and the Oregon border. Additionally, a quarter of all residents and half of all county hospital patients rely on Medi-Cal for adequate, affordable treatment. 

The damage will not stop at those who rely on Medi-Cal, though. Budget cuts such as those seen in H.R.1 cause ripple effects. A loss of federal funding at this scale can devastate the infrastructure of the community’s public health system as a whole, being the impetus for longer wait times, shrinking staff and capacity, and even the closing of facilities entirely. As Santa Clara County already has the second lowest capacity emergency department (ED) beds per capita, losing this funding puts at risk the health and safety of all county residents, regardless of provider.

To combat what can only be described as a direct attack on the health and welfare of the American people, Silicon Valley DSA has unanimously decided to endorse Measure A, a ballot measure authored by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to be voted on during the November 4, 2025 special election.

Measure A is a temporary 5/8 cent sales tax increase across Santa Clara County that could raise upwards of $330 million annually to support the public health systems that are under siege by the current administration. This tax, which equates to approximately 62 cents per every $100 spent, will save lives. The generated tax revenue, while not completely offsetting the cuts, will keep hospitals open, keep medical professionals and facility staff employed, and protect access to care for hundreds of thousands of Santa Clara County residents. Measure A would expire in April 2031, and independent audits and strict oversight will seek to ensure this generated sales tax revenue will be allocated appropriately. We feel it’s also important to note that, per Regulation 1602 Sections 6091, 6353, and 6359 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, groceries, prescriptions, and other necessities are exempt from sales tax, meaning these daily bills will not be impacted were Measure A to pass this November.

We recognize that a sales tax is a regressive funding mechanism and isn’t the ideal answer to the circumstances we now face, but the urgency and severity of this crisis brought on by our lawmakers requires swift action. While imperfect, Silicon Valley DSA implores the community to vote ‘YES’ on Measure A during the November special election, and we intend to mobilize members, along with our allies in labor unions, community organizations, immigrants rights groups, public health advocates, and beyond to ensure its passage. Our initial campaigning efforts to help Measure A gain the momentum it needs have included phone banking and canvassing in collaboration with the South Bay Labor Council throughout September, and we will continue these efforts weekly until the election. We invite you to come join us. Find details on our calendar at https://siliconvalleydsa.org/events/.

In the meantime, recognition that this is not a permanent solution means continuing to push forward in our work garnering support for the ultimate goal of a fully funded, publicly owned, and democratically run healthcare system that ensures quality, timely care for all in need, as it has been proven time and time again private equity without fail negatively impacts healthcare. 

Our fight is against both Democrats and Republicans who continue to diminish the rights and voice of the constituents they promised to serve to instead benefit themselves and their billionaire corporate donors. DSA believes a better world is possible, one where we democratically decide on how society is structured for the common good rather than the profit of a few. Join us at https://siliconvalleydsa.org/join/.

The post SVDSA Supports Measure A to Protect our County Hospital System appeared first on Silicon Valley DSA.

Zoelle Lane is running for Fort Collins Council. Zoelle is an immigrant, union member, and renter running to tackle Fort Collins’ cost of living crisis and to empower its residents. One of her goals for office is to raise the minimum wage, which is long overdue!

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

By: Stacey Yuen and Alana Edwards, with contributions from Thomas Baker

This article was originally published in Long-Haul Magazine in its Winter 2025 Issue.

In Fall 2024, Boston University’s Resident Assistants (RAs) pulled off a rare, week-long strike in this new corner of the labor movement. Over seven days, Residence Life (ResLife) workers held their weight amid frazzled union staffers, hostile supervisors, and internal fracturing to strike during Fall move-in – a high-leverage period during which tens of thousands of students rely on RAs to move and settle into campus housing, with parents in tow. This was our second strike to win higher stipends, better protections against harassment, and paid health insurance for those not on family plans, in the context of negotiations for our first contract. On September 5, BU threatened to withhold RAs’ compensation, which comes in the form of housing and meals. Workers voted to end the strike shortly after this threat. To the surprise of some of us, BU increased their semesterly stipend offer from $1,000 to $1,700 a few days after the strike ended.

We are two rank-and-file members who helped organize BU RAs’ “Marathon Monday” strike in the Spring and the Fall 2024 move-in strike. As RAs, our job involves looking after the safety and well-being of more than 12,000 campus residents at BU. We work on-call shifts to respond to student emergencies, assist with housing needs, connect residents with resources, and plan community programs. Undergraduate students make up around 85% of our 300-member unit and graduate students account for the rest. Workers are compensated with housing and meal plans, although only half the unit received the latter before our strikes. The unit tends to be staffed by some of the most working-class, housing and food-insecure, and racially diverse students at the university. We are, therefore, relatively young and unversed in our dealings with both management and union. Our status as workers is also complicated by our other relations to the employer, as students and tenants. 

In recent time, the “upsurge” of labor organizing in higher education has drawn much attention, along with the university’s exploitation of student debt through tuition and rent.¹ Yet the organizing potential for many thousands of residential assistants around the country, who stand uniquely at the nexus of these trends, has been comparatively overlooked. We hope our experience can be instructive for RAs elsewhere.

A YEAR ON THE JOB (STACEY)

In August 2023, I began my two-week RA training program at Boston University. The sessions ran daily from 9am and ended in the evenings, occasionally as late as 10pm. I was 30, but was immediately made to feel 12 again. Our supervisor yelled at us to keep quiet, called us out if we looked at our phones, stared at us if we talked with each other, pulled us aside if we were five minutes late, and policed us into performing a charade of attentiveness during presentations, even as they droned on for hours with few breaks. Graduate RAs (GRAs) like myself, who have some responsibility to supervise and provide additional support to undergraduate RAs, were also roped into acting like their parents. If “our” RAs were not on time for a meeting, we were told, we had to retrieve keys from the office to enter their rooms and bring them down.

On the last day of training, all 300 fatigued and pissed-off RAs were made to participate in a treasure hunt and put on dance and chant performances as part of our “team building.” The audience and judges were our supervisors (primarily university staff) along with other administrators involved in student affairs. There was a fancy buffet, staff promotion announcements, and other such things. It was clear that part of our training involved being habitually infantilized and, for the GRAs, becoming some mix of parents and managers. This dynamic was weaponized against us when we attempted to fight for ourselves as workers.

“The worst is over,” I was told. “The job isn’t actually that difficult.” But, in my first week of duties, I found myself frantically setting up meetings to try and save a coworker’s job. They had not met academic grade requirements in the spring for continuing their RA role and were only informed about their predicament after they were rehired for the fall semester, already in full swing. “If they had told me at the end of spring,” my coworker said, “I could have just taken a summer course to boost my grade and everything would have been fine.” Instead, they were removed from the role and evicted from their on-campus residence with one week’s notice.

These experiences illustrate some of the unique realities of undergraduate labor. Undergraduate workers are “young,” not only in the literal sense, but in terms of how they ought to be treated by management. Managerial truisms like “they do not know what is good for them” infiltrate supervisor-employee relations. At BU, RAs must seek their supervisors’ permission to leave their residences for more than 24 hours even when they are not on call. My coworkers have been denied permission, without explanation, for something as innocent as attending a cousin’s wedding. And so, the pressure to perform obeisance to our supervisors becomes part and parcel of life as an RA. 

But many RAs have been working multiple jobs since high school. One told me about a time they had a gun pulled on them while working as a fast-food restaurant manager in their teens; another complained about working under the hot Texas sun for $12 an hour, 12 hours a day, at an amusement park while a full-time high school student. Moreover, the nature of RA work, at its most intense, requires that workers attend to residents in crisis, to violent altercations, and even deaths. In the wake of one tragic student death on campus, my coworkers and I set up emergency discussions about how to respond to our residents and support one another in the face of confusing instructions and administrative oversight that had put workers in unacceptably difficult positions. It was apparent from those discussions that undergraduates’ maturity, wisdom, and workplace savvy are in abundance, whether administrators recognize it or not. But, of course, it’s in management’s interest not to.

“WE NEED TO PROVIDE THAT EDUCATIONAL MOMENT”

For management, ResLife workers’ youth and inexperience were reason enough to dismiss our organizing. We learned that BU was characterizing us as “ungrateful” and “aggressive” at the bargaining table. These complaints about our supposed childishness spilled over into daily interactions with our supervisors.² RAs made several efforts to meet with supervisors about how RAs themselves understood the negotiations – as a path toward ending food insecurity and the necessity of juggling multiple jobs. We were unable, however, to have this middle layer exert any pressure upward; more often, it came down on us in the form of mounting tension at work. During the strike, some supervisors grew openly disdainful of workers with whom they formerly had friendly and warm relationships. 

Ignorance and inexperience were also key tropes in the university’s public messaging. In an interview with the university paper about the administration’s plans to slap room and board charges on striking workers, the Dean of Students stated, 

My goal is to educate everybody in the bargaining unit on the effects of withholding labor during negotiations or at any point in their role. We’ve heard from many RAs who are confused about what this means; they’re not getting clear communication. We need to provide that educational moment.³ 

Unfortunately, there was also a tendency for union staff’s attitudes to resemble management’s. Micromanagement in the form of repeated calling and texting workers to track progress on tasks was common. Behaving like summer camp counselors, staff typically led meetings in ways that resembled a Q&A rather than facilitating discussions among workers.⁴

STRIKING “MARATHON MONDAY”

In Spring 2024, workers began to feel the need to do something to gain more movement at the bargaining table. The annual drop in staffing over the summer and massive turnover going into the fall semester contributed to this sense of urgency. The only meaningful concession the university had made was to offer meal plans for all workers and RA and GRA stipends of $1,000 and $1,500 per semester, respectively. Prior to contract negotiations, only about half of workers were getting meal plans and a small number were receiving stipends of a few hundred dollars.

BU RAs decided to organize a strike over Boston’s Marathon Monday (“MarMon”) long weekend in mid-April. Apart from the anticipated additional workload (responding to noise complaints, investigating overly raucous parties, booking out keys to residents who lost them, etc.), that weekend was critical because it coincided with the university’s Family and Friends weekend, where ResLife workers take on additional shifts to engage and welcome BU’s visitors and patrons.

With “MarMon” as our target, the union began assessing strike-readiness. Union staff declared that we needed strike commitments from 270 of our 300 members in order to authorize a Strike Authorization Vote (SAV). This high bar was raised further when the staff required us to collect “selfie” photographs from coworkers as proof of their strike readiness and send them to staff, who would then mark those individuals as strike-ready on our wall charts. 

The process of collecting these strike-readiness selfies caused several frustrations. First, many RA organizers were confused about the logistics and purpose of the selfies. RAs themselves asked important questions about how we were tracking them, whether they would be publicized, and how they were relevant to the strike. Organizers found it difficult to explain the rationale, making for extremely awkward interactions. The lack of clarity around the process, and more importantly, the hazy analysis of the relationship between the selfies on the one hand and our collective power on the other translated into demoralization and forced us to direct our energy toward sorting these questions out with each other and with union staff. Other essential efforts, like running small group conversations focused on strike preparation, power analysis, and inoculation faded into the background. We graduated from dancing and singing for our supervisors only to send selfies to our union staff.

Some organizers attempted to address the lack of bottom-up organizing and worker segmentation across campus by starting at the “neighborhood” level. ResLife workers are split across seven residential areas, also called “neighborhoods,” that are spread out around BU’s famously long and skinny campus. Workers do not interact across neighborhoods for most of the academic year. Until this point, neighborhood meetings were either poorly attended or nonexistent. This was true for both neighborhoods that relied on union staff’s initiative as well as those that attempted a more bottom-up approach. Three neighborhoods were almost totally disengaged. Meanwhile, attendance at bargaining and collective action team meetings flagged, in part because those meetings often felt uninspiring or inconsequential. 

Some rank-and-file organizers began meeting and talking one-on-one and in very small groups with workers from different neighborhoods in an effort to build a core of cross-neighborhood stewards. One priority was engaging “organic leaders” from disengaged neighborhoods. Since we wanted more workers to take ownership of our workplace and union, we began with workers who were less habituated to staff-led decision-making. Within weeks, a new core developed, comprising about eight workers, three of whom were from previously disengaged neighborhoods. We also formed a group of about 15 rank-and-file neighborhood stewards and began sharing and discussing neighborhood organizing strategies and resources on WhatsApp.

Workers had no edit access to their own wall charts and could only leave comments. So we made our own chart, which decoupled strike-readiness from selfie commits. In the second half of March 2024, these rank-and-file leaders started strike assessments, focusing especially on three newly organized neighborhoods where staff had limited reach. 

Our approach enabled us to gain traction within certain neighborhoods. As a result, it eventually became necessary to hash out our differences with the advocates of the selfie-based strike readiness plan. This led to an emergency meeting between rank-and-file leaders and the Local president, during which workers attempted to convince staff that we were ready to strike, whatever the selfie metrics indicated. We negotiated over the number of selfies that would trigger a strike authorization, ultimately compromising on a reduction from 270 to 170, or from 90 percent to approximately 56 percent of our bargaining unit. 

Unfortunately, in the same meeting, we were less successful in winning over coworkers or staff to the idea of an indefinite strike. The staff proposal for a four-day “warning strike” over MarMon ultimately prevailed, hoping that the threat of a strike would win specific demands like back pay, better training provisions, and having masks in offices. Although unconvinced that this could force such concessions from the university, our new group oriented towards this action as a “practice strike” – i.e. a window to learn BU’s pressure points and tactics, as well as our areas of strength and weakness, in order to organize for an indefinite strike during the move-out window at the end of the semester. Within a mere week, led in large part by a surge in the newly organized neighborhoods, ResLife workers hit 92% assessment, 70% of whom were strike-ready, and another 12% leaning yes. The Local conducted our SAV, which passed comfortably: we were going on strike. 

In hindsight, our approach had not adequately prepared for the realities of a strike. Our assessment of strike-readiness had fallen into the trap of getting as many Yes votes as possible at the cost of creating power-building spaces where workers could collectively build the necessary relationships, skills, and structures to navigate high-stress, high-stakes situations. There was no way we could critically discuss and respond to problems that arose in real time. 

After the strike, rank-and-filers got together to discuss what we had accomplished, how we fell short, and where we were headed. The strike forced small victories. We began to receive masks at big meetings and our RA training the next academic year was much improved in terms of duration. By summertime, BU also provided air conditioning for all RAs and relocated summer RAs out of the notoriously stuffy rooms at Warren Towers. We had managed to strike roughly 90 percent of assigned shifts over the MarMon weekend. However, this overwhelming success was achieved, in part, by strike-ready workers swapping shifts with less confident workers. This, of course, was only possible because we were not on the long-term strike that we thought was necessary to win. 

We also identified the picket line (combined with staff insistence that the strength of our strike could be gleaned from picket attendance) as a site of demoralization, alongside the pervasive feeling of just trying something disruptive and hoping that it might work, rather than formulating a defensible strategy based on a rigorous assessment of our leverage relative to our demands. Workers came away from this “warning” or “practice” strike less, rather than more, unified, coherent, and ready to fight. Our plan to organize for a subsequent indefinite strike was in tatters, and our experience defied the commonplace wisdom of successively escalatory action. 

Finally, we reflected on the role played by union staff and considered possible ways of navigating our relationship with them differently in future. We discussed setting boundaries with them and crafted a memorandum that we then signed, presented to, and discussed with staffers. The memo emphasized that workers would maintain full control of our organizing strategy, timelines, goals, wall charts, and data. Staff were directed to refrain from repeatedly calling or texting us.

“I’VE NEVER SEEN THIS MUCH PARTICIPATION IN ALL MY TIME ORGANIZING”

By the end of the four-day MarMon strike, our major contract demands remained unmet and an agreement was nowhere in sight. Though much of the unit had turned over between the Spring and Summer semesters, a small core of committed rank-and-file organizers remained. Restrictive timelines regarding SAVs in the Local’s constitution made the prospect of launching a sanctioned strike incompatible with striking at the point of our highest leverage vis-a-vis the employer: namely, Fall move-in. Our core organizers decided therefore to organize towards a wildcat strike to begin on the first day of Fall semester move-in.⁵ Fortunately, the intensive RA training in August provided, in addition to much frustration with supervisors, an opportunity for RAs to discuss this plan.

During August’s RA 2024 training, core organizers called a general membership meeting that saw our largest attendance yet, with more than a third of the unit showing up. Importantly, there was a new energy and hunger in the room and this moment felt to workers like a high point in our campaign. In a vote, 94 percent of us agreed to start preparing for a move-in strike by talking with our coworkers who were not present. At the same time, these deliberations revealed concern about striking without support from the Local, as did a follow-up survey, filled by close to 80% of membership. However, the genuine swell of militant energy and collective deliberation from below was not lost on the Local’s staff or officers. Following a second meeting attended by more than half of the membership, one of them said, “I’ve never seen this much participation in all my time organizing.”

The conviction of workers pushing for immediate action even compelled the union to permit a constitutional amendment that would allow an SAV to pass quickly enough that we could strike at least part of move-in. The SAV stipulated that, in order to pass, we would need 80% of the entire unit to vote Yes and it is a testament to this swell of momentum that such an outcome was possible. We cleared this high bar and set out on strike. Here is the reflection of a core undergraduate organizer:

Even after participating in the MarMon strike, striking move-in felt wildly new, exciting, and empowering, although very challenging. The emotional rollercoaster lasted from strike preparations all the way through the strike itself. The morning of the walk-out, my racing heartbeat woke me up before my alarm could. I would regularly remind myself that even though fear and doubt would always seem more valid responses to the decision we were making, I was choosing to strike because I believed in the justice we were seeking, because I knew it was what was right and it would be worth it, and because I committed to myself and my coworkers that I would give it everything I could. 

Throughout that day and each that followed, me and my coworkers exerted our collective power, took action, and formed new bonds of comradeship together. We stood by each other while we anxiously waited to be picked up by a strike train. Every chant I sang, every flyer I handed out, and every poster I attempted to put up was part of a larger struggle. I also fought for former coworkers, and every future and current 19-year-old RA who deserved better than the harassment my friends and I should have never faced. I even fought by doing TikTok dances in our ResLife polos with a friend I’d made just days before, in the most visible spot on campus, when we were too frustrated with each other to make another rushed decision.

We won the battles we faced simultaneously as individuals and collectively. We won as we met each other’s eyes when passing on the picket line. We won as security guards raised their fists and cheered with us as we walked out of campus’s largest dorm. And we won as students, parents, faculty and staff members, community members and leaders expressed their support through every email, tweet, and repost, through loud shouts of encouragement, through the moments they spent listening and calling on our behalf, even the smallest gestures of solidarity.

Notwithstanding such tireless efforts, confidence in the strike had begun to erode with the many sudden turns and lurches in the lead-up. Not a few who had previously agreed to strike pulled out. This was partly due to misinformation from Local staff, who were trying to rework restrictive internal policies to support our strike (we are the first RA unit in the Local). Core organizers were also under great pressure to make high-stakes decisions within a compressed time frame and tried to do so democratically. But the high tempo of informational and procedural changes, charged emotions, and clunky mass decision-making wore us out. Another challenge was that a large proportion of workers were brand new to the job, much less the union.

In the days that followed, ResLife workers went on what turned out to be a minority strike, with uneven numbers of workers withholding labor across neighborhoods during their move-in shifts. After the time lost in the back-and-forth with the Local, the strike ended up beginning on the fourth day of the week-long move-in and continued beyond it. Seven days into the strike, the university threatened to impose room and board charges for striking workers. Organizers, scrambling to respond, tried to assuage fears by saying workers would be more protected if more people struck. This was the wrong approach, especially as numbers dropped, because it divested workers of a sense of their own power when striking by sidelining genuine questions of strategy. It instead encouraged workers to find security in abstract metrics rather than to build structures, processes, and resources that would support a long-haul strike, one that might even have been powerful if concentrated in specific neighborhoods, despite relatively low overall numbers. There was widespread demoralization when some coworkers pulled out of the strike, creating a domino effect and the eventual collapse of the strike. 

CONCLUSION

To workers’ surprise, BU increased their semesterly stipend offer from $1,000 to $1,700 after the fall move-in strike ended, despite its weaknesses. We think that the chaos and visibility of the strike meant that management, far from being unbothered, felt relieved that things did not get as disruptive as they might have. The many last-minute emergency meetings called by middle management, as well as the outbursts of various managers, suggested a workplace in panic. Although many of our shifts were successfully scabbed, our strikes caused logistical headaches for management because we do essential university labor in housing safely some 12,000 residents and patrons, who each pay upwards of $16,000 annually in room and board.

Importantly, both ResLife strikes occurred alongside a militant long strike undertaken by the university’s graduate workers. From March to October 2024, the BU Graduate Workers Union (BUGWU) ran the longest graduate strike in US history, pushing for demands such as a cost-of-living-adjustment tied to the rental market. When ResLife workers hit the picket, the university was also facing the prospect of another semester with BUGWU workers on strike. It is conceivable that the university, sensing this new worker militancy from RAs on the ground, was eager to settle the ResLife contract to foreclose the possibility of another strike like BUGWU’s. Less than a month after the RAs reached a tentative agreement, BU also made unusually quick concessions in a clear effort to reach a contract with BUGWU and end the strike. Their contract was eventually ratified in October.

Despite the persistent and frustrating condescension by our employer and, at least initially, our union staff, budding militancy within BU’s ResLife union delivered us to two strikes that pushed our Local and won us materially significant pay and compensation increases from the boss, as well as stronger protections and a relatively streamlined training program. From where we sit, the collective deliberation by rank-and-file workers, which dramatically changed the course of our campaign, was the real “educational moment,” impressing upon management and our Local staff certain lessons they won’t easily forget. After the strike, a staffer said to one of us that getting ResLife representation on the Local’s chapter executive board was critical to reforming the Local’s existing policies – clear recognition that we had something to teach the “old timers” as well.

Building up and layering this kind of militancy in both graduate and RA unions within the same university, in order to strategize and move in tandem, is a clear next step. While the connections between these struggles were glimpsed at BU, where some workers are members of both BUGWU and ResLife and where we share the same Local, we cannot claim to have fully developed the potential leverage of joint solidarity against the employer. This is no simple prospect, but appears newly in reach in the aftermath of our respective struggles, and might be pursued wherever undergrad and grad workers are in motion, whatever their organizational affiliation.

The post On for Young and Old: How Boston University’s Resident Assistants Pulled Off a Double Strike appeared first on Working Mass.

Author: Megan R

One of the most contentious and confusing debate blocks at the 2025 Convention was the international section, specifically deliberation on the resolution titled For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA (R22) and the agendized amendment titled Align With the BDS Movement (R22-A01).

For context to anyone who is not plugged into DSA’s founding story:

“Whereas, and antithetical to the DSA’s contemporary principles and policies, DSA’s founding merger was heavily predicated on ensuring that the DSA would uphold DSOC’s position of supporting continued American aid for Israel’s Zionist colonial project, as explicitly noted in our organization’s founding merger documents (e.g., Points of Political Unity) and by Michael Harrington himself in his autobiography;”

– Anti-Zionist Resolution (#12), which was referred to the National Political Committee (NPC) from the 2023 National Convention

Members of DSA have been organizing within our democratic structures to course correct since the very beginning and that effort has been documented since at least 2019 (see passed resolution #35, speaker lineup). Organizers who are passionate about Palestinian liberation have devoted themselves to the steady and demanding work of changing minds of our comrades in DSA. We have come a long way as an organization in solidarity with our Palestinian comrades, despite what external reporters would like to imply. This progress is laid out neatly in the “whereas” clauses of R22 which details not only the statements made over the last few years, but also the working groups created, campaigns run, and strategies defined. 

Much of what we passed during this convention will support our Palestine work, such as the formal commitment to the “independent party surrogate” electoral strategy. It would have been great to also pass the Electoral Discipline resolution, which would reduce the damage that could be caused by chapter electoral program fiefdoms by providing a framework for chapters, but that will resurface in 2027!

The R22 Anti-Zionist resolution in particular was the culmination of more than two years of dedicated effort to confirm our commitment to being an explicitly anti-Zionist organization.

“Make DSA an Anti-Zionist Organization in Principle and Praxis” was originally brought forward for consideration at the 2023 National Convention but was referred to the NPC for a decision. In the last two years, many chapters have voted to adopt variations of this resolution locally, including our own chapter! (See the text differences in both resolutions here.)

“[Since] March 25th 2025, 54 DSA chapters representing over 30,000 DSA members have passed their own versions of the “Make DSA an Anti-Zionist Organization in Principle and Praxis” resolution, enshrining locally both membership expectations and electoral endorsement conditions of principled anti-Zionism that has provided a necessary, material counter-weight to the Zionist lobby for progressives running for local office.”

– For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA, which passed at the 2025 National Convention

Fun Fact: Our 2023 chapter delegation had a fuzzier political divide on this topic (4-2-2 split for delegates, 8-3-2 for candidates) than our 2025 chapter delegation did (7-1-4 split for delegates, 10-1-4 for candidates), bringing our delegate candidate support for Anti-Zionist measures up to 90% from 72% just two years ago. This is a testament to our political development as a chapter! 

In the intervening years, alongside the local approach, organizers for an Anti-Zionist DSA strengthened the resolution by building a positive vision of what we can and should be doing as an organization to support Palestine liberation.

During convention, there were a lot of myths being circulated, most notably a flyer distributed by a non disclosed political faction.

Fortunately for our comrades in the Springs of Revolution faction who wrote R22, and for DSA’s external reputation on Palestine, deliberation on R22 and its amendment was split across two days. This gave the resolutions authors and Palestine organizers a chance to correct the rumors that had been so carelessly and cynically spread the day before with the distribution of a fact sheet.

Comparing the Options

In order to demystify the text of R22 as it compares to our local Anti-Zionist resolution and clarify what the amendment would have changed if passed, we’ve compiled a side-by-side comparison below, along with links to the full text for both, highlighting key differences. (This comparison will focus on the “resolved” clauses of the texts, which constitutes the binding portion of a resolution or amendment.)

Read my speech against R22-A01 delivered on the Convention floor!

The For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA resolution expanded our organizational support for Palestine beyond these red line additions. The end of the Standards and Orientation section, a positive vision is laid out for work we engage in as an organization: 

Be it resolved, that DSA shall continue to organize chapters and national bodies to act as meaningful partners within the Palestine solidarity movement, prioritizing campaigns and organizing approaches that:

1. Directly undermine material support for Israel, respond to priorities identified by the Palestinian solidarity movement, and correspond with strategic organizing sectors where DSA is well-positioned to contribute (e.g. logistics and higher education);
2. Build an organized mass base of support for Palestine and engage a range of political and mass organizations, communities, and economic sectors, thus bringing working-class people together through joint struggle and strengthening our local and national coalitions, particularly with Palestinian-led organizations;

Protect our movement and build resilience against state and Zionist repression;

– For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA

Following that section is an entire section dedicated to coalition work, referencing coalition partners (included in the middle column in the table above) and identifying where new democratic decision-making bodies must be formed to succeed in the work ahead of us. 

The disinformation being widely circulated during convention, combined with the misleadingly named amendment led to tension and confusion among the delegation. Ultimately the debate concluded in a close passing vote of 675 (56.3%) to 524 (43.7%). We would have liked to see a more comfortable margin like a supermajority (60%) or two-thirds support, but given the situation we understand how voters were misled. 

We are proud that DSA has rejected its founder’s Zionist politics and are hopeful about moving forward to support Palestine with these promising campaigns and coalition partners.

The post DSA is an Anti-Zionist Organization! appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Retail workers often face some of the worst trends in employment, but they're uniquely positioned to put pressure on their bosses to get what they deserve.

The post How to organize a retail union appeared first on EWOC.

by a comrade

This article is written by a DSA member and does not formally represent the views of MADSA as a whole or its subgroups. 

Welcome to Vol. 2 of the monthly round-up! The content in this publication overlaps significantly with our DSA newsletter and monthly General Membership Meetings. To sign up for the newsletter or check out an upcoming General Membership Meeting, visit: https://madison-dsa.org/events/

Socialists Run for Seats Locally and Across the Nation

Socialist candidates have been making headlines across the country for offering a hopeful alternative to establishment Democrats. Exciting recent campaigns have included mayoral candidates Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis. Wisconsin’s State Assembly also has a Socialist Caucus with 4 members currently – one from Madison, two from Milwaukee, and one from Eau Clare. One of these members, Francesca Hong, has announced that she will be running for state Governor! Our DSA chapter hosted an exclusive members-only Town Hall with Francesca on September 29th to ask questions about her candidacy. MADSA has not yet formally endorsed Fran as a candidate, and will be taking steps to make this decision in the coming month.

Our chapter also recently formed an Electoral Working Group. The group has begun training members on canvassing skills for future efforts, in addition to ongoing work around strategy and messaging. MADSA’s Political Education group also hosted a topical event this past month, titled Beyond the Two-Party System: A Socialist Way Forward.

A Major Victory for Rights in Dane County Jail

The Abolitionist Working Group recently had a huge win after the Dane County Board of Supervisors voted to reject a highly unjust contract proposal, on September 18th, 2025. The working group had flagged concerns about the jail’s communication contract starting in 2024, when members realized that the contract would expire the following year, meaning that the county board would consider new contracts that could potentially erode incarcerated people’s basic rights. The group conducted intensive research about different options for jail communication processes and the local procedures for how these contracts are proposed, reviewed, and approved. As a result, they were able to mobilize in the summer of 2025 and discuss costs, benefits, and alternatives with the board, which led to the board’s recent rejection of the harmful contract.

The working group plans to publish an article with more details on their organizing effort, and you can learn more about the contract here in the meantime!

Tapping into International Solidarity in Madison

The genocide in Palestine continues to devastate, and people across the world continue to protest. It’s easy to feel powerless, helpless, or disconnected in the face of international horror. Yet, there continue to be tools of resistance for us even in Madison. One such option is the international BDS Movement (“Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions”), which has held fast for 20 years as a form of non-violent resistance against the Israeli state and its economy. To bolster this effort in our city, Madison DSA is proud to be joining a campaign called No Appetite for Apartheid. Members affiliated with this project will be working with local grocers with the goal of pulling Israeli products off the shelves. This will help increase the size, consistency, and impact of boycotts by implementing them on a structural level. 

Additionally on the theme of international solidarity, MADSA had the honor of hosting a visiting guest from Ireland at the most recent General Membership Meeting, who spoke on the history of The Troubles and how this connects to resistance movements. 

Further Organizing Highlights This Month

Our work continues in so many more ways thanks to our dedicated membership. Here are other key organizing efforts taking place this September in MADSA. This summary is not exhaustive! 

• Queer Liberation March – MADSA is hosting a fundraising event at The Crucible on October 12th for a future Queer Liberation March. More funds means more resources for safety, accessibility, political visibility, and – possibly – snacks.

• No Kings, No Bosses – members at the most recent meeting also approved a plan for MADSA to create a strong presence at an upcoming “No Kings” protest. Intermittent “No Kings” protests have taken place across the nation since Donald Trump came into office for his second term, but at times these protests have lacked a clear political vision. It’s important that people at protests develop an understanding of how to transform their energy and demands into ongoing political work. MADSA is hoping to conduct outreach and be a louder voice at these events to help channel the people’s power into a more organized movement. 

Social Opportunities

MADSA continues to offer casual social events to build our solidarity and community! These events have included recurring Coffee with Comrades, Coworking with Comrades, Crafting with Comrades, and Jogging with Comrades – now MADSA Run Club – on the weekends. Additionally, to celebrate the beginning of the coziest season, MADSA recently had an apple picking event. Half of the picked apples were donated to the food pantry at Goodman Community Center!

We also continue with book club / reading group offerings. V.I. Lenin’s What is to Be Done reading group concluded mid-September, and the next book to cover is Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth. Discussions are on Sundays at 11am, starting September 28th. The Abolitionist Working Group recently concluded their reading group on Alec Karakatsanis’ Copaganda, and there will be a discussion event with the author on October 7th at 6:30pm, at the Goodman Center Brassworks building.

Protest Song of the Month

My pick for this month is an upbeat tune – “Dump the Bosses off your back!” This protest folk song has been covered by many musicians over the years, and the particular selection linked here is by activist and lawyer Anne Feeney.

And that concludes our monthly round-up!

by Jade Inverarity

As socialists, we must be critical of capitalist thought and systems. Even ever-present concepts like free will, intelligence, and mental health cannot be taken for granted. None of these are innate to humanity any more than jobs, money, or socioeconomic class. Psychology, as a scientific discipline and a way of describing human nature, is a product of capitalism. Furthermore, it is a pillar of capitalist and imperialist oppression.

         Psychology is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as “the study of the mind and behavior.” It is meant to be objective and scientific, and thus above cultural influence. However, deeply ingrained assumptions shaped the field from its inception, and still do. As elsewhere in Western civilization, psychologists put individualism and self-determination on a pedestal. Since Freud, talk therapy has assumed that, with the aid of a formally trained therapist, anyone can identify and manage or resolve the problems in their life. This is by nature incompatible with recognizing systemic factors beyond the individual’s control.

         Psychopathology—the categorizing and diagnosis of mental illnesses under a disease model—adds a patronizing, accusatory layer to this already flawed premise. Studies have shown for decades that simply receiving a mental health diagnosis, especially a highly stigmatized one like schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, often adds stress to a person’s life. And stress is a known factor that exacerbates many such diagnoses.

         Besides stigma, psychology concretely reinforces oppression. In addition to the commonplace and horrific racism of medicine in general, concepts such as IQ, the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory and other intelligence and personality assessments have been leveraged to deprive people of color from opportunities such as academic scholarships or occupational support. Many such tools cannot be defended as meaningfully “scientific” when they fail to account for cultural differences, and usually involve subjectivity on the part of the person interpreting them.

         Similarly, historical diagnoses such as hysteria have provided justification for misogynist oppression. Records from the nineteenth century often show women were institutionalized for speaking out against their husbands or refusing to have sex with them. In an era where divorce was frowned upon, locking one’s undesired wife up in a sanitorium was a useful way for men to protect their status.

         The diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM) sometimes gets invoked to sway court cases, and leaves harsh labels on people in its wake. For example, the “battered women syndrome” legal defense in cases of domestic abuse is strengthened by a DSM diagnosis. The “insanity defense” is rarely invoked because it only leads to a lifetime locked up in a psychiatric institution, rather than a prison.

         “Homosexuality”, or later “ego-dystonic sexual orientation,” was listed as a disorder in the DSM until 2013. “Gender dysphoria” remains today, and is a prerequisite for much gender-affirming health care, despite the fact that many transgender people do not actually experience anything like its symptoms.

         Again calling into question the objectivity of this discipline—how are such decisions made? Why is it now unacceptable to pathologize a sexual orientation, but acceptable for a gender identity? It’s very hard to argue this has nothing to do with shifting societal tolerances for different queer identities.    

         Caffeine addiction is acknowledged as real by the scientific community, but omitted from the DSM because it is simply too common. Meanwhile, “process” addictions such as gambling addiction or pornography use addiction are included, despite research so far not substantiating the idea that they actually qualify as such. Chemical addictions have been proven to rewire a user’s brain over time, hence withdrawal. This is not the case for process addictions.

         The broadening of autism and its merging with Asperger’s syndrome has helped many people who identify as neurodivergent accept themselves and find community, but it also means the vast majority of available services go to those most high-functioning, and people who qualified for the earlier definition of autism, with serious developmental disabilities that necessitate constant care, are now often deprived, forcing the burden onto their families.

         Most changes in new versions of the DSM are influenced far more by corporate drug spending than genuine scientific research. Studies from the last several decades “demonstrating” the efficacy of many medications, such as antidepressants like Lexapro and Zoloft and stimulants like Prozac, have increasingly been found either to improperly follow the scientific method, or to omit, misrepresent, or outright lie about their findings in ways convenient for the sale of psych meds. Doctors’ careers benefit from ghostwritten academic papers and financial deals for giving out free samples. Even the legality of advertising these medications directly to consumers is specific to America.

         Related to psychology’s role in the carceral system, it is also important to note that the prison labor industrial complex yielded $11 billion in 2023 in goods and prison maintenance services, according to the ACLU. Other massive industries benefit from psychology as well: for-profit health care insurance companies and weight loss and diet-related industries, to name a couple.

         So, as socialists, how should we respond? Several lenses can prove useful. Critical psychology, like other critical theories, calls into question failures to recognize the cultural biases psychology is built on. Critical psychologists believe we have much to learn from collectivist cultures, a commonality with socialism.

         Antipsychiatry is another way those who have suffered at the hands of the psychiatric system organize their thinking and activism that has had great success within the disability rights movement. Descendant groups of the consumer/survivor/ex-patient (C/S/X) movement still educate and endorse peer-based interventions, rather than relying on police and medical systems. Peer support is built on the idea that lived experience can be as useful a qualification as formal education.        

If you are a client in therapy, work in health care, or catch yourself making judgments informed by psychology in your daily life, consider all of these facts. Don’t blindly accept reality as presented to us by the ruling class and the systems that uphold them. It is only by collective solidarity, not premised on the profit motive or discipline of labor, that we truly become free and well.

The post Psychology is Complicit in Capitalism first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

by Paul Allen

Before moving back to Rochester after college, I was involved with the Livingston County Democratic Party, and in 2023 attended the Democratic Rural Conference (a meeting of the Democratic parties from every rural county in New York state), where I heard a young and incredibly charismatic politician speak about the massive gains the Democrats had made in New York over the past decades, expanding the margins the in the state legislature, delivering for the people, yada yada yada. Flash forward to the 2024 presidential election and New York has the biggest partisan swing of any state in that election. I had thought after hearing him speak at that conference that we would be hearing from Antonio Delgado again and wouldn’t you know it, two years later, he’s running for governor.

As part of his campaign, Delgado came to Rochester recently for a town hall. Of course, the large majority of attendees were more supportive than not, and were more than delighted to boo the anti-genocide demonstrators at the meeting. Granted, they did interrupt Delgado, which I think most reasonable people would excuse at the very least, given the issue they were raising. He was all too eager to condescend to them, insisting that, “Hamas is a terrorist organisation,” as if that has made any difference in the last two years. I was not among the group of protesters, mostly because of my social anxiety, but I wholeheartedly support what they did, messages and methods. After the meeting, though, he fielded one-on-one questions, with people lining up to talk to him. I made sure I was at the back of the line, so he couldn’t use other people waiting as an excuse to avoid me.

He never used the phrase “genocide” when discussing Palestine and my question was simple: “why?”

The lawyer in him came out, and he launched into what seemed like a scripted response of, “the definition of genocide being, ‘the eradication or attempted eradication, in whole or in part, of an ethnic or racial group,’” and that he simply did not see the intent by Israel necessary for it to be a genocide. To this, I made the obvious push that there is so much evidence of intent; ignoring the fact that the current famine is entirely caused the the blockade (this didn’t happen due to a drought or other natural disaster), but you can also listen to the Israeli cabinet members directly, especially when they give their speeches in Hebrew and don’t have to worry as much about American audiences hearing them.

He then again gave the deflection of Hamas resisting peace (ridiculous, given that all the peace deals and cease-fires have been broken or rejected by Israel), so I decided to test him: I asked, “what would it take for you to begin calling it a genocide?” If his logic held up from what he had said previously, his answer should have been something like, “we would need to see legitimate evidence of intent to cause mass death” (again, ridiculous because we already have this evidence). Instead, he fumbled over his brain filibustering his mouth and trying to avoid getting anywhere near using the word, and claimed that the circumstances would need to get even worse than they already are. Granted, people make mistakes all the time while debating like this, but if it was indeed a principled stance of his, I do not see how he could get his own logic so wrong.

To be fair, he did say that he does not hold it against anyone who does call it “genocide” (how generous of him…) and that he “is more worried about the outcome; stopping the death.” This is a point I’d be willing to concede, except that when I went on to ask if he would fight back aggressively against any anti-BDS laws or executive orders, he quickly tried to end the conversation. Even a simple, “yes” would have sufficed, but he couldn’t muster even that.

Would he be better than Hochul? Maybe. He’s friendlier to Zohran (at least for now), and would likely have removed Eric Adams from office a long time ago, but the John Fetterman vibes are hard to shake. Even if he rejects any money from AIPAC and J Street, he’s still a liberal zionist; even Bernie was outflanked to his left by MTG when she labeled Israel’s actions as genocide, which he has yet to do. Is the lesser of two evils still too evil to support? Is it better than nothing? Probably, at least until we can get ranked choice voting at the very least. Just remember: him winning in November of ‘26 doesn’t mean much on its face.

The post Antonio Delgado and the Changing Face of Neoliberalism first appeared on Rochester Red Star.