It’s been quite a few months since we last updated everyone on the work we’re doing here at Syracuse DSA – Mutual Aid Committee! We’ve been quite busy with several different projects, so here’s a look into just what’s been going on, what’s on the horizon, and how you can get involved!

Sonny’s Free Store

We’ve now successfully hosted our free store (lovingly named in honor of founding member and former chair, Sonny Fantacone) at several local events. At its core, a free store demonstrates the basics of what we as democratic socialists believe people and communities can do to provide for one another. If we are more willing to give of ourselves and our excess to our fellow humans instead of to landfills, then our society as a whole will prosper. To that end, we accept donations of food, clothing, and other goods  and, when we have enough and the opportunity presents itself, we set up a “Free Store”!

At our past free stores, we’ve primarily offered clothing, but at our recent CNY Pride Free Store, we noticed that the few books we brought flew off the shelves immediately! In order to better respond to this apparent community need, we sourced more reading material for our booth at the Westcott Cultural Street Fair. With the assistance of our newest co-chair, Amelia, we’ve also been able to work in tandem with Onondaga Food Rescue Network through the Syracuse-Onondaga Food Systems Alliance (SOFSA), which allowed us to introduce both non-perishable items and fresh, local produce to our offerings. We got a lot of questions about where our storefront was located during the Westcott Street Fair, so our members are now looking into the possibility of doing pop-up store fronts all across the city, in the hopes of  making our free stores more accessible to those in need. 

Additionally, we will be fundraising at this year’s Plowshares event for both future iterations of Sonny’s Free Store, as well as for another project we have on deck for next year, thanks to some help from Philly DSA and a couple of enterprising scientists in California (more to come on this project later!). 

If you’d like more information about our future projects, want to donate funds (and maybe buy some DSA swag?), or would like to come check out some of the amazing artists and activists from the surrounding area, come visit us at Plowshares! 

And if you’re interested in donating to our free store, have questions about when/where our next one will be, would like to have us at your event, or anything else about working with Syracuse DSA Mutual Aid, please feel free to contact us at: syrdsa.mutualaid@gmail.com

Mutual Aid Bags

Something else we’ve been working on over the past several months are our first round of Mutual Aid (MA) Bags. MA bags are reusable grocery bags that we fill with things like bottled water, single serving cereals, non-perishable snacks, first aid supplies, feminine & general hygiene products ,  combs for hair, and other staple items. We also try to include at least one “non-essential” in each bag as well—things like re-usable water bottles, sunglasses, perfume, tea, and coffee. For our first round, we successfully collected enough materials to create 22 MA bags and determined that the best way to distribute these bags would be for members to store a handful in their cars, handing them out as they come across folks in need.

We’re looking to expand this project by working with other local organizations doing similar community outreach, thereby enabling us to create further rounds of MA bags that fit the specific needs of diverse groups of Syracuse residents. At the same time, we’re hoping to pull together enough donations to do a round of bags to provide “Thanksgiving Dinner”-style MA bags to around a dozen needy families, as well as a possible pop-up store front for families or individuals that may be struggling during the holiday season.

If you would like to donate non-perishable items for traditional holiday dinners, inexpensive toys, children’s books, inexpensive gifts for adults, or any other items that might go into these holiday MA bags/free store, please contact us at: syrdsa.mutualaid@gmail.com

Check out a comprehensive list of items we’re looking for at the bottom of this post!

Care, Not Cops

In the wake of multiple deadly police encounters in Syracuse this past year, our chapter decided that we need a space within our local organization to organize around issues of policing and police accountability. We firmly believe that most emergency calls do not require an armed police response, and we should instead pursue non-violent alternatives for addressing things like mental health crises or domestic disturbances. We also need to better hold cops accountable for their misdeeds, and doing that starts with engaging the community in dialogue to determine how we can build these better alternatives to police response, together.

We focused on the idea that “we keep us safe” and came up with the name Care Not Cops. The goal is to create resource lists of individuals, organizations, and programs that a person in crisis can call for assistance in place of calling the cops. 

As many of us know, having several officers respond with guns drawn often escalates many of these already tense situations, often leading to tragic consequences. In the past year alone, there have been multiple instances of officer-involved shootings, all of which must be investigated by the Attorney General’s office as per a law that was established on April 1st, 2021. At the time, advocates argued that this would improve police accountability. However, since its inception, the law has often served as a stall tactic rather than as a legitimate means of holding out of control officers truly accountable for overstepping the bounds of their legal responsibilities. Over the past 6 months alone there have been at least two notable cases where body-worn camera footage was either withheld from the public (even after internal investigations were concluded) or cameras were never activated prior to (or during) the incident. Shockingly, investigations carried out by the AG’s office found no wrongdoing in either case. 

Unavailable camera footage is just one of the worrisome details in these cases and going into all of the gritty details would require a long update in and of itself. For now, we’ll say that due to Syracuse’s history of policing, as well as its history of racial & social inequity, many of our members feel it is necessary to begin working on expanding the space for abolitionist organizing, starting with promoting better alternatives to call during an emergency than cops. 

To that end, we have an available resource called the 911 Alternative Sheet that we are always updating and expanding. If you have any suggestions for resources that you think should be listed, please reach out to us at: syrdsa.mutualaid@gmail.com

Items needed for Holiday Mutual Aid bags/Pop-up Store Front

• Inexpensive children’s toys
• Children’s books/coloring books
  • Crayons, markers, colored pencils, watercolor paints and brushes
• Inexpensive gifts for adults
• Hats, gloves, mittens, scarves, socks, balaclavas, etc. for kids and adults
• Small blankets
• Small craft kits
  • Craft paper, construction paper, plain writing paper, etc.
  • Tape, glue sticks, white glue
  • Yarns, threads, crochet hooks, knitting needles and other common crafting items that can be used by folks to make their own holiday gifts.
• Common holiday decorations
• Holiday greeting cards & envelopes
  • Stamps for mailing cards
• Non-perishable items for holiday dinners
  • Stuffing mix
  • Canned vegetables
  • Quick bread/Cake mix
  • Gravy mix
  • Canned berries/other canned fruit
  • Instant mashed potatoes
  • Powdered milk

The post Come See What We’re Up To At Mutual Aid! appeared first on Syracuse DSA.

Join DSA to Defend Rashida Tlaib in the Movement for a Ceasefire

Yesterday, in a shameful bipartisan attack, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 234-188 to censure Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Detroit, Michigan. Tlaib is a member and representative of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the only Palestinian-American member of the House. She has shown immense bravery in exposing the truth about Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians while she endures vicious and racist attacks, which now extend to the halls of government. 

This vote comes as Rashida stands strong alongside fellow DSA member and Representative Cori Bush of St. Louis, MO as an original co-author of the Ceasefire NOW resolution. Her unwavering dedication and leadership in the movement of peace and liberation of all people is a threat to the capitalist war machine. 

DSA is proud to call Rashida a comrade. Throughout her long career of public service in Michigan and beyond, she has not backed down against the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. She has taken on Marathon Oil and the Koch brothers after they dumped toxic dust on her district in Detroit. She is a fixture on picket lines and has hosted workplace organizing trainings, empowering her constituents to fight austerity and corporate greed by strengthening their unions and forming new ones. She is central to the life of the Detroit DSA chapter and movement coalitions in her district.

But this move to censure is not just about her. It was designed to distract from the majority public support for a #CeasefireNOW and to intimidate anyone who criticizes American imperialism. It is part of an attempt to stifle the voices of the millions of people who have gone to the streets to demand a ceasefire and the millions who want peace and justice for the Palestinian people. But like Rashida, we will not back down. The Democratic Socialists of America stands in steadfast solidarity with the Palestinian people, with Muslim, Arab, and Jewish people around the world, and with Rashida. 

Twenty-two Democrats in the House voted alongside Republicans to attack Rashida – but the entire bipartisan establishment is complicit in creating a climate of fear and hate for Arab Americans across the country. These Democrats, many in thrall to the same AIPAC money that funds the far-right, speak over the millions of Jewish Americans who stand for Palestinian freedom. These “progressive” Democratic politicians claim to be anti-racist and pro-immigrant but then vote to spend billions for death and destruction in Gaza, despite the vast majority of their own constituents supporting a ceasefire. They attack Rashida because she exposes their corruption and cowardice in refusing to stand up to American war profiteers and their puppets: when the chips are down, they choose to side with the ruling class and forever wars. Rashida chooses to side with the working class, peace, and justice. 

To defeat the powerful forces that wage war on working people both here and abroad, we need to build an alternative to the empty politics of the Democratic Party. Rashida says: “Millions of ordinary people like you must take to the streets, organize your neighbors and coworkers, lead your unions in massive strikes, and unite across faiths and nationalities to wield our power as the working class. But don’t do it alone; join DSA.”

The post Democratic Socialists of America Condemn the Censure of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Today, our members celebrate as Issue 1 is passed and abortion rights are secured for all Ohioans. Abortion is healthcare, and healthcare is a human right. We will not let politicians, lobbyists, or their billionaire financiers take away our right to reproductive freedom, nor will we let them punish medical providers for providing critical care. They lost in August, and they lost again today.

Many organizations and volunteers have come together to secure this victory. We are proud to be seven of those organizations, united for a common cause. Together, DSA chapters in Ohio contacted tens of thousands of voters. We gained invaluable knowledge and skills in this election cycle. We will use these skills to change the political landscape in Ohio.

We proved that the people of this state have not surrendered their rights. Republican power in state politics reflects only how they have gerrymandered the state, even after Ohio voters resolved, twice, to establish fair districting. We still have much more work to do to make Ohio a truly democratic state where basic human rights are guaranteed; DSA is committed to that fight.

The fight for abortion rights doesn’t end here, and our battle for universal healthcare is just beginning. We continue to call on federal and state elected officials to codify Roe. To the thousands who volunteered statewide: we need your help to secure an Ohio for all people. You can help us prepare for the next fight by joining and building your local DSA chapter!

We have work to do to make Ohio what it can and should be. Join us: dsausa.org/join

Akron DSA is proud that Ohioans voted to legalize cannabis for recreational use in Tuesday’s election. As a chapter, we’re happy to have played a small role: we knocked on more than 650 doors in multiple cities in the greater Akron area to help encourage voter turnout.

Issue 2’s passage is not the end: Future efforts around cannabis must include prosocial considerations such as criminal record expungement, youth prevention efforts (including bans/restrictions on deceptive packaging that looks like candy), and measures to protect workers and patrons from second-hand smoke.

Want to help join in the fight? You can find out more about DSA and join here.

The post Fall 2023 appeared first on Socialist Forum.

Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Latin America saw a surge in left wing parties and candidates winning elections. Often referred to as the “Pink Tide,” this trend has encompassed a variety of different movements throughout the region, with its initial successes including the elections of Presidents Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil. As of 2023, despite some shifts in the political landscape, much of the region is still governed by parties of the left. This development has led to increasing focus on the region from socialists across the world, including in the United States and DSA.

As DSA has grown and developed, the organization has built relationships with many of the mass parties that characterized the initial successes of the Pink Tide, such as the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV, United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT, Workers’ Party) in Brazil. Resolutions passed by DSA conventions in 2019 and 2021 outlined this approach, prioritizing solidarity and engagement with Latin American mass parties in our international work. This has included DSA’s participation in the São Paulo Forum, a big-tent network of left-wing political parties, multiple delegations to countries in the region, and consistent statements outlining DSA’s political approach in solidarity with our comrades in Latin America.

However, there has been criticism of this approach towards Pink Tide governments from some DSA members and caucuses. This has included calls to prioritize engagement with non-governing socialist parties or labor organizations rather than mass socialist parties that have won elections and governed, arguing the former share more in common with DSA. An example of this distinction can be seen in Brazil, with some advocating for further engagement with the Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL, Socialism and Liberty Party) rather than the governing PT. Proponents of this approach often argue the dangers of a “campist” approach to internationalism, and emphasize a vision of class struggle distinct from, and sometimes opposed to, governing mass leftist parties.

At the most recent DSA convention, critics of DSA’s international policy, including in Latin America, proposed an amendment to the International Committee (IC) Consensus Resolution which sought to re-orient along an approach in line with their vision of class struggle. Ultimately, the amendment failed and the consensus resolution passed unamended, showing a third consecutive convention mandate for prioritizing engagement with mass parties. However, this outcome does not mean this discussion is over in DSA. The nature of our engagement with the rest of the American continent is incredibly important and will continue to be discussed.

This is especially true as DSA works to find its place and grow in the post-Bernie era. If we want DSA to truly become a mass organization that can win state power for the working class, we must learn from those who have done the same, and show clear solidarity in their struggle against imperialism. With this in mind, we will outline the case for the continuing DSA’s prioritization of solidarity and engagement with the Latin American left and mass parties, which strengthens DSA and the global struggle for socialism.

As we continue to encounter important questions about the structure and vision of our organization, what should be of particular interest to any DSA member is how governing socialist mass parties in Latin America have been able to build strong and vibrant political organizations. Unlike the capitalist parties in the US, which do not conduct meaningful political work outside of election season, these socialist mass parties can count on the support of millions of member-organizers and broad sections of the population, as well as entire social movements.

Learning from our Latin American comrades who have successfully built mass parties will be important to our organization’s own political future. To learn how these parties have been so successful in their organizing, we interviewed three DSA members and IC leaders (Marvin Gonzalez, Luisa Martinez, Fern Kurago) that have first-hand experience, either through their own organizing work or as part of DSA’s delegations to Brazil and Venezuela, interacting with organizers from PT and PSUV. Throughout this article we’ll be relaying some of what they learned about how members of these parties conduct their political work, and how this can be applied to how we organize in DSA.

PT members will sometimes remark that their party is really a party of “60 million.” Although the official membership count is nowhere near this figure, it’s used to signify how not everyone involved in mass movements and political struggles PT has helped organize are members of the party, demonstrating how massive the scale and scope of PT’s mass work really is. This is a result of a conscious effort within the party to encourage members to join mass movements. As PT members help these movements organize, organic ties are built between the party and ongoing social movements. The building of these connections with mass movements is such an important part of PT’s organizing strategy that for the first few years of the party’s existence it did not run in elections, and instead focused on building up its support in the labor movement. This strategy would pay off, with the largest union in Brazil, the Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT, Unified Workers’ Central), being closely tied with the party and one of the strongest allies of the Lula administration.

This bottom-up organizing strategy has given PT the ability to deliver a convincing nation-wide left-wing political project that ties the demands of mass movements together into a vision for radical social change. It has also given mass movements the ability to directly influence policy making through PT. For example, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST, Landless Workers’ Movement), an avowedly Marxist social movement of poor rural workers for land reform, successfully ran their own organizers for office under the PT ballot line. Although there have been serious disagreements between PT and the MST over PT’s willingness to carry out land reform, they continue to work closely together because of deep organic ties that have been fostered over years of shared struggle.

This model of bottom-up organizing was incredibly important in bringing the left to power in Chile. From 2019-2022, Chile saw massive protests known as the Estallido Social (“Social Outburst”) prompted originally over a hike in public transport fares that then spread to encompass broad discontent with the neoliberal order. Socialist parties in Chile, which operate under a coalition of the broader socialist left and include parties like the Communist Party of Chile and Gabriel Boric’s Social Convergence party, built upon this protest energy to provide a left-wing electoral alternative. Running Gabriel Boric, a former student activist who rose to national prominence during the protests, the intersectional work between the protest movements and the socialist parties brought the first socialist president to power since Salvador Allende.

PT hasn’t only built up a presence within social movements, it has also been active participants in community institutions like churches, as well as having conducted local mutual aid work. As a result, the party and its role in everyday life has become a major part of the lives of socialist organizers. Venezuela’s PSUV shares this, with the mass party having a presence in the life of the community. Those we interviewed who had gone on delegations to Venezuela described how the social life of both the community and the party took place in basketball games, which were important places for the community to discuss local politics. This presence in community spaces has helped the PSUV support the formation of community-based governing models. Community spaces in Venezuela have been hotbeds for radical organizing that has often led to government-supported efforts to turn apartment complexes into tenant-run cooperatives and create community areas that run their own local economies and practice direct democracy known as communes. This presence in the communities has been key in maintaining a strong socialist base among the urban poor of Venezuela, which has been especially important as they suffer from a US-backed economic siege. As DSA continues to grow, these parties show the importance of having less shallow relationships with our own member’s lives and being present in all parts of the life of our communities.

This integration of the party and mass movements together into a broader political project was critically important to building PT into what it is today. By not being afraid to form coalitions and join social movements, PT has not only been able to prevent itself from being politically isolated, it has also been able to offer social movements a political project that can turn limited demands into part of a broader fight for socialist politics and a new society. As most of the political work within DSA happens through campaigns run by local chapters, ensuring that our campaigns don’t remain isolated from ongoing social movements outside of DSA is a lesson PT has shown the value of.

This strategy has been especially important for PT, as unlike governing socialist parties in Venezuela, Bolivia, or Cuba, they have always had to govern with a minority. Lula’s governing coalition in the National Congress holds 225 seats in a 513 seat legislature (43%), with PT itself only holding 68 of those seats. The challenges faced by the PT in being a governing minority are especially prudent for us. A similar challenge is also facing the left in Chile as the left coalition faces a resurgent right that sabotaged the attempted effort at constitutional reform. DSA electeds have almost always found themselves surrounded by a political class inherently hostile to the vision we offer, and learning from how PT has been able to be a governing left in this similar predicament will be important for our own electoral strategy.

DSA is also still predominantly composed of members from urban centers. Appealing to rural workers, in part due to their work with MST, has been a strong point of PT’s organizational successes. Rural areas in the US lack a strong left-wing presence. Fostering connections with PT and other socialist mass parties will give us more insight into an organizing strategy that has been incredibly successful appealing to both the rural and urban poor.

Governing socialist mass parties in Latin America have been able to build themselves into becoming a viable electoral alternative through years of community organizing. By supporting grassroots movements in their own political struggles, and providing these movements with an electoral outlet, these parties have been able to win over broad sections of the working class. Learning from these parties, many of which have encountered and then overcome the same difficulties we face now, can be key to showing us how to win over our own communities to socialist politics.

The American continent has been shaped by a genocidal history of settler colonialism and slavery. While there are significant differences in how this oppression has been carried out across the continent, the history in common connects modern struggles for liberation. When in government, mass parties of the left in Latin America have taken many important steps in support of racial equality, indigenous rights, and defining achievable steps towards a decolonial future. Learning from the achievements and limits of these approaches is essential in combating the oppression that results from settler colonialism and slavery in the United States.

In Brazil, PT governments have made important strides in supporting racial equality and indigenous rights. This year, Lula’s inauguration centered the nation’s diversity, ascending the presidential ramp alongside indigenous and black leaders and thereafter immediately issuing decrees that protect indigenous land and the environment. Lula’s administration also created a Ministry of Indigenous People which is headed by Sônia Guajajara, an indigenous woman and PSOL member. Additionally, PT governments under Lula and his successor Dilma Rouseff have made significant policy changes promoting racial equality for Brazil’s Black majority, including mandating teaching of Afro-Brazilian history and culture in primary and secondary education, creating racial quotas and other affirmative action programs in the public education system, and creating national programs to address racism and representation in federal administration.

In Venezuela, anti-colonial leader Simón Bolivar has served as an inspiration for the political transformation that began with Hugo Chávez’s presidency. Now, the term Bolivarian has become intertwined with the Chávista project. Along with championing the end of colonial rule, the Bolivarian Revolution included many important changes for indigenous people. Venezuela’s enshrinement of indigenous rights and political representation in their 1999 constitution drafted under Chávez was one of the first of its kind, and was a crucial step forward for the enfranchisement of the indigenous population. This, accompanied by other social and economic gains under PSUV governance, has led to a very high level of support for Bolivarian candidates in indigenous communities.

These achievements put parties like PSUV and PT in stark contrast to their conservative opponents. Alongside these accomplishments, we can also look to the broader political vision which is articulated by the Latin American left as inspiration for how to fight complex racial hierarchies. It is important that struggles for liberation against racial inequality and settler colonialism are not only taken in concrete steps of policy, but also incorporated as key parts of our political project. One way to make the vision of this political project visible is to make the racially diverse nations of Latin America represented in leadership. Some examples of this can be seen in Brazil and Colombia. Alongside his symbolic inauguration, Lula’s 2023 cabinet appointments show a conscious effort to embrace Brazil’s diversity. Colombian Vice President Francia Márquez, who was elected in 2022 in a huge victory for the Colombian left, now serves as the first Afro-Colombian and second woman to hold the position.

For the majority indigenous nation of Bolivia, the leadership of the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS, Movement for Socialism) party has also served as an important step for representation. Evo Morales, leader of MAS, is largely considered to be Bolivia’s first president to come from an Indigenous background, and his tenure accompanied important steps for the formation of a political project centered around indigenous-self determination. As was done in Venezuela, MAS-led Bolivia adopted a new constitution in 2009 that articulated significantly expanded rights for indigenous people. This included the identification of Bolivia as a plurinational state which articulates the presence of multiple national identities within the conception of their political order. This was a key part of how MAS envisioned the support and recognition of indigenous nationalities which began under Morales. Plurinationalism provides a theoretical framework for how ideals of decolonization can manifest in the practice of governance, and serves as an important area for us to learn from as we aim to construct a decolonial future in the United States.

However, it is also here that we can learn from the limits that the Latin American left has reached. Parties in governance, even those with the support of Indigenous voters, have not always navigated the contradictions of state power in a way that appears to hold true to the principles of indigenous self-determination. Both Bolivia and Ecuador both adopted new constitutions identifying their nations as plurinational, but have struggled with criticism from indigenous communities during the governance of the left wing parties which implemented these changes. The source of these criticisms have been the contradictions between indigenous self-determination in land governance and state-led development projects. In Bolivia, the MAS government did receive significant criticism over its attempts to construct a highway that would divide protected indigenous land. Despite this criticism and the right wing coup in 2019, MAS has been able to maintain grassroots support among the indigenous majority in Bolivia, which has allowed them to stay in government.

However, things have played out differently in Ecuador. Allies of Pink Tide president Rafael Correa and his party the Movimiento Revolución Ciudadana (RC, Citizen Revolution Movement) have been unable to regain power since their betrayal by Lenin Moreno, who ran as a leftist but quickly pivoted to the right after his election. During the 2021 election, the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE, Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) as well as the indigenist party Pachakutik both recommended a “null vote” in the runoff between CRM candidate Andrés Arauz and neoliberal banker Guillermo Lasso. While the President of CONAIE did go on to endorse Arauz, RC’s loss in the runoff showed the consequences of a divide between the Pink Tide left and indigenous organizations. In order to win elections and govern in a way consistent with the principles of plurinationalism, the left in Ecuador will have to build strong ties with the organized indigenous community.

From Ecuador to Brazil, every left party that enters into state power faces limits in what they can achieve, and will struggle with difficult contradictions. No socialist party has governed without doing so, and it would be misguided to assume the same will not be true for DSA as we gain state power. We should not take these limits and contradictions simply as opportunities for criticism, but as opportunities for understanding and learning. From engaging with mass parties of the Latin American left, we can gain insight from the experiences most directly relevant to our organization, including how these parties navigated electoral victories, building a mass party, and engaging with settler colonialism and deeply ingrained racial hierarchy. Along with what we can get from engagement with the Latin American left, we must also consider what we in DSA can give in return through our solidarity.

What makes showing solidarity with the Latin American left most important is its ongoing struggle against imperialist attacks by our nation’s political elite. Both Venezuela and Cuba are under devastating economic sanctions as well as facing an open effort by the US to promote regime change. In 2002, the US supported a military coup in Venezuela against Hugo Chávezthat had briefly succeeded in establishing an American-aligned government before mass demonstrations brought him back to power. Attempts at regime change didn’t end here. Propping up Juan Guaidó, an opposition politician who had never been voted for as the legitimate President of Venezuela, the US supported his destabilizing efforts to encourage a military mutiny in 2019 against Maduro and the PSUV-led government. After recognizing him as the legitimate head of state, Venezuelan diplomats were ejected from their embassies in the US, and the buildings were given to Guaidó’s rival government.

During Operation Car Wash, an anti-corruption campaign heavily manipulated by the Brazilian right that led to the arrest of Lula, Brazilian prosecutors illegally worked with American officials to coach witnesses and create plea deals. The effects of this were enormously beneficial for Bolsonaro, sabotaging the left in Brazil for years and giving him the political monopoly he needed to carry out some of his worst anti-worker and anti-environment policies.

Both of these examples, alongside numerous other military coups and interventions in Latin America,  demonstrate how the threat of US-backed interference and regime change are very real. Despite this, socialist governments in Latin America have found ways to combat the threat of imperialism through building community power and worker’s control. The PSUV under Hugo Chávez created a political system of communes, which he described as the “basic unit” characterizing Venezuela’s socialist transition. These communes, many of which are armed and practice community-self defense independent from police forces, operate with radical participatory democracy over whole communities, many of which exist in poor neighborhoods that have historically been strong bases of support for the Bolivarian Revolution. These communities are expansive and touch every part of community life, running bakeries, clothing shops, schools, and even whole factories as worker cooperatives. This has allowed many communities to not rely on corporations for the production of essential goods, which has become especially important as Venezuela faces US sanctions and open opposition from the capitalist class.

Even while facing a state of economic siege, nations like Cuba have been able to build models for socialist democracy, presenting models to the liberal democracy that we live under. In 2022, millions of Cubans participated in community meetings to participate in the drafting of a new family code. This system of participatory democracy, which had also been used in 2019 for the drafting of a new constitution, was anything but a rubber stamp. 300,000 different suggestions were made by ordinary Cubans who participated in these meetings, which led to changes being made to nearly half of the first draft of the family code. There is a long precedent of this model of community-based decision making. In 2012, thousands of meetings with labor unions across the country were held to discuss a new labor code. Similarly, major changes to the labor code were made, with 101 new amendments and 28 entirely new labor regulations added based on community suggestions.

Although elections to Cuba’s National Assembly are not competitive, candidates are chosen through a nomination system that heavily empowers community organizations. Candidates are first nominated by members of their community. Then, representatives of mass organizations like the Federation of Cuban Women, the Workers’ Central Union of Cuba, the University Students’ Federation and many more, conduct interviews with community members and hold town halls before choosing a candidate for their constituency. Interestingly, the Communist Party of Cuba has had no official role in the choosing of a candidate for National Assembly for the last few decades, not even being present in the meetings of mass organizations. Two-thirds of Cubans belong to one of these mass organizations, which are incredibly important in the day-to-day political and social life of Cuba.

Although there is plenty to criticize the Cuban political experiment for, any criticism should not take away from the fact that Cuba’s struggle for a socialist society is part of the same international movement DSA should consider itself a part of. Socialist experiments in Cuba, Venezuela, and across Latin America are building the type of world that we’re also fighting for, and deserve our solidarity, especially in the face of US imperialist aggression.

The struggle against imperialism that socialist governments in Latin America are facing is not something they are dealing with in the abstract, it is a fight for their very survival. Mass parties like PT, PSUV, and the Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC, Communist Party of Cuba) have had to contend with building socialism while having to face the real and very dangerous threat of US interference. This situation gives rise to contradictions that any socialist movement under the threat of imperialism will have to reckon with. For example, according to those we interviewed, supporters of the PSUV recognize the environmental damage being done by Venezuela’s reliance on oil. However, the reality is that no move towards sustainability can take place until the economic sanctions against Venezuela are removed. As long as Venezuela is under a state of economic and political siege by the United States, it isn’t materially possible for major changes in energy generation to take place.

Despite these challenges posed by US imperialism, the governing left continues to see their mission as transitioning to socialism. This is not an easy process in a world dominated by an imperialist power, which has given rise to contradictions that socialist movements in Latin America have found creative ways to address. Popular socialist self-government through Venezuela’s communes, or the regional power blocs like the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA, Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) that operate on the basis of collaboration and solidarity, not domination, show how the fight for socialism and the fight against imperialism is deeply intertwined in Latin America.  It is here where the transition to socialism is connected to building an alternative to the current world order. In 2004, Cuba and Venezuela founded ALBA, a political and economic alliance based on collaboration and Latin American unity in the face of US interference, not hegemonic control by powerful nations over weaker ones. The São Paulo Forum has also built a network of leftist parties across Latin America, opening another avenue for the building of solidarity between movements attempting to radically transform the political and economic life of their own nations while dealing with the very real threat of imperialism. These organizations, alongside other collaborations between the governments of the Pink Tide, have played an important role in promoting regional integration and economic collaboration outside of neoliberal free market framework of the US. In the face of an imperialist power that is gradually weakening, the Latin American left has sought to build not another hegemonic power, but to construct regional power centers built on solidarity and cooperation, alternatives to the very idea of an oppressive center of power.

These political experiments show the possibility of making real progress in building socialism not only in spite of imperialism, but as a way to directly combat it. It goes without saying that regime change in socialist Latin America means only a reversal of their achievements and an abandoning of the socialist political project. In Venezuela, it would mean the destruction of the communes and a privatization of the commune-controlled workplaces, which would only intensify the current economic crisis and mark a return to an era of corporate domination that existed before the socialist experiment.

Our role as socialists in the US, especially if we have criticisms of nations like Venezuela and other socialist-governed countries, is first and foremost to relieve pressure on Latin America by conducting anti-imperialist and solidarity work. The brutal imperialist attacks that have hampered the ability of socialist movements to carry out their political project are directly caused by the interests of the American elite, putting us in a unique position to help our comrades in Latin America. In order to do this most effectively, our role as socialists in the imperial core is not to play favorites and pick which parties to prioritize based on our own sense of ideological alignment, but to support the governing socialist mass parties that have to directly deal with attacks by the US empire. If we’re serious about helping our comrades, let us make sure that the fight against imperialism is truly our priority.

DSA convention has now recognized for three successive conventions the importance of prioritizing mass parties, both for the benefit of our organization from what we can learn, and for the benefit of the global working class as we strengthen our anti-imperialist solidarity.

When considering what we can learn from our comrades in Latin America, we often look to those who have achieved significant political victories. However, it is not victory alone that should determine our engagement, but the struggle to meaningfully wield state power to the benefit of the working class. Out of this struggle emerges contradictions –  important wins can be made, but there are limits to what is possible. Navigating these is the task of any governing left party, and if we do not learn from those who have tried before us, we will fail to steer ourselves in the right direction. Engagement with parties who have significant achievements will not ensure our success, but can play an important role in guiding us on our journey to socialism.

Rather than picking favorites based on perceived similarities in ideological composition or size, this approach entails aligning ourselves in solidarity with left-wing mass parties at the forefront of the struggle against imperialism. Our solidarity connects to how we publicly support or criticize movements of the Latin American left. Internal discussion and criticism is appropriate, but it’s important we consider to what extent criticisms may carry water for US hegemony and US-funded movements. This reality is important to any conception of “critical support”, which must prioritize efforts towards support as compared to criticism. We challenge US exceptionalism which centers our own importance and the idea that we have a right to be heard about every issue. While a critical analysis of ongoing socialist experiments is important and necessary, the way to help the working class of nations like Cuba and Venezuela is not to endlessly criticize their movements. This is especially true for communications from official organizational channels. By focusing on offering our solidarity and conducting anti-imperialist work we can provide real relief for our socialist comrades struggling against US imperialism.

While we have focused on making the case for continuing DSA’s current approach to Latin America, it is important we also engage further with the arguments put against it. The 2023 convention amendment which attempted to change this approach argued for establishing solidarity based upon “the rights of workers and peoples and not the balance of geopolitical power or the nominal political identities of different governments.” The authors of the amendment also criticized the failure to meet with opponents of Maduro in Venezuela and a lack of criticism for the Nicaraguan government in a statement against US interference. The amendment  called for a “big-tent” approach which does not just meet with “ruling or leading parties”.

Further examination reveals why this framing misrepresents the policy of the IC and was ultimately rejected by convention delegates. First of all, it’s important to recognize that following a multi-tendency approach can pose difficult challenges in international work, as there is limited time and resources to dedicate to international delegations and other efforts to build connections. For example, the delegation to Venezuela cited by the amendment’s authors did attempt to meet with members of Maduro-critical leftist coalition Alternativa Popular Revolucionaria (APR, Popular Revolutionary Alternative), which includes the Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV, Communist Party of Venezuela). Ultimately, they were unable to meet due to scheduling conflicts and prioritization of plans made with PSUV. It is true that prioritizing mass parties can come at the expense of other work, but ultimately we believe it is worthwhile to prioritize engagement with the millions of comrades in these parties who are fighting for a better world, as we have outlined throughout this piece.

Balancing our engagement between mass parties and other organizations can be very difficult, especially during delegations with limited time and resources. However, there are many examples of the IC working to build connections with organizations outside of ruling parties. Examples of this in Latin American include DSA’s work in Brazil in collaboration and solidarity with PSOL, CUT and MST as well as collaborations with labor leaders in Mexico, US embassy workers on strike in Honduras, Starbucks union organizers in Chile, and indigenous organizers in Ecuador leading a national strike. This collaboration with labor organizations and smaller political parties is a crucial part of the IC’s work and demonstrates the ways in which the committee does in fact follow a big-tent, multi-tendency approach while maintaining prioritization towards mass parties.

Additionally, it is inaccurate to characterize the rights of “workers and peoples”  as at odds with geopolitics and the political orientation of governments. The struggle against imperialism is geopolitical, but it is also a class struggle waged against US capitalists. Support for the left mass parties is deeply tied to achieving tangible wins for the working class, with the alternative being right wing governments aligned with the US ruling class. The balance of geopolitical power, and specifically the strength of left wing Latin American governments seeking regional integration and opposition to imperialism, is directly connected to the rights of workers and peoples. The implicit separation of the two by opponents of DSA’s current internationalist strategy only serves to confuse our understanding of the struggle for socialism in Latin America.

Instead of changing course, DSA should continue prioritizing mass parties of the Latin American Left. This approach will strengthen our own ability to become a mass organization, continue an emphasis on solidarity and support for our comrades battling imperialism, and further class struggle throughout the American continent. With unity and engagement, we can hope to see a future beyond just a Pink Tide, and towards a socialist America from North to South.

The post How Should DSA Engage With the Latin American Left? appeared first on Socialist Forum.

In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. published his final book, titled Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? Many of the basic goals of the Black freedom movement were achieved with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these remarkable victories, however, King and others in the movement recognized that their work was far from over. In the book, he conceded that “the persistence of racism in depth and the dawning awareness that Negro demands will necessitate structural changes in society have generated a new phase of white resistance in North and South,” and that real equality for African Americans would not be won without the establishment of economic and social justice for all – a new society that he did not hesitate to call democratic socialism. In many respects, even after long years of blood and fire, the work had only just begun.

This issue is published at one of the darkest moments in recent history. On October 7th, Hamas fighters entered southern Israel from the Gaza Strip and massacred roughly 1,400 people, most of them civilians, and took over 200 hostages. In short order, the Israeli military launched a horrendous wave of collective punishment against the residents of Gaza. Many, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have warned that this overwhelming assault could be an act of genocide unless it ends now. As of this writing, the death toll in Gaza passed the grim milestone of 10,000 dead – including over 4,000 children – while the Israeli military had effectively cut the territory of Gaza in half. Entire families have been wiped out. Under the relentless fire of bombs and artillery and suffering from a blockade of food, water, medicine, and fuel, Gaza’s population is trapped in a living hell. Amid this obscenity, Congress is considering sending billions of dollars in fresh aid to Israel, on top of the roughly $4 billion it already sends each year. The Biden administration claims it is pressing the Israeli government to exercise restraint, avoid civilian deaths, and increase humanitarian aid, but it’s clear as day – the US government is complicit in these crimes, and in the oppression of Palestinians in general.

DSA chapters around the country have played an important role in responding to the crisis. Members have made thousands of calls and sent thousands of emails to elected officials, demanding that they join the “Ceasefire Now” resolution in the House of Representatives bravely sponsored by Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush. They have helped to organize protests demanding an end to the killing in big cities and small towns and everywhere in between. They are showing in no uncertain terms that our government does not speak for us, and that we will do everything in our power, in solidarity with as many allies as possible, to help bring justice, equal rights, and security to all people – Arab, Jewish, and otherwise – living in the land of historic Palestine.

Even if a ceasefire is won tomorrow, it will have come far too late for far too many people. Many thousands are dead. Even more are injured, displaced, and dehumanized. The wounds of those who manage to live through this nightmare will never fully heal. The long, hard work of ending the occupation and securing a just peace will still remain. But maybe the sheer horror of this moment will finally lead, in time, to a new beginning. As Shahd Bishara, a Palestinian Israeli citizen and a leader of Standing Together, the left-wing Arab-Jewish solidarity movement, recently beseeched: “May our collective grief ignite a movement that shakes the foundation of the status quo and paves the way for a better tomorrow.” In doing so, she recalled the final lines of King’s last book, from a chapter evocatively titled “The World House“: “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. This may well be mankind’s last chance to choose between chaos and community.” We choose the latter.

The post Editorial Note: Chaos or Community? appeared first on Socialist Forum.

The majority of renters in Los Angeles live under rent control: the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO) covers 640,000 of the 870,000 renter-occupied housing units in the City of Los Angeles. Since it was established in the 1970s, the RSO has allowed for a floor of 3% rent increases annually and a ceiling tied to increases in the cost of living. Under the emergency order issued during the pandemic, the RSO increases have been frozen, creating a lifeline for millions of people who live as tenants in the City of Los Angeles. That freeze expires one year after the end of the emergency: February 1st, 2024.

Without any action from our City Council, owners of RSO properties would be allowed to raise rents 7-9%. (7% is the baseline allowable rent increase. An additional 1% is allowed for electricity and gas each included in rent, for a total allowable increase of up to 9%.) A study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that rent increases of $100/month were associated with a 9% increase in homelessness. A massive rent increase could trigger a disaster for tenants.

In January 2023, City Council passed a motion calling for the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) to report back on the best way to amend this ordinance to keep people in their homes, but they failed to return that report. Accordingly, two of our endorsed council members, Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez, introduced a motion to extend the hold on rent increases for six months, until August 1, 2024, while the LAHD finished their report back.

However, in the Housing and Homelessness Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 1st, Bob Blumenfield and Marqueece Harris-Dawson rejected the call for a rent-freeze. They cited legally dubious rationale from the City Attorney – who has been lobbied heavily by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles and the landlord lobby – saying that the temporary rent freeze would not be legally defensible in court. We disagree with this ruling, and believe it was politically motivated to prioritize landlords over tenants.

Landlords are bragging about how well they’re lobbying City Council: instead of going forward with the six month rent-freeze proposed by our DSA members, Blumenfield and Harris-Dawson introduced an amendment allowing landlords to raise the rent 4-6% in February, instead of the default 7-9%. They made it clear they would only move the motion out of committee, and to the full City Council, with this amendment in place.

As the chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, council-member Nithya Raman was forced to decide between two bad options. If she voted against the Blumenfield/Harris-Dawson amendment, then the full 7-9% increase would be automatically instituted in February. If she voted in favor of the proposed amendment, then the smaller rent increase would be brought to full council for debate and final vote. While we support an extended rent-freeze, we recognize her vote was an attempt to minimize the damage. It also offers the crucial opportunity for additional amendments by the full City Council.

I first learned the name Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the same night she astonished the world, winning her primary race against all odds, bringing the Bernie movement into Congress. Here was a working-class person running on a democratic socialist program who had unseated one of the most corrupt and conservative Democratic leaders in Congress, Joe Crowley. The difference between the two couldn’t have been more stark, and I wanted to join the AOCs against the Crowleys. After that night, I quickly became interested in organizing with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), given its role in getting her elected.

Luckily, I got my chance, diving headfirst into the Julia Salazar campaign for State Senate. Just as in AOC’s race, Julia was an outsider running on a democratic socialist platform against a comically corrupt corporate Democrat. The incumbent, Martin Dilan, had served in one seat or another for decades, was a member of the Brooklyn Democratic Party machine, and, at the behest of his real estate industry funders, championed policies that displaced his working-class constituents.

All the staffers and bulk of the volunteers on the Salazar campaign were open and proud DSA members, many of the canvasses were organized by the chapter, and Julia had been DSA cadre. It was also a clear “us versus them” battle — tenants versus real estate, workers versus capitalists, democratic socialists versus corporate Democrats. I joined DSA a week into volunteering on the campaign. Since then, I’ve been involved in more DSA electoral campaigns than I can count, including the 2021 and 2022 NYC-DSA City Council and State Assembly slates.

However, 2021 and 2022 felt different from the electoral work that had first brought me into DSA. While those earlier campaigns were clear “us versus them,” class struggle battles against corporate stooges, our opponents often opted for a different tack in 2021 and 2022, adopting many of our policy planks and messaging, which often made it more difficult for us to distinguish our own candidates. This was made all the more true by our communications and literature which often presented our candidates not as democratic socialists, but as progressive Democrats — a shortcut to win over Democratic Party partisans in these low-turnout closed primaries.

These experiences led my caucus Bread & Roses to put forward the 1-2-3-4 Plan for Building an Independent Party, at last summer’s NYC-DSA convention. This proposal sought to  advance coordination and discipline between our campaigns and socialists in office, to craft a clear independent public identity for our electoral work. Though that proposal was rejected, its core principles overwhelmingly passed the 2023 National DSA convention this past August in an amendment to the NEC Consensus Resolution: Act Like an Independent Party. Putting this proposal into practice will help our organization distinguish our candidates from run-of-the-mill progressives, help us escape from primarily appealing to a narrow base of Democratic Party primary voters, and, alongside non-electoral movement work and campaigning for electoral reform, will set the groundwork for a new independent party of the working class necessary for winning socialism.

Socialists Versus Progressive Capitalists

When volunteering for Phara Souffrant Forrest’s 2022 re-election campaign, I quickly realized that our opponents had stolen our platform. If a voter took a quick glance at Phara’s literature alongside that of her challenger, Olanike Alabi, they would find it difficult to distinguish the candidates beyond their lists of endorsements and Phara’s accomplishments as an incumbent. Both candidates were running on single-payer healthcare, a Green New Deal for New York, making CUNY tuition free, universal rent control, and ending mass incarceration. This was not unique to Souffrant Forrest and Alabi’s race. During the 2021 City Council elections. DSA-backed tenant-organizer Michael Hollingsworth narrowly lost to progressive career politician Crystal Hudson, whose platform and literature also mimicked our own.

But there are three major differences between our DSA candidates and their faux-progressive opponents:

1. Our opponents were career Democratic Party operatives, while our DSA candidates were working-class movement leaders: Hollingsworth and Souffrant Forrest were both organizers in Brooklyn’s robust tenant movement. While canvassing, one comrade met a voter who said that Hollingsworth had organized their apartment building, so of course they were voting for him!
2. Our opponents usually took corporate money, while our DSA candidates were funded exclusively by working people. Despite our opponents’ promises to stand for working-class values, they couldn’t be trusted to deliver on their promises because they were compromised by their corporate bankrollers.
3. Both Hollingsworth and Souffrant Forrest were running as members of democratic socialist slates. They were accountable to a working-class movement that would keep them true to their word, and were committed to acting as part of a team in office. Our policy goals face the resistance of immensely powerful enemies. Well-meaning individuals cannot defeat these class enemies and deliver real change for working-class New Yorkers. Insead, we need a mass working-class movement and a core of elected officials committed to coordinating with each other, and answering to and building that movement.

While canvassing, when voters would ask me the differences between Alabi and Souffrant Forrest I would hit on these three points, especially the last one. While Alabi was running on the same platform as Souffrant-Forrest, if she had won she would have weakened the bloc in Albany that is accountable to and fighting for workers. This was one of her strongest selling points at the doors.

People also appreciated my honesty about the difficulty of the task ahead. I didn’t say that by electing our candidates, their lives would immediately change. I made clear the power of our enemies and put forward a strategy to defeat them which relied on building mass movements of regular people, engaging in direct conflict with capitalists and their politicians, and expanding the bloc of democratic socialist legislators.

Unfortunately, neither our literature, nor our canvass training and scripts, emphasized that our candidate was running on a slate or accountable to a movement beyond the campaign. Our literature displayed a DSA endorsement, but as one as many among others, and identified Phara as a Democrat running for re-election, as opposed to a democratic socialist running as part of a slate in the Democratic primary. While I’m sure there were other volunteers who took a similar approach as me, the vast majority of constituents were not hearing this powerful message, instead likely seeing our candidates as good individual progressives, and in some cases, not so different from their opponents.

These reflections motivated my caucus in DSA, Bread & Roses, to put forward the “1-2-3-4 Plan” at the 2022 NYC-DSA convention. This plan would have committed our candidates to using the words democratic socialist on their literature and scripts, distancing themselves from the label of Democrat, using a common campaign identity during and between election cycles, bloc voting with each other, and cross-endorsing each other and future DSA candidates as part of a longer-term project of building an independent working-class party.

Why a Party? And How?

Marxists have long identified the importance of independent working-class political action. This independence is essential for simultaneously winning pro-worker reforms, and to build working-class organization and consciousness. Cross-class parties like the Democrats, while at times winning reforms for workers, have historically subordinated working-class power and interests to those of their capitalist leaderships. They also tie workers movements to the brand of anti-worker capitalists. Working-class parties on the other hand allow for workers to have control over their own political apparatus, strategy, brand, and politicians. Together, the movement rank-and-file, elected leaders, and members in political office can collectively present an alternative vision of society in direct conflict with capitalists and their politicians to serve as a rallying cry for workers sick of the status quo.

The 1-2-3-4 plan would have oriented our legislative and movement fights toward helping build their own self-directed struggles through fights that pit their own movements against the interests of capital and forge a working-class identity. Through these fights, we could demonstrate that DSA is the organization — or party —  to join to further their interests as workers, and that to expand working-class power means expanding DSA’s bloc in the state. Moving toward acting like a party and forging a voter-base devoted to our organization and strategy would set the groundwork for one day breaking from the Democratic Party and forming our own party.

The United States’ anti-democratic constitution and electoral rules make it particularly hard to break out of the two-party system forced upon workers. Most in the socialist movement acknowledge this reality, and its implications that at the current moment we need to contest Democratic primaries as a primary terrain of electoral struggle. For some, these hurdles have made building a working-class party seem quixotic, and that we should instead accept our lot as a faction of the Democratic Party. But this ignores that for centuries Marxists and socialists have focused their efforts on fighting for a more democratic state to enable working-class power. Some of the earliest programs of 19th and 20th century mass workers parties even led with demands around universal suffrage and proportional representation.

We don’t have to look as far back in history as Europe’s 19th century workers parties for relevant examples. Following Chile’s managed transition back to democracy, its constitution effectively created a two-party system through 2-seat-large congressional districts that delivered seats to the highest two vote getters. But following the 2011 student uprising against neoliberalism, and the subsequent entry of some of its leaders into Congress in 2014, Chile passed major electoral reforms, expanding the size of its congressional districts to allow for greater representation of other parties than the dominant center-right and center-left coalitions. These reforms, in turn, facilitated the massive growth of representation by Chile’s new left coalition, the Frente Amplio in 2017, in an election that broke up the country’s two-party system.

This was only possible because left-wing politicians and movements fought for this reform, and tied it to their broader economic program of ending neoliberalism. Building a government and society that worked for working people, they argued, required a political system that allowed working people real democratic control over their lives. DSA and our socialists in office should also fight for proportional representation and other democratic reforms that would make it easier to build a new working-class socialist party, and break from using the Democratic Party’s ballot line. In fact, YDSA just passed a resolution to this effect at our recent National Convention, urging

“DSA as a whole to take up a stance of opposition to the Constitution, openly indicting it as antidemocratic and oppressive, encouraging all DSA members in office to do the same, taking concrete actions to advance the struggle for a democratic republic such as agitating against undemocratic Judicial Review, fighting for proportional representation, delegitimizing the anti-democratic U.S. Senate, and advancing the long-term demand for a new democratic Constitution.”

While we don’t get to choose our conditions, we can still make our own history.

Base Building

Building a party can’t solely revolve around winning electoral reform. We have to do the hard work of building a working-class base for independent class-struggle politics. Notably, our rank-and-file labor efforts are going to play an essential role in breaking off a considerable chunk of the labor movement from the Democrats in favor of our socialist project instead and is already paying dividends.

Building mass democratic struggles of workers, showing workers that change is possible through their own independent collective action are essential in building what Kim Moody described as “a sea of class-conscious workers for socialist ideas and organizations to swim in.” Participating among the rank-and-file as the strongest union builders and advocates of union democracy and militancy, supporting workers through extensive strike support, and using the bully pulpits of our socialists in office to amplify and build their struggles, is a clear path for DSA to attract large numbers of working people to our organization.

Last, our electoral campaigns and the actions of our socialists in office have a large role to play in building a democratic socialist identity among our voter base. Literature, scripts, and campaign messaging can foreground that our candidate is running as part of an alternative political movement, DSA, that they are oriented toward building the struggles of regular people, and that they’re planning on blocking with other socialists in office who will together remain accountable to the movement.

Our socialists in office can collaborate with DSA and broader working-class organizations to facilitate mass working class struggle and draw clear identifiable lines between DSA’s electeds and mainstream Democrats. A great example of this has been the campaign for the Not on Our Dime legislation to end New York State’s subsidization of Israeli settlements, championed by most of NYC-DSA’s socialist in office. The Not on Our Dime campaign has oriented toward building people power, not legislative maneuvering, has forced the majority of the Democratic Conference to demonstrate they’re bought by the Israel lobby, and has emphasized the importance of having DSA members in office to truly champion the interests of working people.

Is Working in the Democratic Party Desirable in the Long Run? 

Some argue that we have no choice but to remain in the Democratic Party coalition indefinitely. But there is significant evidence that this is a failing strategy for the long term. First, the Democratic Party is incredibly unpopular, especially when compared to our socialist policy goals. Nationally, the Democratic Party has a 39 percent approval rating. And in red states, like Florida, Republican candidates regularly win state-wide office, while progressive ballot initiatives like a $15 minimum wage and legalizing medicinal marijuana pass by large margins.

Second, the Democratic Party is losing support from significant parts of its base who would form crucial parts of a workers’ party. While there has been a historical base in the South that identifies strongly with the Democratic Party, especially among Black southerners, support for Joe Biden among all non-White voters is quickly declining. According to the New York Times, while Biden won 70 percent of non-white voters in 2020, he is now polling at 53 percent among the same group. Biden’s drop in support among non-white voters is largely concentrated among those without a college education, are younger than 45 years old, and who make less than $50k per year or between $50 and $100k per year. While support for Biden among poorer people of color has plummeted, support among non-white voters making more than $100k per year has actually increased.

This parallels larger trends of diminishing support by workers of all races for the Democratic Party, and the Party’s increasing reliance on higher-income and more highly educated voters. While Obama’s 2012 campaign won voters with incomes under $50k per year by twenty-two points, and lost those with incomes over $100k by ten points, Biden won the former group by merely nine points, and reversed Obama’s loss among the latter group, winning top earners by thirteen points. And during the 2020 presidential elections, support for Trump by immigrants living in major cities massively increased. In Los Angeles and New York, districts with over 65 percent combined Latino and Asian populations both had Republican ballots increase by 78 percent compared to the 2016 election, while Democratic ballots only increased by 23 percent and two percent respectively.

The Democratic Party is quickly alienating key segments of their base to whom a socialist program may appeal — and who are necessary to realize said program. Winning over these groups – working people, people of color, immigrants in cities, and those in former industrial heartland – seemingly requires a sharper distinction from the Democratic Party, a willingness to establish ourselves as an explicit alternative to the party, not just a faction within.

What About Blue States?

In blue states, many argue that identifying as a Democrat is required to win office, but the reality is far less clear. In many of my canvassing conversations I’ve encountered working people whose first question is if our candidate is a Democrat or not. I’d often respond that our candidate was running in the Democratic Primary but was fundamentally different from traditional politicians of both parties, elaborating on the three points that distinguished our candidates from even most progressive non-socialist Democrats. I’d admit we had to run as a Democrat because of our two party system, but that our movement was independent from and in conflict with the corporate politicians of both parties. I’ve never had any problems with this messaging.

For the most part, workers just want to know our candidate is not a Republican. The laundry list of poor experiences with corporate Democrats is near universal. Anecdotally, many of my working-class co-workers hold highly negative views of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Eric Adams, and other leading Democrats, and recognize them as fundamentally alien to their own interests. Last summer, upon learning I was involved in political organizing, one co-worker asked me to help her learn about politics. She felt like she didn’t know much, just voted Democrat because that’s how she was raised, and wanted to learn more. She asked what I thought about the Democratic Party and I replied that it’s home to both poor people and the oppressed, and the ultra wealthy and oppressors. When push comes to shove, it will always choose the wealthy donors over its working-class base, and holds that base hostage because the only alternative is the even worse Republicans. We need a party built by working people independent of the ultra wealthy, and able to actually represent working people’s interests. For the time being we’re stuck in a two-party system and should generally vote for Democrats over Republicans, while building toward that independent party.

She was convinced, and the following week direct-messaged me an Instagram post about Nancy Pelosi’s extreme wealth. The idea that working people would not find this message compelling demonstrates a lack of confidence in both working-class political independence and the ability of workers to understand complex political ideas and put them into practice. The larger challenge is demonstrating that our vision is possible, not that it’s desirable.

Prioritizing Democratic primaries — a partial necessity of our electoral system — also narrows our audience too. Many voters in low-turnout Democratic primaries likely do identify with the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that our electoral campaigns in New York have generally targeted “triple-prime” voters — those who have voted in the three Democratic Party primaries. Since these primaries often receive only thirteen to twenty-six percent turnout of eligible Democrats, this strategy makes sense if one sees the primary task of socialist electoral work as delivering our candidates the greatest number of votes, while also remaining a permanent internal faction of the Democratic Party. But it makes far less sense from an electoral orientation that seeks to use socialist electoral campaigns to organize workers, regardless of partisan identity, into struggle around an alternative vision of society in direct conflict with capitalists and their politicians.

This is also not a good sample source to draw conclusions about the primary source of Democratic Party identification by working-class New Yorkers: negative feelings toward the Republicans or positive ones toward the Democrats. It’s safe to say that my co-worker, who spent her ten-minute breaks at our fast food job simultaneously pumping breast milk and calling up SNAP to try and secure her family food, was not participating in these primary elections. But she should be the prime target of our campaign efforts: a lifelong working-class New Yorker, person of color, mother, pro-union and pro-Bernie, pissed off at her landlord, boss, and the state, and interested in learning more about politics.

Building the Party

It’s exciting to see “Act Like an Independent Party” pass at the DSA convention. This vision of  building on our organizational independence, and establishing strategic independence and a strong public independent identity has super-majority support in the organization. Now we have to put it into practice. DSA can run socialists around the country on a common program and a common identity, build up our national and local electoral infrastructure to recruit and develop class-struggle candidates, and coordinate with them once in office to block together and build worker-oriented mass struggles. We will strengthen our electoral project and build real long-term power for DSA and the workers’ movement.

To do this, the National Electoral Committee needs to support chapters in establishing their own Socialists in Office (SIO) committee and to develop a federal one. These committees can take the best practices from NYC-DSA’s SIO committee, while also learning from its challenges and difficulties. They can coordinate with our officials, help set their messaging, policies, and strategy, collaborate in organizing their constituents into struggle, and ensure that our socialists in office are moving together as a disciplined team.

It also means developing a candidate school, to prepare our candidates to be class-struggle socialists in office, resist the state’s conservatizing pressures, and to rely on mass struggle by working people instead of goodwill with their capitalist colleagues. Additionally, we can work to set clear standards for bloc voting, coordinating with DSA, cross-endorsing our other candidates, and establish national and local brand identities for our electoral work. Using the same identifiable party brand between electoral cycles and between districts during the same cycle will help establish our organization as a party-like fighting movement in the eyes of voters.

Last, we can champion electoral reform to help break our two-party system and create new openings for forming our own party. It’s not enough to simply acquiesce to our material conditions, we must seek to transform them. Workers are itching for something different from politics as usual. It’s on us to give it to them.

The post Getting to Work on Acting Like an Independent Party appeared first on Socialist Forum.