In a recent development within the Florida higher education system, Ray Rodrigues, a member of the State University System’s Board of Governors, has effectively halted the ongoing presidential search at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). The decision came as a surprise to many, as the search process was well underway and had involved substantial input from faculty, students, and community members. The interference by Rodrigues marks a concerning departure from democratic decision-making processes within academia, raising questions about the misuse of state power and its implications for the education system.

This instance follows hot on the heels of numerous additional presidential debacles, further highlighting the damage being inflicted upon Florida’s higher education system as a result of the DeSantis administration’s policing, censorship, and autocratic governance of public universities. The Board of Governors is not an elected body but rather comprised of members appointed directly by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate. Despite not being popularly elected, this body has broad authority over matters such as budgeting, tuition rates, academic program approval, and the appointment of university presidents. Its supposed purpose is to serve as a link between the universities, the Florida Legislature, and the Governor’s Office. Furthermore, The Board of Governors has the final say on major policy decisions and plays a significant role in shaping the direction and priorities of higher education in Florida. This recent interference constitutes a major abuse of the already disproportionate power afforded to these unelected officials.

This undemocratic intervention is a major cause for concern, as it not only disregards the voices of faculty and students but also undermines the principles of shared governance and academic freedom. By impeding the involvement of faculty and students in the selection process, this misuse of state power erodes the quality and integrity of the education system. Moreover, such actions have the potential to drive away individuals who play vital roles in academia, as they seek environments that value their input and allow for meaningful participation in shaping their institutions. It is essential to push back against this encroachment on educational autonomy, advocating for democratic processes that uphold the rights and voices of all those involved in the pursuit of knowledge.

By: James J. Jackson

In early August of 2023, I had the privilege of attending the DSA National Convention as a delegate for our chapter. Although I originally planned to attend as our chapter’s alternate, circumstances arose where I was obliged to replace one of our elected delegates.

This was my 3rd convention as a delegate and my 4th convention overall since joining DSA in 2017. While I am sad that I had to replace one of our elected delegates, I am beyond grateful for the opportunity to participate. I say I am “beyond grateful” because no words can do justice to how proud I am of my fellow delegates. Nor can they properly describe how far our organization has come in the last six years.

For those who might not know, the DSA National Convention is the highest democratic body in our organization. Delegates use the space to set our priorities and rework the structure of our organization for the next two years. It is also the space where our national leadership, the National Political Committee, is elected.

At this convention, I saw where DSA stands, where we are going, and what it means for our chapter.

Like any other organization, SacDSA is not perfect. We still have much work to do to improve communication between our committees and campaigns. Also, we need to have a serious talk about the grossly unfair distribution of labor in this volunteer-run organization (and why that labor tends to fall on the shoulders of people who aren’t cis het white guys like me despite the fact our membership is mostly cis and white).

That being said, thanks to what I saw during this awe-inspiring weekend in Chicago, I am thrilled to report that DSA is lightyears ahead of where we were at the 2017, 2019, and 2021 conventions.

2017: Socialism Is Cool Again!

In 2017, DSA had just exploded to somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 members after Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. At the time, we were in a state of chaotic reorganization thanks to the expansion. We were a bunch of eager young leftists taking over an organization that was once notorious for having an average membership age of 60-65 and was scoffed at by many leftists for being “zionist” and Pro-Israel.

At this convention, there was a massive new radical energy entering the organization that shifted us harder to the left than ever before. But in that energy, there was little guidance because it was here we saw in real-time what being multi-tendency means in a democratic organization that exploded in membership so quickly. Still, it was a beautiful sight and an honor to be a part of that convention too. The 2017 Con reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Hunter S. Thompson, “We had all the momentum… We were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.”

Regarding that multi-tendency tendency, it was there that the factionalization of DSA began to rise. Much can be said here about the different caucuses, but as a biased member of a caucus myself (the Socialist Majority Caucus), I will instead focus on the direction DSA took, and do my best to set my sectarian hot takes aside.

From this convention going into 2018 and 2019, debates about our internal structuring and the direction of DSA became more intense and divisive. There were many reasons for this, some incidental and some with gross consequences for the organization. For example, there was the snafu where a single member began fundraising for Charlottesville DSA members and comrades who were victims of the Unite the Right Rally violence that ultimately killed Heather Hayer. Said member raised hundreds of thousands of dollars with no plan for distributing the money and had no contact with the NPC or any NC DSA chapter members prior to starting the fundraiser.

There was also the incident where one of our newly elected NPC members from 2017 was outed for repeated acts of sexual assault, and the drama that unfolded when another newly elected NPC member was called out for organizing a union of correctional officers.

The point is, we were excited, but we had no fucking idea what we were doing, and because of that, drama ensued.

2019: “Guys, Can We Keep The Chatter To A Minimum!?” By the 2019 con, it was all about the Bernie momentum. Bernie was not only poised to run in 2020 but it seemed like he was on track to win the Democratic nomination. This was why the major tier of the 2019 electoral plan oriented itself around our Democratic Socialists for Bernie campaign. The peak of this at that convention was the passing of a resolution that prohibited DSA national from endorsing any other Democrat if Bernie lost the nomination, which he did.

But the tone of 2019 was much different and much more divisive than in 2017. This convention was also much less democratic than in 2017. Delegates were bombarded with bad-faith attacks by sectarians who smeared our convention chairs and used procedural nonsense to bog down progress whenever they did not get their way.

I am not joking when I say we delegates lost a full day of debate and voting thanks to constant, idiotic procedural motions. Debates about the convention rules and needless credential challenges against delegates stole hours of work from us. There were similar challenges in 2017, but 2019 was atrocious, vicious, and disillusioning for many. Several members, including some SacDSA delegates, came home lethargic and despondent about our organization. On a personal note my comrades, this was heartbreaking for me. Despite any issues in 2017, I came back to our chapter inspired and energized to get involved with my organization. I was hoping 2019 would do the same thing for the comrades coming to convention with me.

Not only did the complete opposite happen, but the convention was so chaotic and so full of members attacking each other in bad faith that I ended up, in a moment of poor judgment, grabbing the mic and having a full-on anxiety attack on the convention floor. I also made the mistake of forgetting I was no longer in California and therefore forgot that regional dialects don’t always carry over. Long story short, after my anxiety attack a trans/nonbinary comrade took the mic and took furious exception to the fact I referred to the delegation as “guys’’ and not as “comrades.”

The moment has since become a right-wing meme still making rounds on Twitter and Tik Tok to this day. When it first went viral, I was promptly doxed by Fox News and several right-wingers. Fun fact, the now out-of-work Tucker Carlson said my name at least 8 times in one 10-minute segment, but probably because “James Jackson” is such a fun name to say. Who doesn’t love alliteration, right?

My point is that after such a hellish convention and that nightmarish experience with the far-right, I was a little apprehensive about ever going back to being a delegate.

Fortunately, weed is legal in Chicago now, so for the 2023 convention, my anxiety was properly under control. Attending this convention and seeing that I could keep my cool in the face of bad-faith sectarianism was just one of the things that made the 2023 convention so healing for me.

2021: F*ck You Covid

The 2021 convention was our first, and likely our only, all-virtual convention due to COVID. I can only say so much about this convention because 1. I was not a delegate and 2. The shift to an all-virtual meeting was a challenge for everyone involved, especially in the wake of where socialists stood in 2021.

Bernie lost, Biden was already president, the pandemic was taking everything from us, and the overall tone of that convention was a collective head scratch. It didn’t matter what your faction was in 2021 because we were all asking the same question, “Where is this organization going now!?”

But by 2023, we figured it out.

2023: A New Hope

There are some sobering realities to take away from the 2023 convention. DSA has seen a decline in membership which means a decline in dues, which means a decline in resources for both future and existing campaigns. However, despite such a decline, one saw comrades with more hope in their organization than ever before. I lost count of all the comrades I met who were attending a DSA con for the first time, and this was the one to have as their first. (Thank god they missed 2019!)

As a 4-time con veteran, I knew just how far we had come after only the first day of voting.

As already mentioned, both the 2017 and 2019 conventions were slowed down by tedious bad faith procedural motions that included things like challenging the credentials of delegations (NYC DSA in 2017 and East Bay in 2019), and in 2019 there was the infamous day-long rules debate. But comrades, when this convention’s opening day saw zero, and I mean zero, challenges to the rules and not a single credentials challenge, it was clear that this con had one and only one vibe. “Fuck the bullshit, let’s get to work!”

The 2023 convention chairs handled any bad faith that came their way beautifully. Shout out to two of them, Beth H. and Sandy B. who oversaw some of the most intense debates. It was also beneficial that this convention utilized something called Openslides, an online tool that allowed members to voice their procedural motions in a more constructive way than screaming into the microphones. It also eased the chairs’ ability to spot, and squash, bad-faith actors who were obviously abusing procedural motions.

But the real achievement belongs to the maturity of delegates who handled both their losses and victories with poise and dignity. Even after votes riddled with intense debate, comrades moved forward in a fashion that sent a clear message that we just wanted to vote and take our work back home to our chapters.

Some of the most intense votes included a vote where the BDS working group was to be absorbed under the banner of the International Committee, which passed, and a vote to expand the NPC in hopes that more members would create a fairer distribution of labor for our national leadership. That motion failed narrowly despite having a near supermajority.

Full disclosure, I was strongly in favor of both of these above-mentioned resolutions. Of all the resolutions in 2023, the NPC expansion was the issue I was most strongly in favor of (and still am). So it did hurt me when that failed. That said, I still went through the convention with the collective dignity and eagerness my comrades shared to build DSA.

Regarding the NPC election, going forward it will be interesting to see how our stance as a multi-tenancy organization will manifest in our work. Thanks to the use of a Single Transferable Vote counting system for the NPC election, our NPC is once again reflective of our big-tent posture. We have some pro-electoral NPC members, some anti-electoral, and a sprinkling of other ideological tendencies. It will be interesting to see where that takes us, especially because this NPC saw more of the anti-electoral block elected than ever before.

One think piece is not enough to sum up the concise and healing effect this convention had on me and so many others. Nor is it enough to go into detail about the debates around still important issues in DSA like BDS, Anti Zionism, Trans rights, our electoral strategy, and more. However, what can be stressed is the newfound pride I have in this organization, especially in this chapter.

It has been years since I have seen our chapter handle themselves the way they did at this convention, and I include myself in that little hint of complimentary criticism. I came into this organization in 2017 as loud and angry as the most annoying Twitter sectarian. I came home from the 2023 Chicago con with hope and understanding about my comrades. And I thank my fellow delegates for that. Sac DSA delegates showed pragmatism, patience, poise, research skills, dignity, and good faith in ways I haven’t seen in years. Our whole delegation deserves our thanks, especially our delegation chair, Sara C.

On yet another personal note, I cannot praise Sara enough because when I first joined DSA in 2017, the first major task I had for the organization was serving as delegation chair. It was incredibly stressful. I lost hours of sleep and was riddled with panic attacks about voting cards and Robert’s Rules. Once Sara was delivered to us in Chicago, I saw nothing from her except all of the perfect qualities of a delegate that I mentioned above. This convention was a smashing success, and it is thanks to comrades like Sara who made it such a success. Stepping up as a delegation chair for the first time is like learning to swim by getting thrown into the deep end head first. Some sink and some swim, but Sara soared.

I am not mincing words when I say that every single person who dares to call themselves a Sac DSA member should be very proud of their delegation.

The World To Win

There is only one thing about this convention that makes me sad, and that is the fact that not everyone from SacDSA could be there. If we had all been there, so many in this organization would have had their faith restored, not just in DSA but in the concept of organizing. My only hope now is that the rest of the delegates and I can bring this energy to every meeting, every event, every campaign, and every Mutual Aid Monday!

We do have to take things like our lower membership numbers and our ongoing internal debates seriously, but not to the point where we forget, as I did in 2019, that we are all comrades. Despite so many ups and downs, so many democratic socialists are still here, still fighting, and still ready to do the work.

And I think we’re more ready than ever before! We are fighting to re-elect our comrade Katie Valenzuela to the city council and we are ready to send two more friends of our chapter (Amreet Sandhu in District 6 and Dr. Flo Cofer for Mayor) to join her. Another thing I learned at the convention when talking to delegates from other chapters was that our decision to focus on these races and not overextend our capacity further marked our maturity. Our chapter got just as many compliments about our city council campaigns as we did on our decision to focus our limited resources on them. The decision to not only endorse but also to prioritize is a true mark of political maturity. It shows we are taking this work seriously, and that was the entire vibe of this convention. We have matured as an organization.

DSA is not what it was when it was founded in 1982. It is not what it was when socialism fell out of favor in the 1990s. It is not even the organization it was in 2017 or 2019. We are now a real socialist organization. An established and mature collective of eager organizers who take this work seriously. We’re in this to win, not just to flex how radical or progressive we are, and I’m here for it!

So long as we stay this course and keep our heads held high and maintain a sense of dignity through our internal debates, that “world to win” we keep talking about is ours!

I have never been happier and more eager to tell everyone I know, “Why yes, I am a member of Sacramento DSA. Allow me to introduce you to my comrades.”

James J. Jackson is a member of the SacDSA steering committee and served as its co-chair in the 2019-2020 term. He has written for Sac News and Review, the Sac DSA blog, Democratic Left, and Socialist Forum. He also writes fiction, poetry, and journalism under the pen name Jimbo Jax.

This Saturday - Tucson Hop Shop Meetup at 2 PM

Tucson DSA's newsletter. If you would like to submit content, please email tucsondsa@gmail.com with "The Sonoran Socialist" in the subject line.  GENERAL MEETING Our hybrid general meeting for the month of August is going to be on the 19th at 12:30PM. In-person & online at the Woods Memorial Library and in the Tucson DSA Discord server. We urge comrades to join our Discord server if you have not already.  FIRST GOP DEBATE LAUGH ALONG Come thrill, snort, and guffaw as the GOP presidential candidate clown car spills out its stinky contents on prime-time television. Hop in voice chat with an uplifting substance of your preference for the greatest unintentional comedy event of the year. This event will happen on the 23rd at 6 PM in the Tucson DSA Discord Server! CHOICE HEADLINES Here’s left-wing commentary and analysis on the national situation with views ranging from congratulatory to critical.    The Teamsters’ Proposed Agreement With UPS Is a Great Victory by and for the Workers | The Nation What happened to the big UPS Strike? - Tempest (tempestmag.org) UPS Teamsters to Vote on Contract that Ends Driver Tiers, Lifts Part-Timer Pay - Labor Notes July update on COVID from the People’s CDC: COVID-19 Weather Report: July 31, 2023 (substack.com) Highlighted Local News: Tucson council incumbents Santa Cruz, Cunningham advance to general election DSA'S 2023 NATIONAL CONVENTION DSA’s 2023 Convention took place August 4th-6th. Delegates from various chapters elected a new National Political Committee (for 2023-2025) and voted on resolutions, changes to the constitution/bylaws, and platform amendments. The next DSA National Convention will be held in 2025. For more information on the discussed proposals and their results, follow the hyperlink to the official convention page. NEW MERCH The chapter has three shirt designs now available at $20 each. The last two images are of the same design, celebrating the Borderlands Ecosocialist working group's trash pickup activities.  view this email in your browser Copyright © 2023 DSA Tucson, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

By: Teddy Georgeoff

On Aug 1, 2023, the Sacramento city council heard from an impressive 36 members of the public, and thereafter spent an additional 3 hours in passionate debate. This resulted in the narrow 5-4 passage of the Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Implement a Temporary Shelter Program. The ordinance gives full authority to the City Manager, Howard Chan, to select locations and establish safe grounds for our homeless population.

This is the third time Mayor Darrell Steinberg has suggested a plan like this, but this was the first time he had a majority of support on the city council for it. The ordinance is targeting a very specific problem. As we astutely heard from Council Member Katie Valenzuela, enforcement of city code upon our unhoused population is in a constant state of displacement with no destination. This style of enforcement has harmful effects on the unhoused with no progress towards a solution. In addition, this type of shuffle-along policy is in direct violation of Martin v. Boise, which states cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available. This makes our current practices not only ineffective, but illegal.

It has taken a few iterations of this ordinance to pass with previous versions being bogged down in deliberation due to the complexities of the negotiations and NIMBYism when choosing safe ground locations. With the passing of this ordinance, the City Manager will have full discretion and 60 days to select the city owned parcels of land among the 8 districts and move as many people into these safe shelter zones as is possible. These will be unmanaged zones to reduce cost, but the city will, by law, be forced to provide a “dignified” level of support to all who reside there. This “dignified” level is still up for discussion between the county, the City Manager, and City Attorney Susana Wood. This specific lack of clarity around the word “dignified” is a reason why Mayor Pro Tem Mai Vang, a supporter of safe ground, voted no on this ordinance as presented.

Although there were some dissenting opinions from the public, more praised the measure than protested it. “This is a dream I have had for 13 years,” a member of the public who helps with safe grounds said in public comment. “For the first time I agree with the mayor,” said a DSA member as he started his two minutes at the podium. After public comment, Caity Maple mentioned that she and Katie Valenzuela had been advocating for this since the first day they joined the council stating, “It’s kind of amazing that we are here.”

However, Council Member Karina Talamantes lashed out at the mayor and accused him of not visiting her district and for the lack of good neighbor policies in the ordinance. Her rationale that we don’t want to give the City Manager unilateral decision on this issue was thwarted by Vice Mayor Guerra’s reminder that it takes 5 votes to give him the power and 5 votes to remove that power should the council be dissatisfied with the city manager’s direction. Although the good neighbor policy was amended by Vice Mayor Guerra’s motion, Council Member Talamantes still voted no, seemingly out of frustration with the Mayor.

Safe ground is not a new concept and has been utilized successfully in places like San Diego, LA, and in many other states. Safe ground has some of the highest impact per dollar invested due to economies of scale and ease of creation. It becomes easier to ensure safety and provide services to the unhoused if the city gives them a sanctioned space to reside.

This ordinance does not come to us in perfection. There is a lack of clarity on the services that are required to be offered at each site. How can we be sure that these grounds are safe? There is debate on if Howard Chan, the City Manager, is the right person to drive this initiative, in addition there is a lack of metrics which define success. There is also a lack of specificity in the geodiversity of the plots to be selected outside of the mayor’s directive to the City Manager to “try your best”. Even with these faults, the council voted to pass in hopes that it will quickly show signs of progress for the city.

My Opinion:

After watching this debate unfold for over 6 hours, I have come to the following conclusions:

Human beings need a dignified place to reside. Given we have a fully utilized 1100 bed capacity to house our 10,000 unhoused people, this ordinance will be beneficial and could potentially lead to upwards of $5 million in funding to create a more permanent destination for our remaining 8900 unhoused citizens. We should continually advocate for the most vulnerable among us, and funding initiatives that favor solutions over bandaid enforcement is a key to success.

When the rest of the council rightfully asked for City Manager Chan to be receptive to public input, Council Member Sean Loloee of district 2, voiced an undemocratic opinion. Stating, “I don’t think, when it comes to the sites, advocates or activists really help the situation.” As someone who is supposed to represent the people, I find it disgraceful he would try to silence them. Or perhaps he thinks the public dumb and incapable? The experience of the social workers who are on the ground, and the homelessness population itself need to be involved in giving comments for this process to maximize success.

I will echo the council members in saying that we should not lose focus on the long term goal of housing for all, but until we are able to achieve this politically and financially, this is good policy. The council did well, although barely, to realize perfection should not be the enemy of progress and passed this step towards addressing our city’s homeless crisis.

The workers of Barboncino Pizza in Crown Heights, Brooklyn made New York history on July 26th, as they voted unanimously to form a union with Workers United. Barboncino Workers United became New York’s first unionized pizzeria, an incredible show of strength for the cause of Labor in the deeply unorganized food service industry. Tonight, we hear from Alex and Mike, two workers involved in the organizing effort, about their successful campaign at Barboncino, and the fight that’s yet to come not only in their own workplace but across the restaurant industry.

Today we submitted a petition to both the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County to establish a Housing Authority. This is the first step to building Social Housing and lowering the cost of housing in Bozeman.

With a Housing Authority, we can take an active role in increasing the supply of affordable housing. We cannot continue to look for remedies from the status quo. The reality is that when housing is tied to profits, it is more profitable for developers to maintain scarcity. Meanwhile, non-profit developers statewide fight over a small pot of LIHTC and Section 8 vouchers to serve a growing need. With a public housing authority, the city could use its tools – the same ones that build our schools and fire stations – to access bonds to start building Social Housing.

With Social Housing, we can have local control of development to meet the needs of our community in Bozeman – including deciding the cost of rent, developing in a way that meets crucial sustainability standards, and creating communities welcoming to workers, students, pets, and families. Social Housing is a sustainable model of publicly owned and publicly developed mixed-income housing that would remain permanently affordable. With our own housing authority, the city can set the rents for their own developments and the reasonably-priced rents can go back to maintaining the building, rather than being pocketed by for-profit developers.

The city cannot mandate requirements for private developers to have more low-income units, meaning that we continue to use public funds to subsidize landlords and developers to maintain their profits. The city cannot mandate that LIHTC units are kept affordable in perpetuity, meaning there is always a threat that we will lose affordable units each year. But the city CAN have local control on development if the city establishes a public housing authority and starts creating its own supply of Social Housing.

Want to learn more about the concept of Social Housing? Join our Topical Discussion on Sunday, August 20 to learn about how the model of social housing could work in Bozeman. https://www.facebook.com/events/214570914505353

Scholar, philosopher, and prolific author Dr. David Bentley Hart joins the podcast to discuss Bible translation as an act of resistance, the Christian sources and support for social democracy, and the moral demands of human and creaturely relations to care for one another. Don't forget to join us at Theology Beer Camp (www.theologybeer.camp) and use the promo code HEARTGODPOD for a discount! – Check out his New Testament translation (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300265705/the-new-testament/) – For essays on his theological and political ideas, check out "Theological Territories" (https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268107185/theological-territories/) – And per Hart's own request, check out his works of fiction like "Roland in Moonlight" (https://angelicopress.org/roland-in-moonlight-hart)

Read the Official Teamsters Press Release

Teamsters Win!

The Teamsters have reached a tentative agreement with UPS by staying firm to their demands, showing that if we fight for what we deserve we can win! The agreement includes major changes, including:

• Historic wage increases. Existing full- and part-time UPS Teamsters will get $2.75 more per hour in 2023. Over the length of the contract, wage increases will total $7.50 per hour.
• Existing part-timers will be raised up to no less than $21 per hour immediately, and part-time seniority workers earning more under a market rate adjustment would still receive all new general wage increases.
• General wage increases for part-time workers will be double the amount obtained in the previous UPS Teamsters contract — and existing part-time workers will receive a 48 percent average total wage increase over the next five years.
• Wage increases for full-timers will keep UPS Teamsters the highest paid delivery drivers in the nation, improving their average top rate to $49 per hour.
• Current UPS Teamsters working part-time would receive longevity wage increases of up to $1.50 per hour on top of new hourly raises, compounding their earnings.
• New part-time hires at UPS would start at $21 per hour and advance to $23 per hour.
• All UPS Teamster drivers classified as 22.4s would be reclassified immediately to Regular Package Car Drivers and placed into seniority, ending the unfair two-tier wage system at UPS.
• Safety and health protections, including vehicle air conditioning and cargo ventilation. UPS will equip in-cab A/C in all larger delivery vehicles, sprinter vans, and package cars purchased after Jan. 1, 2024. All cars get two fans and air induction vents in the cargo compartments.
• All UPS Teamsters would receive Martin Luther King Day as a full holiday for the first time.
• No more forced overtime on Teamster drivers’ days off. Drivers would keep one of two workweek schedules and could not be forced into overtime on scheduled off-days.
• UPS Teamster part-timers will have priority to perform all seasonal support work using their own vehicles with a locked-in eight-hour guarantee. For the first time, seasonal work will be contained to five weeks only from November-December.
• The creation of 7,500 new full-time Teamster jobs at UPS and the fulfillment of 22,500 open positions, establishing more opportunities through the life of the agreement for part-timers to transition to full-time work.
• More than 60 total changes and improvements to the National Master Agreement — more than any other time in Teamsters history — and zero concessions from the rank-and-file.

The decision has not yet been officially ratified, but given that all of the contract demands were met by UPS, it seems likely that this will be agreed upon by all Locals.

What can we learn from this?

As socialists, what can we take away from this? Although there are many elements to this complex organizing effort that has culminated after years of change within the Teamsters and within UPS from before the pandemic until now, let’s highlight two things in particular that made this successful:

1. Meaningful demands and unwavering commitment to them. UPS creates a list of demands that improves the workplace for everyone, from rookie part-timers to full-time veterans. This sort of contract is appealing to all workers and shows that they are looking out for everyone. As organizers, we should always be seeking buy-in from the entire working class and responding to their individual circumstances as best we can. Additionally, once we agree upon our demands, we should not be willing to abandon them for the sake of expediency. UPS Teamsters were willing to go on strike until their demands are met and we should always keep our ambitions as high.
2. Practice pickets show the capitalists our power. UPS Teamsters mobilized their workers to perform a dress rehearsal for the strike and held practice pickets nationwide, including here in Wilmington. Not only does this help workers improve logistics for a real strike, but the attendance for these practice pickets seems to have shown the bosses that workers were serious about their strike threat. By doing acts that demonstrate our power, we can make the capitalists more willing to concede to our demands because there is a credible threat to their power and wealth. If a practice strike is enough to get a full concession, imagine what more could be won.

Congratulations to the UPS Teamsters on this historic victory!

Steering Committee member Michael M contributes to the ongoing discussion on Metro DC DSA's recent delegate election.

Member Bryce Springfield

Radical democracy is not a term that many of us are used to hearing in our political science courses. You might hear it in one of the few classes that cover social movements and extra-parliamentary politics, but in general students are exclusively exposed to a rather limited understanding of democracy that not only fails to acknowledge the possibility of democracy beyond government, but that also has a fundamental distrust in the capacity of the “bewildered herd” — as Walter Lippmann once called the public — to make its own decisions about the institutions that affect our everyday lives.

This system is one wherein constituents, under a particular constitutional arrangement, “freely and fairly” elect representatives who suggest and vote on government policies on the public’s behalf. In addition, it features a market-based economic system with non-democratic firm-level relations between private owners on the one hand, and non-owner workers and consumers on the other. Many would call this capitalist, representative system a “liberal democracy.”

From direct democracy to liberal democracy

Many prehistoric societies throughout a large span of the human experience saw direct or semi-direct democracy as a natural system of self-management in both politics and economics. Yet in recent history, some have treated liberal democracy as the form of social organization most compatible with human nature.

From what we know about early democracies, several early agricultural societies, such as those of Phoenicia and Mesopotamia, are thought to have adopted democratic institutions long before the Greek city-states did. Going even further back, a wide range of prehistoric societies tended to “make all important collective decisions by consensus, and many of them [did] not even have chiefs,” with larger bands often breaking into smaller units to allow easier consensus-making, according to a 1993 paper.

Some have argued that the democratic aspect of many early societies may have contributed to a largely “peaceful order.” Contrary to what many 19th-century Western thinkers theorized about prehistoric violence and war, available data suggests that only around 2% of human fossils from 2 million to 14,000 years ago show evidence of a “traumatic violent injury,” while that percentage dramatically increased following the development of centralized state societies after the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions.

In Ancient Athens, from roughly the 6th century BCE to the 4th century BCE (with interruptions), “democracy” referred to a system of active popular participation (limited to adult male citizens) in the formulation of legislation and the exercise of executive functions. The selection of the citizens who performed these functions was accomplished via sortition, in that members of the public were chosen at random to participate in decision-making assemblies, similar to modern juries. Though limited in terms of inclusion, Athens exercised a much more direct form of democracy than that of today’s Western democracies. The Roman Republic (509 BCE — 27 BCE), on the other hand, is the most influential early case of a representative democracy, with popularly elected officials performing political duties instead of the people themselves, inspiring future democratic republics.

Fast forward to the 18th century, and one observes the “liberal democratic” model developing as an alternative to the radically authoritarian and feudal regimes that dominated Europe at the time. With the support of a range of Western intellectuals, often viewed as an extremist and unreasonable fringe by their contemporaries, the idea of a representative democratic government featuring constitutional rights and a capitalist economy posed a deep challenge to existing institutions. Over time, liberal democratic ideals gained significant traction among European publics, enabling revolutions first in the American colonies and then France, and later in other European countries and, eventually, their colonies as well.

I mention these details to put liberal democracy, particularly its representative democratic and capitalist elements, in perspective; they are but a blip in human history, and thus are clearly not the products of human nature until recent centuries.

Today’s crisis of liberal democracy

I agree with the premise that the formation and expansion of liberal democracy over the last three centuries marks a positive change in human development away from authoritarian and feudal systems of political and economic domination. This revolutionary process has normalized democracy as a universal ideal, and standardized legal equality as well as freedom of thought, speech, association, religion, and the press. Liberal democracies have often failed to live up to these same ideals, particularly when it comes to domestic social equality and colonial domination, but in many cases they have successfully challenged and overturned systems of oppression around the world.

In today’s age, however, there are a few respects in which liberal democracy is failing to meet the rising standards expected by working-class people who make up the global majority.

Capitalist economy

Recent polls reveal that a staggering 60% of an international sample of workers are emotionally detached at work, while only 33% feel engaged with their labor. In the US, the standard-bearer of global capitalism, 50% of workers report frequent stress at work, with their most frequently reported cause of workplace dissatisfaction being unfair treatment.

Though even Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels openly acknowledged the incredible power of capitalism as a force for global industrialization, capitalism is a fundamentally undemocratic system wherein the owners of the means of production (i.e., capitalists) hold outsized power over those who operate the means of production (i.e., workers). Similar criticisms have been made about many state socialist solutions, like those of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and various other experiments where production was controlled by an undemocratic bureaucratic apparatus holding outsized power over the workers they claimed to represent — an arrangement often justified by asserting that the Communist Party aristocracy was the workers, or even that the masses were too stupid to direct their own workplaces. Yet mainstream political commentators rarely extend this criticism to capitalism, even though a nearly identical logic applies.

As the anti-authoritarian left has understood for generations, in either of these systems — no more in the authoritarian socialist case than in the capitalist case — the workplace where most workers spend the majority of their lives is dictatorially controlled by an unelected executive or board of executives, who may arbitrarily set wages and undemocratically select unit managers. Even in wealthy social democracies with strong welfare programs and powerful labor unions, workers are forced to remain employed to avoid a squalid lifestyle. Meanwhile, in the Global South, the consequences for those who choose not to degrade their bodies, minds, and time enough for capitalism can include starvation or death. In either case, it is a “free” choice between exhaustion or poverty.

Working conditions around the world are often very poor, woefully ill-compensatory for the economic value produced, and even unsafe due to workers’ lack of influence over workplace decision-making. On the other hand, if workers could exercise democracy in the workplace, it is highly likely that they would not make the same decisions as those of a disconnected capitalist on issues related to safety, benefits, wages, and employment. Not only that, workers would also have more direct incentives to reduce irresponsible risk because of profit sharing and increased sensitivity to the threat of losing their jobs. Reducing risk throughout the economy would then mitigate the possibility of bankruptcy and wider economic crises, and give innovators fewer negative incentives and more financial stability to do their valuable work.

Furthermore, workplace democracy would address the “local knowledge problem” that right-wing economists seem all too happy to attribute to centrally-planned economies. This theory refers to the argument that central planners, such as those of state socialist regimes, lack much of the information necessary for rational economic decision-making, as such information is distributed amongst individual actors.

Yet under capitalism as well, owners, executives, and high-level managers frequently do not have extensive direct experience in everyday work, limiting the information they have to make informed firm-level plans. By ensuring that all of those who work for the factories, the shops, and the gig services have an input in the direction of their respective firms, whether through representatives or direct decision-making, firms can be better equipped to improve efficiency, productivity, and stability.

These theoretical predictions are generally supported by major literature reviews of both worker-owned cooperatives and, to a lesser extent, union-represented workplaces. Worker cooperatives tend to be more productive and stable through recessions than other firms, and they also tend to have longer lifespans, greater employee satisfaction, lower employee turnover, and greater efficiency. Union-represented workplaces also see significantly higher pay than comparable workplaces, as well as better workplace safety and increased firm stability.

Representative democratic government

Although some countries express satisfaction with their representative systems, support for democracy in many countries has significantly declined, while in others pro-democracy sentiment has simply always been low. In a 34-country survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2019, the median country had 52% dissatisfaction with democracy in their country, compared to a mere 44% satisfaction. In Latin America, a very high portion of respondents — 70% — said they were dissatisfied with democracy in their respective countries, with countries like Ecuador and Peru in particular seeing around 10% satisfaction. This data reflects significant declines in democratic satisfaction from just two or three decades ago.

What is causing this? One possible reason could be that populations are feeling increasingly disconnected from their representatives, with 64% of citizens in the median country surveyed by the Pew Research Center agreeing that elected officials do not care about “what people like them think.” In many representative democracies, campaign donations and politicians’ own investments provide incentives to stray from the popular will in favor of special interests. In the US, we can see this tendency expressed in relation to a vast range of policies — from universal healthcare to free college, to marijuana legalization, to abortion rights, to a $15 minimum wage — each of which have strong public support, but none are currently close to promulgation at the national level. A variety of studies have demonstrated that United States representatives, though partly influenced by voter preferences, frequently give outsized preference to policies favored by the wealthy.

One factor that may explain this proposed relationship is the fact that elected representatives, on average, are not of comparable socio-economic status to that of the general public, typically being significantly wealthier. As a consequence, even those potentially sympathetic to the working class simply do not experience the everyday difficulties that workers regularly face, and can therefore suffer from, again, the local knowledge problem frequently cited by right-wing economists.

These developments are especially dangerous in light of the democratic backsliding that has recently occurred in Hungary, Poland, Nicaragua, Bolivia, India, Tunisia, Turkey, and other countries where executives and single parties have increasingly dominated over legislatures and courts, and have enforced laws that seriously limit media and associational freedoms. These trends likewise menace the United States, where several major politicians have denied election results and where state governments regularly limit voting rights. As confidence in democracy declines, more and more countries are at risk of autocratization — an alternative that I, along with liberal democrats, assert is worse than the liberal democratic arrangement.

Some theorists of democratic backsliding, such as the authors of How Democracies Die — the book that apparently helped push Joe Biden to run for president in 2020 — have argued that merely “restor[ing] the basic norms” of liberal democracy and including a more diverse range of people within the liberal democratic mechanisms will be enough to save democracy. However, the true roots of democratic backsliding go much deeper than this, as has been shown in the above analysis.

Further than merely questioning the status quo — a civic duty in any healthy democracy — authoritarian populists threaten democracy by claiming to be the only ones who can truly represent the “real people.” But creating the institutions and providing the spare time for people to represent themselves could put a significant number of obstacles in the way of these despotic distortions of the public will. The capacity of authoritarian populists to skillfully abuse the top-down model of representative democracy in order to disseminate antidemocratic attitudes and reforms would be largely immobilized in such a scenario.

Given that authoritarian populists are the usual suspects in advancing democratic backsliding in the modern day, and that said authoritarian populists gain power through the personality-oriented politics of representative democracies, it would serve democrats well to push for an alternative that makes the path to autocratization much more challenging.

Radical democracy as an alternative

A few radical democratic projects have succeeded in reviving direct democratic as well as workplace democratic ideals in the last few decades, while simultaneously maintaining the benefits of constitutional rights prioritized by liberal regimes.

In 1994, for example, a large portion of the Mexican state of Chiapas established autonomy through the high-profile Zapatista Uprising, which was waged in protest against what the largely indigenous population saw as an authoritarian and undemocratic government. Since then, 360,000 Zapatistas have enjoyed participatory democracy in a decentralized system of government, alongside a democratic economy consisting of worker cooperatives and common ownership of land, and a democratic education system involving both students and parents.

In 2012, during the Syrian Civil War, four million people suffering under the aggression of the Syrian and Turkish governments, as well as of ISIS, formed the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (also known as Rojava). They gained their autonomy through the establishment of a federalist system of participatory democracy, with significant sectors of the economy being managed democratically through worker cooperatives and workers’ councils.

But what would such a system look like for Princeton students? I will end with a description of a hypothetical alternate universe in which Princeton students live in a radically democratic society.

Suppose that in this alternate universe, there is a major push among students for the University to divest from fossil fuels. If the level of support for this change was similar to that in our universe, divestment would be an overwhelmingly obvious policy to pursue, given that 82% of undergraduates favor it. Assuming that a majority of University employees and graduate students also agree with this change, which is a fair supposition given the high number of faculty endorsements behind it and the generally liberal or leftist political attitudes of students and working New Jersey residents, the matter of fossil fuel divestment could be resolved almost immediately, as opposed to only partially after many years.

Suppose that just like at the real Princeton, the alternate Math Department enjoys an atrocious reputation among undergraduate students for the poor organization of its courses and the mind-numbing teaching style of some of its professors. With student input actually counting for something, rather than simply being diverted into listening sessions, and then committee meetings, before finally being ignored, perhaps students could successfully influence the department into seeking out more dedicated lecturers rather than only researchers who may not be passionate about teaching their students.

Suppose that you work at the local Starbucks on Nassau Street, and you hate the grueling working conditions there, as plenty of baristas have expressed in our own universe. If the Starbucks were a worker cooperative, the employees who keep the store running would have significantly more power over their wage rates and working conditions, meaning they could raise wages to a level that encourages both higher productivity and more job applicants. Workers would ensure that profits are no longer aimed at supporting investors and executives, but rather at supporting all who contribute to the productive process.

Within the government of this alternate universe, perhaps marijuana would be quickly legalized, so students would not have to worry about state violence or University discipline against them for using the drug. Perhaps we would already have a public healthcare system that eliminates the frustrating and expensive reimbursement bureaucracy we face with the Student Health Plan, and we would not have to carefully search for in-network doctors nearby — instead, we would know that all doctors are covered.

And finally, with mechanisms of direct participation, perhaps we could reduce the level of atomization and loneliness in our society, and therefore develop a better sense of mutual understanding and respect for each other and the issues that matter to us. Maybe psychologists both on- and off-campus would be offered higher pay through their own workplace democracies, as well as through popular participation in public healthcare policy. This would encourage more psychologists to come and support young people, a particularly vulnerable demographic in terms of mental health issues, a key concern for many in the Princeton community given the alarming number of recent mental health-related tragedies.

Liberal democratic institutions are failing us at this stage of human development. Radical democracy, on the other hand, provides answers to many of the dissatisfactions that students, workers, and voters now face. Thus, radical democracy offers a new understanding of democracy appropriate for a new age.

This piece was originally published in The Princeton Progressive.