By E. Steele

The following article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Detroit Socialist Editorial and Writers’ Collective or Detroit DSA as a whole.

Is a strike always the best outcome in a contract campaign? Socialists are often torn between their desire for heightened class conflict and their goal of protecting workers. Surprisingly, the answer to this question is not at all controversial among many auto workers at the Big 3.

Conventional wisdom tells us that workers would rather not strike if they can avoid it. This is why popular books such as Jane McAlevy’s “No Shortcuts” and Labor Notes’ “Secrets of a Successful Organizer” both encourage starting small and building to escalating campaigns of bigger and riskier actions. However, this attitude is not present at Sterling Stamping among the members of UAW Local 1264 who work there.

Over the past month, the strike is all anyone talks about. It’s been decades since Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) faced a major strike, so even those with high seniority are excited about their first opportunity to go out. The majority opinion is clear: “We are going to strike, and we are going to win.” Workers count down the days until contract expiration, and anyone who complains about being scheduled for 14 or 21 days straight is reassured with a grin: “Don’t worry, we’ll have plenty of time off soon.”

This attitude might seem ideal to a socialist or a militant unionist. Workers understand their leverage in the economy, and are ready to fight together and win! However, it is not without its pitfalls.

Most are so confident in their power that they lack much interest in a contract campaign. To be sure, the new UAW leaders are swimming upstream; the UAW has never attempted a contract campaign before at the Big 3. And leaders have had success getting workers strike ready, as their open lines of communication and publication of demands have led to broad buyin, excitement, and discussion. Still, even those who are most excited to strike will forget to wear a red shirt on Wednesday, or balk at the idea of a rally or practice picket: “Why should I spend my energy on all of that? We are just going to win it with the strike!”

Similarly, everyone is convinced that come 11:59 pm on the 14th, we WILL be going on strike. At the time of writing, the UAW’s strategy for the strike is a closely guarded secret. Possible approaches include everything from bottleneck strikes targeting a relatively small number of strategic plants, all the way up to striking every plant at all three employers. Local 1264’s participation from day one is far from guaranteed, but you wouldn’t know it from the buzz on the shop floor.

For an energetic organizer, the potential of being in the factory after contract expiration is exciting. Unfettered by contract language against slowdowns or marches on the boss, there are huge opportunities for rank and file militancy. Unfortunately, the certainty regarding the strike makes many uninterested in these ideas.

There is also the additional risk of expectations. If midnight comes and goes and we are all still at work, many may feel let down, and may lose interest in collective action, or trust in the new leadership.

Despite these problems, socialists should be excited about the developments in the UAW. When workers are conscious of their position within the economy and their inherent antagonisms with the boss, good things happen. It will take time to build a culture of rank-and-file activity, but already there have been steps forward. A decisive strike can build on these successes and create further appetite for militancy, both among workers in auto and in other sectors of the economy.

[E. Steele is the pen name of a Detroit-area auto worker.]

Check out other articles in The Detroit Socialist’s Building Labor Power series here.

The Detroit Socialist is produced and run by members of Detroit DSA’s Newspaper Collective. Interested in becoming a member of Detroit DSA? Go to metrodetroitdsa.com/join to become a member. Send a copy of the dues receipt to: membership@metrodetroitdsa.com in order to get plugged in to our activities!

Viewpoint: Potential UAW Strike Introduces Some Challenges was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Democratic Socialists of America International Committee (DSA IC) extends its warm congratulations to the Citizen’s Revolution party in Ecuador for its notable achievements in the August 20th snap general elections. We also recognize the decisive vote in favor of Indigenous-led national referenda against carbon extraction.

The elections occurred after the assassinations of Presidential candidate Fernando Villavicensio, alongside other political figures. These deaths have drawn international attention to the unprecedented spike in murder and violent crime occurring within Ecuador. Despite a declared state of emergency and the presence of the military on the streets, the People of Ecuador were steadfast and backed Citizen’s Revolution Candidate Luisa Gonzalez who received 33% of the vote. Citizen’s Revolution also secured a plurality in the upcoming National Assembly, increasing its representation.  

Citizen’s Revolution has been at the forefront of the opposition to neoliberal and austerity policies put into effect since 2017. They led the effort within the National Assembly to impeach and remove right-wing President Guillermo Lasso who championed these initiatives. As a result of Citizen’s Revolution’s work, Lasso called for snap general elections that would end his presidency a year and a half early. 

Gonzalez will oppose Daniel Noboa, a scion of one of Ecuador’s most affluent families, in the Presidential runoff scheduled for October 15th. Gonzalez has pledged to restore government funding of social programs for the people while Noboa will prioritize continued government austerity measures and promote the interests of foreign investors. 

The DSA International Committee also acknowledges the Ecuadorian people’s historic vote to cease oil extraction within the Yasuni National Park and to halt mining projects within the Metropolitan District of Quito. The results of these referenda underscore the significant success Indigenous and environmental activists have had opposing both oil extraction and mining activities. The majority that voted to keep the oil in the ground in Yasuni did so despite the knowledge that it would require considerable economic sacrifice.  Twelve percent of Ecuador’s oil currently comes from Yasuni.  The DSA IC calls on the U.S. government to provide climate reparations to Ecuador, and to all poorer countries, to encourage their decisions to transition away from fossil fuel industries.

The DSA International Committee stands in unwavering solidarity with Gonzalez’s campaign to unify the diverse range of social forces opposed to neoliberal austerity, and rally them to her candidacy and the Ecuadorian people’s continued resistance to environmental exploitation. May their collective resilience be an example for all activists around the world.

The post DSA Congratulates Citizens Revolution Party in Ecuador appeared first on DSA International Committee.

By Chris Viola

In its negotiations with the Big Three Automakers, the United Auto Workers wants to eliminate the lower-tier status hurting many electric vehicle workers. A rank-and-file autoworker explains why the fight is central to a just green transition.

Chris Viola is an auto worker and member of UAW Local 22, Unite All Workers for Democracy, and Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America.

Negotiations between my union, the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the Big Three automakers (Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis) are now underway. UAW president Shawn Fain has already made headlines by demanding a 40 percent raise (much like our CEOs have received), proposing reductions to workweeks that have ballooned to eighty-four hours for some, and tossing Stellantis’s insulting counteroffer into the trash on a livestream video.

Eliminating tiers is the highest priority for many workers. What this means in practice is a bit complicated, especially on the electric vehicle (EV) front. Some EV construction now happens under joint-venture projects like Ultium (General Motors and LG), but tiers under preexisting UAW contracts are already fulfilling much of our EV work. With potentially dozens of battery plants being planned and built in the United States alone, however, that may be changing.

One thing is clear: the elimination of joint-venture battery tiers as well as all other tiers is necessary for a just transition to green manufacturing and infrastructure. Fighting climate change must not come at the expense of workers’ livelihoods — we all deserve the same rights, benefits, and pay won at the bargaining table.

A Labyrinth of Tiers

Tiers are endemic to EV construction across the Big Three. These tiers mean that many workers involved in EV manufacturing suffer from worse pay and benefits and less job security than their counterparts making conventional automobiles.

Of the Big Three, General Motors seems to have the most dizzying array of legal entities covered under our collective bargaining agreements. I’ve heard that EV drive units and batteries are currently made by workers employed by Ford and not some other entity, but I’m willing to bet that Ford’s joint EV venture with SK Innovations, BlueOval SK, would prefer its own contract with UAW similar to Ultium’s. Ditto for StarPlus Energy, Stellantis’s joint venture with Samsung SDI.

General Motors Component Holdings (GMCH) is one such entity where workers are making products for EVs. GMCH Rochester Operations in Rochester, New York, currently builds EV battery cooling lines. GMCH Lockport Operations in Lockport, New York, builds stators for EVs. The remaining GMCH locations do not build components specifically for EVs, but some of what they make are components in all vehicles, and more could be made at all of these plants in the future.

GMCH workers’ starting rate as of the 2019 contract was $16.25 and would max out at $22.50 after a minimum of eight years. I say a “minimum of eight years,” because for purposes of these wage increases, each year actually requires fifty-two “weeks worked.” Many workers experience at least a few months of time being laid off in the span of eight years, which would not count toward this time worked.

Eight years is a long time, especially when you consider that our contracts have a duration of only four years. In the 2015 contract, pay at date of hire remained at $16.25, and only surpassed the old maximum rate of $19.86 after four years of seniority. After a forty-day strike of General Motors in 2019, workers at GMCH locations gained only $2.64 after eight years of seniority had been reached — reaching just under 70 percent of maximum pay for assembly workers. When the 2019 collective bargaining agreement was ratified, it was no surprise that workers at GMCH overwhelmingly rejected it.

The eight-year wage progression is not an outlier among tiers within the UAW–Big Three contracts. Another entity under the master agreement, General Motors Customer Care and Aftersales (GM CCA), has an eight-year progression for workers starting at $17.00 an hour and ending at $31.57 an hour. That is, unless you were hired on or after November 16, 2015: those CCA workers start at $17.00 and top out at just $25.00. CCAs like this one are parts distribution centers that deliver parts for all types of vehicles to dealerships and other repair shops all over North America, and they will be just as important to EVs as they have been for internal combustion engine vehicles.

That brings us to GM Subsystems, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors formed in 2009 as part of the restructuring after the federal bailout. My first experience with GM Subsystems was in 2014. Dozens of General Motors temporary workers, many with over two years on the job, received a pay cut and were then classified as GM Subsystems workers. Material movement work, including my own job of sequencing side rearview mirrors, was brought under Subsystems when the local reached a deal with the company upon millions being invested in three new large warehouses to be constructed at Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly where I worked. This is when I learned that concessions don’t even have to wait for when times are lean to rear their ugly head.

In 2016 my plant had absorbed hundreds of workers in preparation for adding a second shift. Most came from Orion Assembly, which had entered retooling for the release of the Chevrolet Bolt. A majority of workers would rather stay at their home plant and would eventually return when they had work for them, but it’s fortunate when a plant within thirty-three miles is able to pick up some nearby laid-off workers. Sometimes that plant is hundreds of miles away, and there is no choice but to move for work, wait it out, or separate from the company entirely.

One of the workers who joined my team then, I learned, was from Brownstown Battery Assembly and had moved over for better pay. While Brownstown was critical to the Volt, the Bolt, and Bolt EUV, the workers there were considered GM Subsystems employees and started at a much lower pay rate, beginning at $15 and ending at $17 after four years.

The Big Three provide workers a profit-sharing benefit, in which autoworkers receive a contribution based on an agreed-upon formula; ours is based on the total North American profits from the previous year. The roughly fifty thousand General Motors workers receive $1 for every million dollars the company makes, rounded down to the nearest $250 — unless they work for GM Subsystems, in which case they only receive $0.25 per million.

Further, profit sharing is based on hours worked. To get the full amount, one must work 1,850 hours over the course of the year, a normal amount unless that worker has been laid off. Depending on the company, workers may not receive more should they work more than 1,850 hours that year. And if you’re a temp, I’m sorry that you’re even hearing about profit sharing, because you’re not getting a dime.

I can say one nice thing about Subsystems’ recent contract: it expires at the same time as the contract for other General Motors workers. So workers across General Motors and Subsystems will be able to stand in solidarity during contract negotiations and possibly a strike, unlike in 2019.

The different tiers of retirement benefits are also labyrinthine. General Motors workers hired after October 15, 2007, do not enjoy a pension or health care in retirement like previous generations did, and they’re instead forced to rely on various schemes of 401(k) and HSA matches and contributions. Even the benefits are uneven between different tiers, with lower-tier workers receiving less generous 401(k) and HSA contributions from the employer.

The Destructive Effect of Tiers

The byzantine tier system also makes it more difficult for autoworkers to find convenient jobs, and it creates inequalities in workplace rights that undermine union solidarity.

Before the Detroit-Hamtramck factory would close in 2020 to be reborn as Factory Zero, there were only a few nearby options for me to transfer to. I was able to put in paperwork to transfer to Flint but not to the much-closer Orion Assembly plant, due to a weird rule there that capped the percentage of tier-one workers. I was offered a job at Lansing, roughly eight-five miles away, but I ended up turning it down due to the distance.

The offer was rescinded anyway due to COVID-19, which provided a job only six miles away from home at Warren Transmission. That plant was shut down in 2019 but was reopened by General Motors for COVID supply manufacturing. I was making masks during the early months of the pandemic, but I was let go in early October for having turned down a job 180 miles away at Fort Wayne Assembly. I apparently was no longer in the correct tier to continue to make masks a short distance from where I live.

I returned home to Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly in July 2021, but many things had changed. For example, just about every material job was now under GM Subsystems, which disappointed General Motors workers who had previously worked those jobs and were now ineligible due to deals we had made during contract negotiations in 2019 to keep work in my plant. All battery assembly fell under GM Subsystems as well, so even if someone wanted to, they could not transfer to jobs in that department.

I want to be clear: I don’t fault anyone for taking Subsystems jobs. That was what our union agreed to, and we’re living with the consequences of accepting lower-tier jobs with severely diminished wages and rights. Those workers not only deserve a living wage but also the respect that comes from having rights on the job.

Those rights are more easily upheld when union members who know their rights fight for those who don’t. I got a crash course in this lesson when I was first hired as a temp in 2006. After hundreds of workers retired following buyouts, CCA Pontiac brought in temps. When temps would get picked on by management, rank-and-file workers with the benefit of seniority kept an eye out and would raise hell — showing what having rights in the workplace looked like.

Unfortunately, workers in battery assembly have lower seniority, and because they’re in a separate part of the building they don’t have nearly enough rank-and-file members looking out for them. Because assembly workers cannot transfer over, there’s a very real “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” effect. On top of that, they have very little in the way of representation. Until recently they’ve had to make do with one steward for their whole unit — a steward who only had thirty hours a week to educate and defend their bargaining unit, the remainder of the time working a job. By comparison, the General Motors workers in the rest of the assembly plant have had a minimum of two full-time stewards since the first large batch of workers returned in July 2021.

In July 2022, contract negotiations ran up until the eleventh hour. The final morning, we were told by our steward that we would have to cross the picket line to leave and return or risk losing our jobs. This was the case for Subsystems workers during the 2019 strike, which caused some tension on the picket lines. It’s a clear example of how tiers erode solidarity and fracture workers’ unity.

With the 2022 contract, pay was raised to a maximum of $22 for materials workers and $24 for battery assemblers, although temporary workers still max at $17 after four or more years. That’s right: we have in writing that workers can be considered temporary for well over four years.

Tiers Must Go

Since the day I was formally hired by GM in 2007, tiers have only gotten more complex and further embedded into our contracts. There was a time when getting your foot in the door in an auto plant meant that you could breathe a sigh of relief. Yes, it takes a while to get used to standing on your feet for most of the day, but barring (sadly common) workplace injuries, your body does eventually get used to the work. But now we have unprecedented amounts of turnover. People hang on in the hope that things might one day get better.

Hopefully, that day is now, with a UAW leadership committed to getting rid of tiers. Eliminating tiers would reduce the number of hours workers have to spend on the job. It would also reduce the years required for workers to retire, and the unnecessary hours workers spend every day driving past workplaces where they would otherwise be able to work.

EVs are an important part of the fight against climate change, and the government is now giving automakers massive amounts of money to build new EV plants. We can’t allow tiers to stay and proliferate in this sector; they are a barrier to a just transition. We should file them in the trash right alongside Stellantis’s initial contract proposal.

[Reprinted from Jacobin.]

Check out other articles in The Detroit Socialist’s Building Labor Power series here.

The Detroit Socialist is produced and run by members of Detroit DSA’s Newspaper Collective. Interested in becoming a member of Detroit DSA? Go to metrodetroitdsa.com/join to become a member. Send a copy of the dues receipt to: membership@metrodetroitdsa.com in order to get plugged in to our activities!

In UAW’s Negotiations With the Big Three Automakers, Ending Tiers Is a Central Demand was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We at The Pika Press are very happy to bring you comprehensive coverage of the 2023 DSA National Convention! Our coverage includes articles, report-backs, and statistics features!

Articles

The Struggle for an Anti-Zionist DSA Continues by Omar — a pointed critique of DSA’s zionist history and the votes of the convention.

Convention from the Staffer’s View by Hayley Banyai-Becker — a reflection on what post-convention DSA looks like from the unique position of a DSA staff organizer.

What is the NPC? by Joe Mayall — a straight-forward explanation of what DSA’s National Political Committee is and what it does.

DSA Doesn’t Know What It Wants by Caoimhín Perkins — a polemic on certain comrade’s aversion to a party-like strategy.

Delegate Report-Backs

Brief summaries of Denver DSA delegates’ experiences and thoughts on convention. Contributing comrades: Alejandra Beatty, Ahmed, Colleen Johnston, Andrew Thompson, Jennifer Dillon, Matthew Rambles, Max Soo, Mitch, Skye O’Toole, and Stephanie Caulk.

Statistical features

Pika’s Index — a list of statistics about convention with plenty of lines to be read in-between.

Colorado DSA Votes @ DSACon2023 — a spreadsheet showing all the votes (resolutions and NPC) taken by delegates from all four of Colorado’s DSA chapters at the 2023 National Convention.

Ads and notes

Want to write for us? Want to make graphics for us? Want to help improve our website? Noticed a typo or inconsistency that makes you want to gauge your eyes out? GREAT! Please contact political.education@denverdsa.org or message Brynn via Slack or on Twitter to speak with the manager!

ISSUE #3

by Omar

On August 4, 2023, the first in-person Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America commenced after the 2020 surge in membership. Several important questions were up for debate: Should DSA expand its National Political Committee? Will DSA work within the Democratic Party, or will it declare independence? Will DSA be an anti-Zionist organization in principle and practice?

Anyone who has read the 2021 statement where DSA took a rhetorical departure from its Zionist history will be given the impression that DSA is “unwavering” in its commitment to Palestinian solidarity and liberation against Zionist settler colonialism. But the 2021 Bowman affair has suggested that the professed “solidarity” with Palestinians is actually implicit Zionisim. And inextricable from the Bowman affair was the NPC’s decision to decharter the BDS & Palestine Solidarity WG, providing yet another example of the solidarity collapsing from “merely professed” to “a total lie.” 

Now the year is 2023. The last-minute recommendation by the NPC to incapacitate Palestine organizing within DSA by absorbing the Palestine Solidarity WG into the International Committee, their refusal to place the anti-Zionist resolution on the agenda, their proposed amendment to the anti-Zionist resolution that renders it useless, as well as the use of tokenism on the debate floor and handing out propaganda flyers outside debate to impel delegates to support the IC absorption are all new examples of a new liberal Zionism within DSA. 

From this tremendous effort it is extremely difficult to conclude that it is perpetuated in good faith by anti-Zionists. It seems exactly what liberal Zionists would do, who begrudgingly resort to implicit Zionism only because of the moral progress within DSA that no longer renders acceptable explicit Zionism. 

Actual solidarity is described no better than by Paulo Freire, who in 1968 famously said that “solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with whom one is solidary; it is a radical posture.” To enter into the situation of Palestinians means to support BDS in principle, given that over 80% of Palestinians support BDS. Actual solidarity is militant intolerance to Zionism within DSA. Actual solidarity would completely transform DSA’s reputation away from liberal Zionism, which will improve both the quality and quantity of membership. We would unlock a vibrant and necessary collaboration with grassroots Palestinian organizations such as the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). 

I moved to Colorado in 2021, soon after the Israeli Occupation Forces conducted widespread terrorism in Palestine: Invading the al-Aqsa compound, unloading airstrikes on Gaza, and expediting colonialism in the West Bank and al-Quds. 

In light of this, I sought Palestine organizing, looking primarily towards political education and campaigns such as the BDS movement. Without a local PYM or SJP chapter, I reluctantly joined Denver DSA with full awareness of DSA’s historic ties to Zionism. 

I was pleasantly surprised to find that substantial internal work was being done to make DSA a truly anti-Zionist organization, with like-minded folks in Denver and the National BDS & Palestine Solidarity WG, who proposed a resolution to enforce the actual anti-Zionism that DSA needs. What’s more, anti-Zionists in DSA have been met with great internal hostility and sometimes even violence, but that does not deter us from nurturing our organization.

It remains unclear whether the new NPC, after being handed the responsibility of deliberating whether to make DSA an anti-Zionist organization in principle and praxis, will be in solidarity with Palestinians. In my view, weakness on anti-Zionism has no place in leftist organizations and cannot sustain the types of enduring structures we are trying to build.

~~

Omar is a member of the Denver Democratic Socialists of America and an organizer with the Colorado Palestine Coalition.

ISSUE #3

by Hayley Banyai-Becker

Hi comrades! My name is Hayley Banyai-Becker (she/her) and I am a Field Organizer with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) aka I am a national staff organizer! At the beginning of August, I attended my first ever in person DSA convention (as a staff member) joining 1,200 socialists from around the country in Chicago, and wow do I have such a renewed sense of enthusiasm for the organizing project that is DSA. 

My work broadly consists of supporting DSA chapters in 12 states across the western United States with their internal work like member recruitment and development and external organizing efforts such as campaigns and solidarity work. I absolutely love what I do and firmly believe that I have one of the greatest jobs in the world – if it is possible for a socialist to love their work, lol. Before joining DSA, I worked for a Colorado progressive nonprofit, where a coworker and I started a union to improve our working conditions. Prior to that, I worked on a variety of campaigns, including two of Denver DSA’s own endorsees, Lorena Garcia for US Senate and Paid Family and Medical Leave for Coloradans (Proposition 118). I’ve been a member of DSA since late 2019 and I served as Denver’s Electoral Committee Chair in 2021. DSA has been my political home since I joined and I deeply believe we have the power to bring about socialism in our lifetime. 

All of this work led me to the DSA convention, where I had so much excitement to see  chapters across the country commit to implementing stronger, more comprehensive and truly intentional recruitment efforts. This year’s convention made clear the importance and necessity of extensive recruitment practices in order to succeed in (and pay for) our goals. Chapters earnestly heard this call: in real time, I am witnessing a remarkable sense of desire and commitment to grow our organization’s membership, and therefore fundraising, in order to build the DSA we want to see going forward. The energy around this is palpable for me, because one of my primary goals as a DSA organizer is to help chapters understand that strong recruitment skills are vital to the longevity and success of our movement! 

A lot of my work revolves around supporting chapters in educating their members on the importance of the ideological framework that is mass movement building. We are working to build a movement of the majority, which means organizing everyone in the working class into our movement is the only way we will win. It is essential to DSA’s theory of change: as working class people, we all face some very similar issues (we can’t afford rent, we have student or medical debt, etc), but we are the agents of change when we come together to fight back on these issues. Put even more simply: we must directly and intentionally ask people to join DSA in order to win the world we want. If you are interested in supporting Denver’s recruitment and internal organizing efforts, contact Caoimhin Perkins and/or join the #WG-Internal-Organizing channel on Slack.  

Another take away from convention that I am seeing across my entire turf is the inclination for chapters to work together across their states and regions. Being in person at the convention gave us all the ability to meet and create more honest and sincere connections with organizers from other chapters in neighboring towns and cities in a way that has not been possible since the last in person convention in 2019. Organizing is impossible without deep relationships and the pandemic has kept us from building the trust and intimacy needed to create relationships that can endure over time and trauma. Chapters have been seeking out regional connections consistently throughout the pandemic, but with this added in person aspect, I am seeing these relationships come to fruition now in a way that was not entirely possible before. This is tremendous for the strength of our organization and gives chapters the ability to more easily organize statewide efforts (or anything that impacts working class members outside of their jurisdiction) moving forward. If you want to connect more with me on these topics, reach out any time at hayley@dsausa.org. 

~~

Hayley Banyai-Becker is the DSA regional organizer for the western United States. Prior to her time as a DSA employee, she chaired Denver DSA’s Electoral Committee. She also worked for Representative Lorena Garcia’s 2018 campaign for U.S. Senate and the Yes On 118 campaign.

ISSUE #3

by Joe Mayall

As the most high-stakes vote at any convention, the election of the new National Political Committee (NPC) at the 2023 Convention was the most anticipated and debated decision put before the convention delegates. With each candidate presenting their vision for how the NPC should operate during the upcoming two-year term, NPC votes are often seen as a measuring stick for how the delegates, and therefore the membership that sent them to convention, are feeling about the direction of DSA. 

As the new 16-member body settles in to the inaugural month of its 24-month term, it’s worth examining the responsibilities, duties, and directives tasked to the NPC to properly understand how these members will shape the next two years of DSA.

What Does the NPC Do?

While the Convention is the highest decision-making body in DSA, it is only in session for four days every two years. Between conventions, the NPC acts as DSA’s “board of directors,” making executive decisions that impact the national organization. While the Convention sets DSA’s goals and priorities by voting on resolutions (as was just done in August), it is up to NPC members to determine how exactly these priorities should be carried out. For example, the 2023 Convention voted to keep the Green New Deal as a top political priority. How will this be enacted? That’s up to the NPC. They can allocate resources to campaigns and elections around the country, organize with environmental groups with similar goals, and do pretty much anything else that falls within the stated goal of trying to make the Green New Deal a reality. The NPC also has secondary duties as established in the DSA constitution, such as representing DSA in public spaces, assisting YDSA with its growth and actions, determining yearly dues, and overseeing the chartering of new chapters and commissions. 

All of these actions are determined at NPC’s quarterly meetings, and the bi-weekly meetings of the Steering Committee, a five-person committee elected by the NPC to serve as a consistent body in-between sessions.

NPC Requirements

Earlier the NPC was described as DSA’s “board of directors.” This isn’t just a euphemism, but rather a codified legal responsibility. As the heads of a registered non-profit organization, every member of the NPC has fiduciary duties they must abide by. In addition to enhancing DSA’s public standing, advocating on behalf of the organization, and representing the organization to the best of their ability, NPC members are legally required to fulfill three specific duties. Duty of Care requires them to exercise a “reasonable” level of care, attention, and concern when making decisions. Duty of Loyalty requires them to remain loyal to DSA and not take action that could potentially harm the organization. And, perhaps most importantly, they are bound by a Duty of Obedience that requires them to help the organization reach its stated goals to the best of their ability. To put this into context, the Duty of Obedience requires NPC members to dedicate DSA’s resources to the goals set in the resolutions determined by the Convention. 

If this sounds like a lot, that’s because it is. In addition to spearheading DSA’s national campaigns, NPC members must maintain relationships with DSA’s staff, National Director, and grass roots membership through the chapters. Unlike the aforementioned duties, these aren’t “requirements,” but rather functions necessary to ensure they are best able to continue doing their most important job: leaving DSA better than when they found it.

This will be the main thought on the mind of every new and veteran NPC member as they get to work at the start of their term.

~~

Joe Mayall is a freelance writer and a member of the Denver Democratic Socialists of America. His work has appeared in Jacobin, The Progressive, Balls and Strikes, and The Pika Press. More of his work can be found at joewrote.substack.com.

ISSUE #3

by Caoimhín Perkins

My first takeaway is how huge of a split we have when it comes to electoral politics. This is demonstrated by a glaring inconsistency with how we voted on two amendments to the National Electoral Committee Resolution. We quite easily passed Amendment I, “Act Like An Independent Party,” which said DSA should slowly transition away from working with the Democratic Party by 

1. Establishing our own resources outside of the tools and lists,
2. Identifying our candidates as socialists and separate from the DP,
3. Establishing candidate schools,
4. Establishing our own legislative programs,
5. Expecting our candidates to cross-endorse each other and bloc vote,
6. Developing our own party identity,
7. Expecting candidates to publicly and loudly identify as Democratic Socialists, and
8. Establish Socialists in Office committees

However, when it came time to vote on Amendment P, “Towards A Party-Like Electoral Strategy,” we choked. How are any of the below not necessary for acting like an independent party, something we had just voted to do?

1. Demanding candidates publicly and loudly champion DSA’s platform and identify as socialists
2. Demanding they always vote against police funding, military funding, carceral legislation, anti-labor legislation, and other racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, and xenophobic legislation
3. When they breach a standard they have not committed to, that we engage in a process of educating them, and that if they still refuse to meet this standard, that we de-endorse
4. Demanding they cross-endorse and bloc-vote
5. Demand that DSA electeds meet quarterly with their chapters to discuss legislative priorities
6. Requiring National create a group that would meet with and hold accountable DSA electeds in federal office

Every single point here can be found in Amendment I or is just a more rigorous form of what was in Amendment I. And yet, Amendment P failed to pass, and the yes vote was significantly less than the yes vote on Amendment I. The point of contention was, of course, point (3), which created consequences for crossing the red lines established in point (2). 

Comrades claimed that demanding expulsion for candidates was a purity test that sacrificed power. I spoke on the floor in favor of this amendment, explaining that there was no purity test, only a way of educating and holding electeds accountable. Sometimes being principled is the best praxis, and this is case in point. Point (4) even says that we have to educate candidates first, especially on subjects that we failed to educate them on in the first place. This is practically the same thing as point (3) for Amendment I, with the added caveat that candidates can be flunkies in this school and be (as the sternest, but not the first, consequence) de-endorsed. So, either the comrades who claimed a purity test did not actually read the Amendment P, or they don’t mind continuing to endorse electeds that vote in favor of oppression. Either way, they left us with no way to actually enforce our independent identity. To those who did not read the amendments properly, a certain Marxist once said, “Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. How can a communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense? It won’t do! You must not talk nonsense!”

To the comrades who think the de-endorsement and red lines themselves are bad and actually read the amendment, I have to ask what your goal is. This refusal to create accountability structures is a consistent issue we have where I am left wondering how serious a majority of our comrades are about socialism and whether they even know what they want. We have no long term electoral strategy; instead we have comrades fluttering like chickens over short term gains from electing supposed progressives to offices they can lose in 2-4 years while gridlocked against capitalist politicians. I spoke with some comrades who thought that if their moderate democrat in Alabama or city council person in San Diego weren’t up to snuff because of Amendment P, then they would fail. This is ridiculous.

Are we going to have a reformist revolution in 4-8 years? No, and we never will. We’re so focused on big-tents that we’ve forgotten we have to actually seize the means of production like we always say we will, and we cannot do that if we aren’t demanding more of ourselves. The seizure of the state and an entire economy is not some picnic where everyone drops their yes and no votes in a ballot box, and this is especially not the case in a country that was built on stolen land, has the largest military in the world, and has the world’s fourth largest police force. We are the backbone of global capitalism, and those in power will not simply let us reform our way out of it. They are fighting back through police violence, union busting, assassinations, stacking the courts, and attempted coup d’etats. Those of us set on electoral politics can’t even get our electeds to engage with us because we’re scared that we’ll have a few less useless representatives.

We need to get real. Electoralism is not the revolution, but if we’re dedicating resources to it, we could at least have high standards so that we can reliably gain non-reformist reforms. Why even say we’ll act like a separate party if we aren’t going to have something to offer that’s different from progressive Democrats? What will we be except for just another third party? I don’t understand why anyone goes to the convention of the largest socialist organization in the United States just to say that we can’t demand our socialist electeds engage with their base and legislate to a higher standard than capitalist electeds.

The second takeaway is that we have many comrades who still believe that gridlocked politicians are more important to building power than having strong connections with Palestinian and Anti-Zionist organizations. I’m not sure when they started prioritizing individuals over multi-racial mass politics, but we love to mix up our priorities for wins that are aesthetic blockbusters over wins that have substance. There were a number of maneuvers made by those chairing the convention that blocked MSR-12, an Anti-Zionist resolution, from even being brought to the floor. The majority of us voted to refer it to the incoming NPC, probably hoping it would get tanked. I don’t understand anyone who thinks multi-racial mass politics isn’t good for socialism, but keeping around a man who is unrepentant in being buddy-buddy with J-Street and the Iron Dome is. 

Some might say that we can find a third way on that issue, and in another timeline, one where we already had a national accountability structure in place when Bowman broke with DSA, they might be right. But we aren’t in that timeline, and so I would pose this question: do the Palestinian organizations that are writing us off care about that non-existent third way? They don’t, and we voted down the two opportunities to create that national accountability structure. So, again, I am wondering how serious some comrades are about this or whether they actually read these resolutions. Do we not want better for ourselves? Maybe MSR-12 will be passed by the new NPC’s narrow left-majority. That remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that even though both the national BDS working group and International Committee said they didn’t want to be merged, a majority of delegates said “surely they can’t know what they’re talking about,” and merged them anyway.

The third takeaway, as someone who is not a member of any caucus, is that my view of caucuses is slightly less pessimistic—but is still pessimistic, for different reasons. There were definitely cynical uses of power, but in most cases we were all on the same team, even when we were in direct conflict. But it still felt like it encouraged this maneuvering. My thoughts on this are partly informed by history—ultras and libertarian socialists like to criticize Lenin for banning caucuses from existing in the Soviet communist party, calling it anti-democratic. I’m starting to understand why he did it, even though I think banning wasn’t the solution. It feels like for all the power caucuses bring us for organizing on a national level, the side effect is that we have more competition that keeps us from functioning properly. It was astonishing to go from Denver to a National that was a delicate “balance” between hating each other’s guts and knowing we all had (approximately) the same skin in the game at the end of the day. This was, of course, always far more noticeable on votes that posed deep political questions, creating controversy where some comrades refused to look at reality and instead decided to go with their imaginary ideal of how our organization should work. I don’t have a solution to the caucus problem, but there needs to be one.

P.S. – There were bingo cards filled with convention buzzwords, courtesy of the National Housing Justice Commission. I got Bingo twice. 

P.P.S. – Having grown up in the Great Lakes region, quite possibly nothing will top the moment when Stephanie got to the shore of Lake Michigan, couldn’t see the other side, and yelled “this is a LAKE????”

~~

Caoimhín Perkins has been a member of Denver DSA since 2019. They are a former teacher and union steward who works in DDSA’s labor, housing, and internal organizing committees.

ISSUE #3

Denver DSA Convention Delegates were asked to write a paragraph on their experience at the 2023 DSA National Convention. This is what they wrote.

Alejandra Beatty

As someone who hadn’t been heavily involved in DSA work I hesitated getting involved with convention, but also knew that while I still had some free time (due to getting laid off) it would be a great way to make a contribution to helping move the organization forward. I had also been involved just enough over the past year to know there were some concerns with decisions made by the NPC, and struggles for the organization as a whole, that it was important to be sure our local voices were heard at convention. Overall, I’m glad I did it, although for next time I’ll be much more aware of the amount of time to commit. 

I had thought my preparation work was pretty solid, I watched videos for the NPC candidates, and ended up doing it in odd spaces, like the gym, just to get through it all. I judiciously read through all the resolutions, and at least attempted to keep up with discussions in Slack. In retrospect, I wish we had taken a more divide-n-conquer approach early on. Even despite my attempts to understand the full set of issues, I ended up relying on others for advice and recommendations because I knew they understood the political space better than I did. Although I would admit that by taking time to try to understand ALL of the issues I felt slightly more confident in my vote, even when I ended up relying heavily on input from others. 

Would I recommend attending a convention for someone like me? Only if it was someone who could make a big commitment to consuming all of the information and attempting a good analysis. And knowing you need to do all that before you step foot into the convention hall. The convention itself was actually a lot of fun, for those who like to argue politics and see decisions made with such a large body attempting to use Robert’s Rules. I walked away feeling that DSA was a stronger organization based on the discourse I saw happening. It was obvious people cared a lot, and wanted to really build our power to make positive change.

Does what happens at the National level affect us locally, so was it worth our time & costs? Yes. It’s actually a great thing, in my honest opinion, that chapters are able to operate so independently. I also believe firmly that if you are part of a national organization, for anything, you must do the due diligence that the organizational structure is reflecting your values and your priorities. Not only because they are receiving a portion of our funds, but also because they (i.e. the NPC) represent all of us, and that alignment and accountability must be strong if we’re going to claim ourselves as a national group.      

Ahmed

Democracy and debate are muscles we have to exercise. We often tout how democratic our DSA is, but it is as democratic as we make it. Convention was the culmination of several years of work, conflict, and relationship building — and we have to intentionally continue to cultivate it going forward if we wish to have a say in this organisation. It was a delight to see comrades from across the country to discuss and compare our shared organising experiences. While several factions and formations preceded convention, the convention floor was fluid, caucuses were receptive, and a majority of delegates were unfactioned. As part of a team leading the charge on a few resolutions, I was eager to talk to delegates from all corners of the country and win their support in good faith discussion and conversation. There was a massive information disadvantage facing delegates from smaller chapters as well as uncaucused delegates that was at-times difficult to overcome over just three days. That said, we managed to swing lots of votes the good ole way — debate and discussion. I was dismayed by obstructionism on the floor, we should always aim to win on the merits of our positions rather than procedure and chair rulings. We should always aim to reach compromise and fair resolution amongst the membership, even at ideological odds, and we reach this via discussion. We owe each other this as part of our mandate and must do our part to not demoralise our comrades. Mandates are earned. I look forward to this coming NPC term. Good leadership must answer to membership and organise all throughout their term to maintain that buy-in.

Andrew Thompson

Convention for me was overall a good experience. I wasn’t necessarily sure what to expect, having not participated in convention previously or being very apprised of many national campaigns or issues apart from the issues surrounding the punishment of the Boycott Divest and Sanctions (BDS) working group and the appearance of our wavering commitment to Palestinian liberation. As someone who has been active in our local chapters organizing efforts related to Palestine I was looking forward to the debate regarding these issues and hopeful the convention would have created a potentially more clear answer to whether or not we (DSA) as the largest socialist organization in the US will stand firmly in solidarity against continued imperialism and advance Palestinian liberation. However, convention did not provide these answers as we did not debate on the resolution (MSR-12) affirming our anti-zionist principles. Instead this debate was filtered through a recommendation of the past National Political Committee (NPC) to disband the BDS WG and make it a subunit of the larger national internationalism working group, a structural solution to what I feel is an important political question that we left convention without the answers to, as the NPC recommendation passed on a very narrow margin.

However, with the aforementioned aside, I enjoyed talking with organizers around the county on their current organizing projects, how they approach electoral organizing, and just generally being in a room of 1000+ people trying to advance the goal of socialism in a country long too hostile towards the working class. Convention also provided the opportunity to bond more with our chapter’s delegates, other Colorado chapters, and discuss how we plan to organize in Colorado in the future to advance the goals of socialism. While convention was a lot of work and many long days prior to the lead up to convention and during convention I was happy to serve as the delegate chair for our delegates ensuring we could all be present and debate on pressing issues that shape the future of our movement. I look forward to continuing to work within our chapter, with national working groups and committees, and with our newly elected NPC to chart a path forward for a strong internationalist socialist movement in America!    

Colleen Johnston

The 2023 Convention process demonstrated our organizational development and maturity since our incredible new era kicked off just 7 years ago. This year’s convention saw some changes in process, such as a requirement to collect 300 signatures to get resolutions and amendments considered at Convention and a consensus resolution development process for major national  bodies and priority committees, which ultimately helped lead to more consensus and unity.

This  year’s Convention also showed the ongoing newness of our org and membership. During opening remarks, delegates learned that many, if not most delegates were attending their first DSA Convention. The  number of 2023 convention delegates who were in DSA pre-2016 were in the low double digits. One of the things that gives me so much hope about DSA is how many people come to DSA as their first home for political organizing, having never gotten involved in organizing or activism until joining our org. It also means that the ongoing work of cohering and rooting ourselves in shared foundations of organizing, of building and wielding power, are central to the longevity and effectiveness of our org.

Speaking of longevity – DSA faces a major financial deficit for the upcoming year, from at least 1.5 million dollars to over 4 million, if we were to fully fund and enact everything passed at Convention. This is a serious constraint we must grapple with as we navigate the months ahead, and why I’ve been working through the National Growth and Development Committee (GDC) to organize Solidarity Income-Based Dues. Our organization is unique in that we are truly democratic, and our financial power comes almost exclusively from members’ dues contributions. This is why switching your dues to monthly dues, and, if you can, doing like union members do and contributing 1% of your income to our working-class organization is crucial. To make sure our organization is sustainable and able to fight for the long haul, switch your dues to Solidarity Dues here. I also encourage DDSA members to plug into the retention and Solidarity Dues work happening through the national GDC and in our chapter.

Jennifer Dillon

I attended the virtual DSA National Convention in 2021 when the COVID Delta variant was rising. It was a draining, frustrating, demoralizing experience: a week of long Zoom sessions, Shakespearean political maneuverings I did not understand, and a handful of the most annoying people you’ve ever encountered leveraging their extensive knowledge of Robert’s Rules to hijack sessions with tedious, bad faith procedural motions. The only thing that pulled me through was the gallows humor of my fellow Denver delegates. I was happy when it ended and I could go back to organizing with my hometown comrades — people who didn’t behave like childish assholes — and forget national DSA even existed. 

I am happy to report that this year was a radically different experience. In retrospect, it’s very likely the stress of the pandemic in 2021 that drove everyone, myself included, over the edge. But convening in person, being in rooms full of socialists talking about socialism, excited about socialism, and doing socialism was the opposite of draining — it was a thrilling, energizing experience, and one I highly recommend. I’m very proud of the work that our delegation did, and the direction our organization is heading. That’s not to say there wasn’t some heartbreak: I was personally deeply saddened that DSA delegates voted to move the BDS Working Group under the International Committee against the wishes of both groups (a maneuver designed to curtail their work), and I wish we had gotten the opportunity to have a long overdue formal discussion about DSA’s positioning vis-a-vis Palestinian liberation. But I’m hopeful that the newly elected, more left-leaning NPC will help us change course by taking a firm and clear stance against Zionism, aligning DSA with the Left’s rich history of internationalism and solidarity with the oppressed.

Matthew Rambles

DSA convention was a learning experience for me. Despite my presence on steering I have spent little time engaging with the structure, activity, and membership of our national body. Fortunately for those looking to learn, the weekend was a whirlwind tour offering an introduction to these very things. I was impressed by convention — my time with our bi-annual decision making process was overwhelmingly positive despite it’s flaws. I returned home with a enhanced understanding of my role in the chapter, a greater appreciation for our organizers here in Denver, and a strong sense of affirmation for our collective project of building a better world.

Max Soo

What did I think of convention? I thought it was bullshit.

I love Denver DSA. They helped me unionize my workplace. They helped me sue my landlord. They sharpened my class analysis. They developed me as an organizer. I love Denver DSA.

But I’ve always been skeptical of DSA as a national organization — not just National DSA, but other chapters — and convention confirmed my cynicism.

I knew that there were liberals in DSA. The fact that we caveat our socialism with “democratic” is in itself a perpetuation of anti-communist liberal propaganda. But it was disheartening to see just how many there were; and not just fringe members, but active, committed ones. This was apparent in how the delegation voted on resolutions and NPC candidates.

I also felt DSA had a colonial conception of democracy and that was also confirmed by the inaccessibility in language and time-requirement of the compendium, fetishization of Robert’s Rules, and superficial debate format.

And don’t even get me started on the half-assed COVID protocols and reckless, ableist behavior of participants that, paired with the pandemic justice resolution not making the agenda, felt more like we were cosplaying caution than actually protecting ourselves and our communities.

The only redeemable quality of convention was the time I got to spend deepenng my relationships with my Denver DSA comrades and a few other DSA delegates. But at that end of the day, that made it worth it.

Mitch

There was a thrumming energy to being in a room with 1000+ other socialists, hearing the first cheers roll across the crowd as we kicked off the first day of convention. That energy spilled off of the convention floor into foyers, hallways, and the hotel bar, as I met delegates eager to share their work and to hear about Denver’s. To me, DSA convention’s best aspect was the generative conversations when you get that mass of organizers together from across the country. Talking to NYC comrades about how their tenant organizing is structured, hearing about East Bay’s transit rider canvasses, or how Ferguson continues to shape the terrain for left politics in St. Louis. 

Our theory of change is relational – building personal connections and moving that power. That’s fundamentally a two-way street: as organizers our understanding of the world is changed by practice, the conversations we have with others. And sharpening our analysis of our own conditions is made only more effective when talking to other organizers who have done similar work and taken time for reflection. However, for me the most important aspect of building relationships at convention was emotional. Some call it “vibes,” but there’s nothing to deepen your engagement to the work like being reminded of the thousands of DSA members nationwide who also share in the struggle, to hear the first cheers roll across a crowd of comrades fighting for another world. 

Skye O’Toole

As a first time convention delegate, I wasn’t sure what to expect in Chicago. I had heard stories about past conventions, both from chapter comrades and online figureheads who had been delegates in the past. Their recountings had been mostly negative, with many recalling stories of drawn out procedural fights, name-calling, and exhausting marathon sessions on the convention floor. So when this convention was, in large part, civil, collaborative and empowering, I was pleasantly surprised.

Overall, being in a room with 1000 socialists, hailing from San Diego to Maine, was an inspiring experience. It truly instilled in me the gravity of DSA, the potential we have, and the strength we have already built nationwide. It was an incredible experience to get to converse with comrades from hundreds of other chapters, all of whom have a different conception of socialism and the path we need to take to build it. I learned so much and received so much inspiration for programs to develop in our own chapter from the chats I had with others at convention. And many a night I stayed up late, having hours-long conversations with comrades from across the country about our life stories, delving deep into the many experiences in our lives which had led us there, to Chicago. 

As for the actual substance of convention, I was excited to see the passage of several resolutions which I believe will materially strengthen our org; such as MSR-3, which creates two, full-time, national co-chairs tasked with building up DSA’s public image, CR-4, which funded and emboldened the International Committee to continue it’s exceptional work in building connections with the global left and CR-8 which strengthened financial and logistical support to YDSA in order to ensure a strong socialist youth movement on campuses across the US. Decisions like these make me excited to watch the future of DSA and see what we can do when we build the external and internal supports needed to build a strong, consistent organization.

But there were also some major disappointments; most of all, the incredibly slim passage of NPC-8, which folded the BDS working group — one of the most successful arms of National DSA, which has done incredible work building and aiding the movement against Zionism in the United States — into the International Committee, without the consent of either. Knowing that its passage means that DSA will be delegitimized in the eyes of the grassroots Palestinian solidarity movement, the results are a gut punch, jeopardizing the pro-Palestinian stance of our organization that hardworking comrades in the BDS working group (including members of our own chapter) helped to foster.

But despite these big wins and losses, a lot of the other floor discussion felt pretty divorced from the realities of our organizing at the chapter level, concerned with national level disagreements and (all too often) personal animosities between National’s most involved members. While there were no shortage of delegates who were incredible organizers – strike captains, union salts, tenant unionists, grassroots elected officials, ride-or-die abolitionists, all of whom were there in there in a genuine commitment to building a stronger DSA – there were others who seemingly spent their time at convention pulling Robert’s Rules maneuvers for less noble agendas. To a certain extent, it felt like some delegates were there not because they wanted to put in the hard word deliberating on the key organizational questions facing DSA but rather because they wanted to defend their organizing turf from rival caucuses, keeping one working group or another as little fiefdoms for their particular tendency. While I don’t doubt that most of those delegates believe in the socialist mission, it felt like they often treated their own comrades like enemies, demonizing rival caucuses, not the capitalist class, as the primary enemy. I’m not, by any means, saying that caucusing is bad when it’s based on principled differences over organizational strategy. But I do think some delegates had a warped view, seeing “their side” — not DSA — as the thing they came to Chicago to fight for.

Despite my disillusionment with some of the factional divides and debates which dominated sections of the floor debate, I ended the convention feeling empowered that our organization, finding our bearings in a post-Bernie world, came together to chart a relatively healthy course for the next two years. I left with a feeling of hope in my heart, a hope that despite some of the mistakes that I believe occurred at this convention, our organization can learn, grow, and correct course. But most of all a hope that, by next convention, we will be that much closer to achieving socialism in our lifetime.

Stephanie Caulk

Overall, I’m really grateful for the opportunity to attend the national convention. One of my favorite parts of the convention was meeting DSAers from all over the country and making connections with comrades who are organizing in different states. I also appreciated the opportunity to make connections with the members of the other Colorado DSA chapters. I think it is essential that we continue these relationships with other DSA chapters, especially in Colorado. I also think that a benefit of attending the national convention was learning more about how national works. Until I went to the convention, I had no clue how national operated. Knowing how national works will allow me to help influence the national direction of DSA, and has emboldened me to take advantage of the national resources that we have at our disposal. One thing that I disliked about the convention was how inaccessible the parliamentary procedure was. In the future, I think we should make sure that our delegates are prepared to navigate the aspects of parliamentary procedure that typically are not used in Denver general meetings.

Percentage of convention delegates from a Colorado chapter: 2.4%

Percentage of convention delegates from the Denver chapter: 1.58%

Number of States with no chapter delegations at convention: 8

State with the most delegates and chapters: California

Number of Items which did not make the agenda: 15

Number of items on the final (approved) consent agenda: 9

Total number of items which had recorded votes: 37

Percentage of recorded votes that over 75% of Denver delegates voted yes on: 54.05%

Percentage of recorded votes that over 75% of Denver delegates voted no on: 13.51%

Number of items which were referred to the NPC (were on the agenda but not voted on): 5

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted to amend the agenda: 92.86%

Number of Denver delegates in a caucus at the time of convention: 1

Number of previously uncaucused Denver delegates who openly intend to join a caucus after convention: 3

Number of Colorado delegates who spoke at the microphone: 3

Portion of Denver delegates who ranked a Denverite as their top candidate: 12/13

Number of Denver (& Colorado) delegates whose NPC ballot was not counted due to a technical error: 2

Percentage of times a Colorado delegate did not vote on a recorded measure: 4.94%

Percentage of times a Colorado delegate abstained on a measure: 4.58%

Average margin by which a voted-on NPC recommendation passed or failed: 119 votes

Measure which passed by the narrowest margin: NPC Recommendation #8 – Move the BDS-WG to the International Committee (as amended)

Margin by which NPC Recommendation #8 passed: 17 votes

Measure which failed by the narrowest margin: Motion to Reconsider CB-1 – Democratize DSA

Margin by which Motion to Reconsider CB-1 failed: 8 votes

Measure which passed by the widest margin: NPC Recommendation #3 – Division of the Secretary-Treasurer Role

Percentage of votes for NPC Recommendation #3: 99.43%

Measure which failed by the widest margin: MSR-4-C: Conducting Vacancy Elections Using Regions

Percentage of votes against MSR-4-C: 96.25%

Number of NECC Amendments and Member-submitted Resolutions addressing DSA’s orientation towards it’s elected officials: 3 (+ 1 divided question)

Measure with the most voted-on amendments: CR-6 – National Electoral Committee Concensus Resolution

Number of Colorado (and Denver) delegates who voted against CR-6-O – Run DSA Candidates for School Boards: 2

Number of Colorado delegates who voted against CR6 – Nat’l Electoral Committee Concensus Resolution: 0

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted against CR-2 – GND Commission Consensus Resolution: 57.14%

Percentage of Colorado delegates who voted for CR-2: 54.55%

Percentage of Convention delegates who voted for MSR-21 – A Fighting Campaign for Reproductive Rights & Trans Liberation: 61.85%

Percentage of Colorado delegates who voted against MSR-21: 30.43%

Percentage of Denver delegates who voted for MSR-21: 93.33%

Number of member-submitted Constitutional/Bylaws changes which made it to a vote: 1

Number of recorded votes on Member-submitted Resolutions (including their amendments and a divided question): 9

Number of recorded votes on National Committee Concensus Resolutions (including their amendments): 16

Percentage of votes in which both of Denver’s NPC candidates voted the same way: 28.57%

Percentage of votes in which both of Denver’s NPC candidates voted the same way (including occasions where one or both did not vote):  21.62%

Number of returning NPC members: 1

Tendency with the most members on the new NPC: Groundwork

Portion of seats held by the largest tendency on the NPC: ¼ 

Tendencies that elected 100% of their candidates to the NPC: Bread & Roses, Red Star, Marxist Unity Group

NPC Members who tied for 1st place: Alex Pellitteri (NYC, B&R), Laura Wadlin (Portland, B&R), Megan Romer (At-Large, Red Star)

NPC Members who tied for 15th place: Renée Paradis (East Bay, SMC), Colleen Johnston (Denver, SMC)

Total number of NPC candidates: 41

Value of a YDSA Co-Chair’s vote on the NPC: ½ 

Chapters that are home to the YDSA Co-Chairs: University of Florida, University of Central Florida

Chapters with the largest representation on the NPC: Denver, Portland