As a matter of survival, socialists need to move past models from professionally-managed organizations that focus on campaigns and trainings, and think about long-term organization building through the transformation and empowerment of members.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN was an Alinskyite organization that at its height in the early 2000s had something like 150,000 member families, just about all of them poor, and the majority of them Black and Latino. They boasted the ability to “activate” people in more than 700 communities across the United States. In 2009-10, as a result of a bogus scandal based on a fabricated video, ACORN collapsed in the matter of a year or so. While various chapters survived in different forms under different names, they are a shadow of what ACORN was. 

ACORN fell because it was not resilient or durable under intense pressure, not because of the scandal itself. The organization knew they had a target on their back. Attacks from the right and center were not a surprise. But because that attack undercut the leadership of a fundamentally top-down organization, the absence of member democracy made the organization easier to knock over. 

ACORN provides lessons. Many are positive, like their dedication to organizing some of the poorest workers, often in Black and brown communities. Their downfall teaches us a lot by negative example. 

Over time, ACORN’s non-ideological, very locally focused and staff-heavy community organizing relied on more and more grant funding. This meant they had to show results on a grant cycle. That consistently nudged them towards mobilizing more than organizing. To show numbers, more than to politically empower and transform members into political actors. Eventually their policy campaigns had their members acting more like public relations than political leadership. But a truly mass movement is owned by its participants. That’s why it can’t be decapitated easily. It is not one that will be prone to being co-opted by funding and institutional jobs. 

Emma Tai touches indirectly on the problem of professional campaign-focused “mobilizing” models in a recent essay in Convergence. Tai makes a broad case against “anti-politics,” and the role of “professional democratizers” — organizers with movement jobs — in building the movements we need to resist and ultimately defeat the right. Tai’s essay is a welcome contribution to the discussion on this point.  As one of the architects of Chicago’s United Working Families, Tai can fuse both theoretical understanding with deep and broad experience in local politics and organization building. 

Tai’s experience prompts her to ask a series of questions that get to the heart of what building a truly democratic movement organization means: “How many dues-paying members does an organization have? What decision-making power do they have? Do they elect their own leaders? Do they vote on a platform or political endorsements? Do they move with discipline once that vote is cast[]?” The questions about dues-paying (i.e., direct) members and their decision-making rights is of particular interest, particularly given the historical models NGOs and unions have pursued when building coalition-style movement organizations: where organizations join a coalition institutionally but have little incentive to have their own members join directly, that leaves decision-making in the hands of movement professionals or parochial leaders concerned only with the narrow interests of their own organization. This dynamic alienates members from that umbrella group, undercuts the unity of action Tai asks about, and leaves coalitions prone to infighting between leadership groups. It is why political advocacy coalitions or “networks” so rarely, if ever, amount to more than the sum of their parts.

The problem Tai is grappling with is essentially the problem of movement bosses–of the fact that “the left” generally has drifted towards undemocratic and top-down models that treat democracy with hostility. Democracy is hard, sometimes chaotic, and — crucially — sometimes binds leaders to decisions they don’t personally agree with. That phenomena isn’t unique just to just political advocacy NGOs but also pervades many of the most influential unions. The logic of NGOs has pervaded and become the logic of left organizations and that has created a strata of professionals who step in and “absorb” working class self activity at its critical moments. 

It is the problem with which many of even the most successful movement organizations and coalitions have found themselves struggling. Self-reflecting, two early leaders of the Sunrise Movement, the climate-action youth organization, talk about some of the contradictions and internal tensions that arose as a result of their structure and organizing approach. One thing that shows through is the distinction between “staff” “core” and “volunteers.” These three groupings are discussed as being at odds with each other at a few different points throughout the essay.

As the mass movements of the early and mid 20th century have faded out of living memory, “mobilization” has been treated more and more as the same as “people power.” That assumes that numbers alone are proof that a movement is “mass.” 

We know that numbers aren’t enough. “Mobilizing” large numbers of people is not equal to a movement, especially when that mobilization needs little decision-making or commitment from participants. Hundreds of millions of people vote in elections; millions of people respond to fund-raising texts from Democrats; millions fill out auto-generated emails to Congress. These individual acts accumulated do not mean a movement. 

At the same time, we know that “democracy” in the abstract is no guarantee of revolutionary, radical, or even progressive politics. European far-right parties have used referenda to stoke xenophobia and confused nationalism. “A lot of people voting” does not guarantee a progressive result. No; there is a much more challenging and interesting relationship at work.

Mass movements have to be democratic so they’re not easily knocked over. So that the mistakes or corruption of leaders can’t undermine or destroy the project. They have to be democratic to resist being co-opted. Proximity to power is intoxicating, and only an engaged and empowered membership can be the designated drivers who can snatch the keys away from distant leadership. 

Still, mass movements have to be informed and led by cadres who were themselves changed through class struggle, whether against bosses, landlords, or arms of the oppressive state. Leadership requires “mobilizing” — putting members into motion in class struggle in order to both change the world and change themselves. So mobilization  is also an essential part of the project of building a durable mass movement. 

The mobilizations we prioritize have to be democratically developed and carefully chosen. They can’t just be anything; they should come up from members’ experiences, molded with more experienced comrades, and include political education to help members understand why they are experiencing what they are experiencing and give it a broader meaning. Mobilizations should be easy to access for busy people without being empty of political content or requiring little active participation. 

That is the virtuous cycle of building a durable, democratic mass movement in organization. Putting people into strategic motion to sharpen their class consciousness analysis of the world; developing them into cadre political leadership; bringing their fellow members along with them; and so having socialist outcomes to democratic processes. This virtuous cycle contrasts with focus on campaign models that gained popularity in professional movement NGOs since the 2010-11 uprisings in the US. 

The “Momentum Model” was Made for Grant Cycles

Sunrise, like many progressive nonprofit organizations and coalitions over the last decade, has in its lineage something called the Momentum Model, an organizing “community” that developed the “Momentum Living Model,” an approach to progressive or “social movement” organizing. For a number of years this model was widely adopted. If you’ve come across “train the trainers” or “campaign in a box” style of organizing approaches, then you’re somewhat familiar with it. Momentum cites Justice Democrats, IfNotNow, and Sunrise as three of its successes. 

The model is a bit difficult to explain in plain language or concrete terms. There is a lot of organizer-speak in the formal explanation on their website, but in short, the Momentum Model seeks to fuse mass protest direct action with “structure-based organizing,” a generalized term for what is essentially Alinskyite organizing.

Mass protest is clear enough: minimal structure and leadership, appeals to the general public, and putting as many people on the streets as possible. Mass protest relies on moments of public and community outrage, combined with charismatic leadership and deployment of forms of communication, like local press, radio, church pulpits, social media networks, etc. 

Alinskyite community organizing, of which ACORN is the most successful example, is the local and issue-focused work of building small organizational “bases” in contained areas where there can be a relative advantage for a base of well-organized people. Alinskyite community organizing relies on paid organizers who develop organizational (not political) “leaders,” who in turn cultivate volunteers or activists. Staff is necessary because the work is very intensive and incremental. Small wins prove the value of the organization, which helps develop more leaders and recruit more activists etc. 

The Momentum Model “hybridizes” these two approaches into a “cycle” (this cycle isn’t quite described as being sequential): “escalation,” where people engage in mass nonviolent action (like the summer 2020 uprisings against police violence); then “absorption,” where these newly activated people are “brought into the movement,” which means directing people looking for political direction towards “asks” or simple tasks–another way to say “mobilizing.” This is a quote: “Absorption can mean new people signing an online petition, joining a mass call, or attending an orientation training.” Note the examples used. 

It goes on: “Good absorption doesn’t just move people onto a ladder of engagement — it puts them on an elevator of engagement so that the most enthusiastic new leaders can step into high levels of responsibility quickly.” It is unclear what the practical difference between a “ladder of engagement” and “elevator of engagement” is, unless it is meant to suggest that whereas a ladder requires the person climbing it to put in effort, an elevator allows people to passively move upwards. (Note, the Momentum Community website has recently become private, thus the lack of links). 

After “escalation” and “absorption” comes “active popular support,” which seems to be the articulation of specific demands on power (“defund the police”), which after being made can both “absorb” people and contribute to “escalation” into mass protest or direct action. 

Whether the Momentum Model is good, or works, is not really the point. Clearly it has been effective sometimes and less effective at other times. This isn’t a wholesale critique of that model. What is interesting for us is that the Momentum “cycle” is not a model for building a democratic, mass organization. The words “democratic” and “democracy” do not appear anywhere in the thousands of words describing the Momentum Model. 

It is a model for building campaigns. It developed in a material system where metrics and engagement are critical to getting grant funding; campaigns show good metrics through  “engagement,” (“volunteers sent one million texts”). That can certainly be effective for building an organization. The more effective your organization is (or looks) the more easily money will flow into the organization, whether from major foundations or from other types of “partners,” like large progressive unions, who see it as a viable partner on a particular issue.

But just because campaign engagement metrics impress funders and influential progressive leaders, that does not mean it will bring masses of people into it in a sustained way that will keep them engaged and committed to the organization for years. 

The Work is Important but Needs Meaning 

Obviously a political organization has to do things–it has to run campaigns, it has to show that it can be effective and win things. But winning campaigns is not the same as building a resilient and democratic organization. To the contrary, a rapid cycle of campaigns that rely on intense staff involvement and reliance on a “core” of super-activists can be a recipe for burn-out, disappointment, and, importantly, frustration with the speed of decision-making that excludes deliberative and collective decision-making. Deliberation and decision-making have to work, together with the experience of struggle in campaigns to change a person and win their loyalty for a lifetime. That forms a strong foundation that makes a movement and an organization difficult to destroy. 

Socialists shouldn’t idealize democracy or confuse “meetings” with “organizing.” But we should deeply connect the two things. Deliberative democracy and organizing activity have to be so deeply entwined with each other that they cannot be separated. Members have to, to the maximum degree possible, feel that they are the collective owners of the organization. Organizations should strive for bigness; should try to break out of the “anti-politics” of parochial localism; and should build for resiliency and durability, even when it is less exciting than a short-term win or the allure of proximity to power.

The post Break the Cycle appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

by Lara

As this administration, aided and abetted by Grima Wormtongue’s Elon Musk’s illegal and illegitimate DOGE, dismantles the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Parks, Forest, and Weather Services while also razing legislation protecting people and the environment they are part of [1], the ensuing smoke may obscure our ability to see what we can do about these egregious actions of selfish short-sightedness. The world around us is on fire and many who hold great power are also those who are wielding the flamethrowers, uncaring who gets hurt, so long as the mountain of money they sit on top of is high enough to prevent they themselves from burning and provided there are plenty of opportunities to amass more money mountains and power off of the charred wastelands they’ve created. While they may be financially rich, they are morally bankrupt, having stolen these mountains and at the expense of Earth, her flora and fauna, including humans that are not a part of this kingly cohort. While we may not have the financial power of these heartless hoarders, we have power nonetheless and the ability to significantly improve our understanding of the biological implications of climate change. Ash can make for fertile soil but the world need not burn for goodness to grow.

The plight of Cassandra, granted the power of premonition but cursed with never having her prophecies be believed because she refused the advances of a powerful being, may be somewhat familiar to climate scientists and activists. Climate change is a frightening reality we all face, whether we believe in its existence or not, as are innumerable other related environmental issues, including microplastics hindering photosynthesis and the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). In the face of such enormous issues, the temptation to lay still and wait in terror is understandable, the way moa might have once stood unmoving to avoid being spotted by Haast eagles hunting overhead. While standing still was likely an effective way to avoid the aerial eagles, it likely did little to help them evade humans who hunted them to extinction. When we do nothing in the face of horror, we might die a different death than the one we are trying to avoid, but we all will still someday die, and if we don’t adapt to the new circumstances, we all will go extinct.

While it can be frightening, accepting reality is the first step towards changing it—and is also incredibly empowering. The spin of the Earth has changed under the crushing mass redistribution of the Three Gorges Dam. Earth’s tilt has changed due to all the groundwater we have withdrawn. Our atmosphere’s global average temperature has increased 2 degrees F since 1850. (Note: the global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 6 degrees cooler than present day). Less than 25% of Earth’s ice-free land is wildlands. Our species has already “achieved” the inconceivable. It is not at all impossible that we can also drastically alter our world for the better.

This is not an article to scare you, shame you into changing a pattern of activity, or demand that you single-handedly save the world, but to share with you a lesser-known avenue to improve our collective understanding of how organisms are responding to climate change. This can ultimately aid conservation efforts and biodiversity, and can deepen our personal connections with nature. 

Phenology—not to be confused with the racist pseudoscience phrenology—is the study of the seasonal timing of organisms’ life history events, such as the timing of budding, flowering, migration, egg-laying, hibernation, and leaf loss. Phenological events uphold ecosystem function and structure, impacting species interactions and ecosystem services including foodwebs, population dynamics, carbon cycling. All of these things affect us—we are a part of nature and nature is a part of us—but modern life has distanced many from the life-giving roots that sustain us. Our health, agriculture, and the economy/tourism sectors are impacted by phenology. By participating in community science programs centered around phenology, you can play a vital role in our survival and that of other species.

Making, recording, and uploading simple phenological observations does not require a lot of time (it can take as little as 5 minutes a week) or rigorous scientific training. Nature’s Notebook is an excellent community science program (with extensive learning resources) for phenology. Researchers have used data submitted by community scientists to answer a variety of questions, including about how to predict the allergy season, how male and female trees are responding to temperature changes, and how to assess the risk of fire based on flower presence. Participants can also use this powerful platform to answer their own phenological questions, visualize data, and track changes over time, or help answer existing research questions by joining a pre-existing campaign. If you are interested in being a part of a local group or have any questions, please reach out to me on Slack—I am happy to help.

In the face of the all-encompassing, complex issue of climate change, it is easy to feel ineffectual—particularly when the primary drivers of the problem are systems and corporations that are vastly larger than any one individual.  According to a 2017 study, 25 corporations produced more than half of all global emissions (100 corporations have produced more than 70%) since 1988. The endless consumption of capitalism is not compatible with a sustainable world. Capitalism, in practice, has boiled down to exploitation: of people and of natural resources, with devastating consequences. Though the spirit of humanity is arguably unconquerable (though still should not be crushed by jackboots), our natural resources are finite, as is the window of time we have to mitigate forthcoming climate cataclysms. 

Addressing the outsized power of major corporations, holding them accountable for their actions, and changing the systems that allowed the commodification of natural resources are worthy things to work towards, but they are not the only worthwhile ways to have a significant positive ecological impact. By making and sharing simple natural observations, we can improve our collective understanding of how organisms are responding to climate change to ultimately aid in their conservation and the protection of the systems they are part of. Participating in phenology-based community science programs not only connects the complex global issue of climate change to what is happening on a local level, it also gives us an opportunity to shift focus away from what we cannot achieve alone but rather on what we can accomplish together. As Rebecca Solnit puts it, “The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean that we cannot save anything, and everything we can save is worth saving.”

While improving our understanding of the biological impacts of climate change helps everyone, making routine phenological observations can have subtle personal benefits. By paying attention to phenological changes, wonders previously unnoticed may reveal themselves to you, such as the subtle splendor of leaf buds unfurling or the return of a small moth species. Though there are only four seasons meteorologically, during the growing season, new plant and animal activities occur about every two weeks here in the Northeast. To reflect this, Janice Goldfrank proposed 19 seasons, to highlight each cast of new species to take stage in her book “Field Guide to the Seasons.” By visiting the same individuals (if observing plants) or places (if observing animals), you may begin to notice the changes within these subseasons and gain a greater appreciation for and understanding of the organisms you share a space with. 

Nature is a great respite—it asks nothing of us, it allows us to simply be as we are—allowing us to temporarily set aside the troubles of our times and then to return to advocate for a better world recharged. And advocate for a better world we must. As John Kastner put in the Sierra Club Rochester Regional Group’s Ecologue (Volume 55, Issue 1), “Neither our children, nor most of the Earth’s population, nor any of the earth’s vast diversity of non-human life got us into this fix that now threatens us all. We, who can still speak and act on this problem, owe it to the rest of life to solve it. The future is never a foregone conclusion.” Perhaps Cassandra would find comfort in this sentiment. 

[1] Including, but not limited to:

2009 Endangerment Finding, which is part of the Clean Air Act that links greenhouse gasses to the dangers they pose for human health and wellbeing, that has served as a legal underpinning for much of the nation’s actions to mitigate climate change 

Components of the Clean Water Act 

The Migratory Bird Act

Clean Air Act Exemptions may be issued for industrial polluters

The administration is also removing climate data from government websites and attempting to illegally revoke lawfully appropriated funding for climate grants

“Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don’t be afraid,” Frederick Buechner

The post Changing with the Seasons first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

By Erica T. and Gabriel E.

Efforts by the executive board of Northwest Oregon Labor Council (NOLC) to affiliate the Portland Police Association (PPA) leave us no choice but to speak out as rank-and-file members of unions (AFT and Teamsters) affiliated to the NOLC. The Labor Council is the largest federation of local unions, which speaks to local and state politicians on behalf of labor.

As trade unionists, we see through this cynical attempt by the police to shield themselves from accountability and budget cuts. They’ve gotten used to bloated personnel and equipment budgets, absurd overtime payouts, and immunity for violent misconduct. But with four socialists elected to City Council, the police union is suddenly trying to brand itself as a “friend of workers.”

We don’t buy it.

For years, the police association stood by and watched while city workers faced and fought job cuts and Portland residents suffered diminished public services. Even now, with $60 million in cuts on the docket for community centers, parks, and roads, the Mayor’s proposed budget does not recommend any cuts to the police bureau. Why? Because police help enforce the business interests of the wealthy, business owners, and the capitalist class.

When City of Portland workers represented by LIUNA Local 483 struck in 2023, dozens of local unions turned members out to the picket line, bringing pallets of water and boxes of food. To be fair, the police did show up — to harass the picket at the wastewater treatment plant in North Portland. Nobody walking the picket line was sporting any PPA gear. The PPA is completely out of step with the values of organized labor.

What is a police “union” for?

Police unions do engage in collective bargaining, but their purpose extends far beyond negotiating their contract. In 2012, Portland Police officer Christopher Humphreys was suspended for beating to death James P. Chasse Jr., who was unarmed and suffering from mental illness. What was the PPA’s response? They fought to overturn the suspension and then marched through downtown, sporting signs that said, “I Am Chris Humphreys.”

Has the police union undergone some sort of rebirth since 2012? Absolutely not. The PPA’s own past immediate President, Brian Hunzeker, was fired after he and another officer colluded to leak false information about then Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty to the The Oregonian and conservative political group Coalition to Save Portland, in hopes of smearing Hardesty’s character. This misconduct cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the subsequent settlements.

Their recent opposition to mild police accountability measures, including Resolution 2025–047 (a measure to clarify bias standards for the Community Police Oversight Board) is their latest effort to avoid accountability for extreme acts of violence and racial bias. This freedom from oversight is not a “privilege” any of us would expect, nor desire, in our own jobs and workplaces.

Also this year, PPA members used the legal authority of their jobs to intimidate labor-backed elected officials who publicly support police accountability. As The Oregonian recently documented, five on-duty officers — two wearing Portland Police Association-branded baseball caps — descended uninvited on Councilor Sameer Kanal’s February 2025 town hall. The officers, dispatched by North Precinct Commander Rob Simon, lingered silently amid constituents, creating a palpable tension that erupted in jeers from attendees.

Days later, Councilor Angelita Morillo encountered a similar tactic: two uniformed officers appeared unannounced at a Montavilla neighborhood event she attended, lurking at the back of the room without engaging attendees. When Morillo approached them for answers, they refused to identify the lieutenant who ordered their presence and abruptly departed.

Armed officers leveraging their union’s insignia and state-sanctioned authority to surveil critics not only violates principles of worker solidarity, but it erodes public trust in law enforcement’s role as community partners. We’re proud that Councilors Kanal and Morillo — both DSA members — did not concede to PPA intimidation.

Why the cops’ sudden interest in labor?

Labor unions are more popular than at any time in generations, but the percentage of Americans who say they have a “great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police” is now at 48% — a twenty-year low. It’s clear why the cops want to infiltrate the labor tent. It’s equally clear that PPA’s inclusion in the labor council would be extremely divisive, based on their recent history of intimidation, bullying, and misconduct against labor-back elected officials, and actions of intimidation at the picket lines of striking workers.

In 2020, Pacific Northwest unions turned out members to support the #BlackLivesMatter movement; many local unions passed resolutions supporting the aims of the Black Live Matter movement, including accountability for police here in Portland. Up in Seattle, the local labor council voted in 2020 to eject the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild, citing the council’s commitment to dismantling racism:

“As a union movement, it’s our responsibility to fight for all forms of justice. In the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, we believe that there can be no justice without racial justice. Any union that is part of our labor council needs to be actively working to dismantle racism in their institution and society at large. Unfortunately, the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild has failed to do that work and are no longer welcome in our council.

Since the killing of George Floyd, communities of color in Seattle and around the United States have spoken loud and clear that the status quo will no longer be tolerated. We have listened to our community and responded by doing the right thing.”

As rank-and-file union members, we took our unions’ commitments to fighting racism seriously. It’s clear our comrades in other unions feel the same way. A petition backing NOLC delegates who oppose the PPA affiliation is approaching 400 signatures in less than one week; signatories are rank-and-file members of 34+ local unions from the building trades to the service sector — public workers at the City of Portland and beyond.

What’s next?

Labor Council delegates, who represent each of the affiliated locals, will vote on the PPA’s affiliation bid on April 28th. In the meantime, rank-and-file union members continue to organize to demonstrate our opposition. On April 13th at 6pm, Portland DSA Labor is hosting a Zoom event featuring author and local union member, Kristian Williams, in conversation with local union rank-and-file. Williams is the author of “Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America” as well as the forthcoming book about Portland, Policing the Progressive City. We are esteemed that retired Oregon Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Secretary-Treasure Deborah Hall will facilitate the event. RSVP here for the Zoom info.

As unionists we must see every struggle as an organizing opportunity. If you are a member of NOLC, talk to your co-workers about this issue. Ask them to oppose the addition of PPA to your Labor Council. Add your name to the growing list of unionists demanding no cops in the Labor Council!

More than 10,000 people in dozens of towns across Maine turned out on April 5 to tell Trump and his billionaire pals, “Hands Off!” Portland City Councilmember Kate Sykes rallied the crowd and laid out a political perspective for building a long-term movement than can get stand up to Trump and get to the root of the multiple crises that predated him. — Photo credit @bradleirce

Let me hear you, Portland!

Thank you, Indivisible, for bringing us together. And thank you—every single one of you—for showing up today. How many of you are here attending a political action for the first time?

Let’s hear it for everyone who stepped outside their comfort zone today to be here. This is what we need to build this movement. Now, I know how a lot of us are feeling right now: afraid, angry, exhausted. Because the attacks are real. And they are relentless. We’re watching hard-won freedoms come under attack: civil rights, reproductive rights, voting rights. And what did we come here to say to that? Hands off!

[Read next: New England DSA protests ICE detention]

We have billionaires and bigots rewriting federal policy to enrich themselves, while families right here in Maine are losing jobs, losing homes, and getting priced out of the very neighborhoods they helped build. But here’s what we need to remember: this agenda didn’t start today. It didn’t start with this administration. It’s the latest chapter in a decades-long campaign of austerity against regular working people. Ever since the New Deal showed that government could be a force for public good, the right wing has been trying to tear it down.

They’ve spent generations eroding trust in government, de-funding public housing and handing power—and our future—to corporations and the ultra-rich. This current president didn’t start that. He’s just the loudest, most chaotic version of it. And now he’s proving they’ll go to any length—even attacking the foundations of democracy—to get their way. And yes—too many Democrats have gone along with it.

They traded bold vision for cautious compromise. They chased bipartisan agreements instead of standing firm with working people. They’ve been afraid to confront corporate power—and now we’re all paying the price. 

Over the last four years, critical programs introduced during COVID have just vanished.

Rental relief? Gone.

The child tax credit that kept families afloat? Gone.

Not stripped away by the far right—but quietly allowed to expire by people who should have known better. By people who promised to fight for us—and didn’t.

And here in Maine, we’re seeing the same thing: cuts to General Assistance. Cuts to shelter reimbursements. Cuts to childcare workers’ wages. This is what happens when government stops leading with values—and starts bargaining with bullies. And those cuts land right here, in Portland. Because we are the last line of defense. And so what are we here to say? Hands off! So what’s at stake when government stops investing in people? Everything we’ve built.

Here in Portland: We’re operating the only city-run homeless services center in the state—and we’re doing it without adequate support from Washington or Augusta. We’re fighting for higher wages—but wage justice means nothing if the price of healthcare, housing, and groceries keeps rising. We’re pushing for social housing, defending rent control, and helping tenants organize—but every cut to housing assistance chips away at our ability to protect each other.

Our public library is a lifeline—for kids, for elders, for job-seekers and unhoused neighbors—and yet we face staffing shortages and budget constraints year after year. Parents rely on before- and after-school programs so they can work—but those programs are stretched thin, and families are stuck on waitlists. This is what it looks like when higher levels of government cut funding, shift blame, and leave cities to clean up the mess. So what do we say to that? Hands off!

Here in Portland—and all over the country—we are not backing down. We are organizing. We are building. We are fighting—with solidarity, and love for one another. We didn’t get here overnight. No, it took steady work: ballot initiatives. Local campaigns. Council races. School board seats.

[Read next: The method to Trump’s Medicaid cut madness]

Not just when Republicans were in power—but when Democrats held the majority, too.

So what do we do now—when the punches are coming from every direction, and it all just feels like too much? What we’ve always done: we organize. 

Our opponents will try to distract us. And that’s exactly what’s happening now: Executive orders. Tariffs. Talk of annexing Canada and Greenland. Attacks on trans kids, immigrants, teachers, the arts, and reproductive care. It’s all designed to keep us confused, isolated, and running in circles—while the billionaires rob us blind.

But you know what the billionaires in power fear the most? This. Right here. A movement that’s grounded. Organized. Principled. And growing.

They like to call us “radicals”….so let’s remember what that word really means: it means rooted.

Rooted in history. Rooted in the sit-down strikes of the 1930s. In the Civil Rights Movement. In Stonewall. In the radical suffragists who fought across race and class. Rooted in community. Rooted in the fight for the common good. 

Rooted in the deep knowledge that if we want to solve the problems we face—we have to go to the root. Not patch the symptoms. Not tinker around the edges. But dig deep—and organize from there.

So let’s find our root—together. Wherever you are right now, feel your connection to the ground. Take a deep breath in… Let it go and drop your shoulders. Sink your weight into your root. Because that is where our power comes from. And while you’re there—ask yourself: who are you here for? Who gave you the courage to stand up today? Whose memory do you carry in your bones? Maybe it’s your mom—who worked double shifts to keep the lights on and still showed up to every school play.

Maybe it’s your neighbor—who learned a new language, drove a forklift to put both kids through college, and still brings extra food to the block party. Maybe it’s your own kid—who’s counting on us to leave them something better than this mess. That’s your root. That’s your why. Hold that feeling. Stay connected to it. Because when the distractions come—and they will—that’s how we stay steady. That’s how we remember what we’re fighting for. Not just in theory—but in action. Because solidarity isn’t just a word—it’s a practice.

And solidarity is how we win: One tenant meeting. One budget fight. One picket line. One door, one conversation, one act of courage at a time. Resistance isn’t a moment. It’s a practice. And we’re in this together.

I’m so proud of you, Portland. Let’s keep up the fight!

[Read next: We’ll need popular resistance to defend trans rights in Maine]

The post Thousands say Hands Off Maine! appeared first on Pine & Roses.

By Erica T. and Gabriel E.

Efforts by the executive board of Northwest Oregon Labor Council (NOLC) to affiliate the Portland Police Association (PPA) leave us no choice but to speak out as rank-and-file members of unions (AFT and Teamsters) affiliated to the NOLC. The Labor Council is the largest federation of local unions, which speaks to local and state politicians on behalf of labor.

As trade unionists, we see through this cynical attempt by the police to shield themselves from accountability and budget cuts. They’ve gotten used to bloated personnel and equipment budgets, absurd overtime payouts, and immunity for violent misconduct. But with four socialists elected to City Council, the police union is suddenly trying to brand itself as a “friend of workers.”

We don’t buy it.

For years, the police association stood by and watched while city workers faced and fought job cuts and Portland residents suffered diminished public services. Even now, with $60 million in cuts on the docket for community centers, parks, and roads, the Mayor’s proposed budget does not recommend any cuts to the police bureau. Why? Because police help enforce the business interests of the wealthy, business owners, and the capitalist class.

When City of Portland workers represented by LIUNA Local 483 struck in 2023, dozens of local unions turned members out to the picket line, bringing pallets of water and boxes of food. To be fair, the police did show up — to harass the picket at the wastewater treatment plant in North Portland. Nobody walking the picket line was sporting any PPA gear. The PPA is completely out of step with the values of organized labor.

What is a police “union” for?

Police unions do engage in collective bargaining, but their purpose extends far beyond negotiating their contract. In 2012, Portland Police officer Christopher Humphreys was suspended for beating to death James P. Chasse Jr., who was unarmed and suffering from mental illness. What was the PPA’s response? They fought to overturn the suspension and then marched through downtown, sporting signs that said, “I Am Chris Humphreys.”

Has the police union undergone some sort of rebirth since 2012? Absolutely not. The PPA’s own past immediate President, Brian Hunzeker, was fired after he and another officer colluded to leak false information about then Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty to the The Oregonian and conservative political group Coalition to Save Portland, in hopes of smearing Hardesty’s character. This misconduct cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the subsequent settlements.

Their recent opposition to mild police accountability measures, including Resolution 2025–047 (a measure to clarify bias standards for the Community Police Oversight Board) is their latest effort to avoid accountability for extreme acts of violence and racial bias. This freedom from oversight is not a “privilege” any of us would expect, nor desire, in our own jobs and workplaces.

Also this year, PPA members used the legal authority of their jobs to intimidate labor-backed elected officials who publicly support police accountability. As The Oregonian recently documented, five on-duty officers — two wearing Portland Police Association-branded baseball caps — descended uninvited on Councilor Sameer Kanal’s February 2025 town hall. The officers, dispatched by North Precinct Commander Rob Simon, lingered silently amid constituents, creating a palpable tension that erupted in jeers from attendees.

Days later, Councilor Angelita Morillo encountered a similar tactic: two uniformed officers appeared unannounced at a Montavilla neighborhood event she attended, lurking at the back of the room without engaging attendees. When Morillo approached them for answers, they refused to identify the lieutenant who ordered their presence and abruptly departed.

Armed officers leveraging their union’s insignia and state-sanctioned authority to surveil critics not only violates principles of worker solidarity, but it erodes public trust in law enforcement’s role as community partners. We’re proud that Councilors Kanal and Morillo — both DSA members — did not concede to PPA intimidation.

Why the cops’ sudden interest in labor?

Labor unions are more popular than at any time in generations, but the percentage of Americans who say they have a “great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police” is now at 48% — a twenty-year low. It’s clear why the cops want to infiltrate the labor tent. It’s equally clear that PPA’s inclusion in the labor council would be extremely divisive, based on their recent history of intimidation, bullying, and misconduct against labor-back elected officials, and actions of intimidation at the picket lines of striking workers.

In 2020, Pacific Northwest unions turned out members to support the #BlackLivesMatter movement; many local unions passed resolutions supporting the aims of the Black Live Matter movement, including accountability for police here in Portland. Up in Seattle, the local labor council voted in 2020 to eject the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild, citing the council’s commitment to dismantling racism:

“As a union movement, it’s our responsibility to fight for all forms of justice. In the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, we believe that there can be no justice without racial justice. Any union that is part of our labor council needs to be actively working to dismantle racism in their institution and society at large. Unfortunately, the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild has failed to do that work and are no longer welcome in our council.

Since the killing of George Floyd, communities of color in Seattle and around the United States have spoken loud and clear that the status quo will no longer be tolerated. We have listened to our community and responded by doing the right thing.”

As rank-and-file union members, we took our unions’ commitments to fighting racism seriously. It’s clear our comrades in other unions feel the same way. A petition backing NOLC delegates who oppose the PPA affiliation is approaching 400 signatures in less than one week; signatories are rank-and-file members of 34+ local unions from the building trades to the service sector — public workers at the City of Portland and beyond.

What’s next?

Labor Council delegates, who represent each of the affiliated locals, will vote on the PPA’s affiliation bid on April 28th. In the meantime, rank-and-file union members continue to organize to demonstrate our opposition. On April 13th at 6pm, Portland DSA Labor is hosting a Zoom event featuring author and local union member, Kristian Williams, in conversation with local union rank-and-file. Williams is the author of “Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America” as well as the forthcoming book about Portland, Policing the Progressive City. We are esteemed that retired Oregon Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Secretary-Treasure Deborah Hall will facilitate the event. RSVP here for the Zoom info.

As unionists we must see every struggle as an organizing opportunity. If you are a member of NOLC, talk to your co-workers about this issue. Ask them to oppose the addition of PPA to your Labor Council. Add your name to the growing list of unionists demanding no cops in the Labor Council!

Thorn West: Issue No. 229

State Politics

• The California State Senate has restricted press access to legislators, while in both chambers of the legislature, a large number of bills under consideration are designed to shield information from the public.

• Former Los Angeles area Congressman, Xavier Becerra, who also served as President Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary, has joined the pool of high-profile Democratic candidates vying to be Governor Newsom’s successor in 2026.

City Politics

• Following a Los Angeles Times California Pubilc Records Request, the Mayor’s office asserted that it was not obligated to release texts sent by Mayor Karen Bass during the immediate response to the wildfires. Now, the Times is suing the city.

• Mayor Bass and a contingent of councilmembers traveled to Sacramento to request help from the state in making up what is projected to be a billion dollar budget shortfall. The city council is also proposing the creation of a citizen’s budget advisory group.

• The city council voted to expand the Fair Work Week ordinance to include fast food workers. The ordinance entitles workers to receive their work schedules 14 days in advance, in addition to other protections, and originally only applied to retail workers.

NOlympics

• An angry tirade delivered by Councilmember Tim McCosker during a council session has drawn attention to the “backroom deals” that have diverted many of the 2028 Olympics venues out of the city.

Transportation

• Earlier in the month, lawyers for Metro, the transit authority that oversees public transit across LA County, argued that Metro projects within city limits do not have to comply with Measure HLA, a citywide safe streets ballot measure. This week, Metro unveiled a redesign of Vermont Avenue that adds dedicated bus lanes, but does not include bike lanes, which would not be HLA-compliant.

• Metro is currently considering several proposals for a public transit alternative to the 405 freeway. Transit activists are advocating for underground heavy rail. This week, community meetings about the project were abruptly cancelled. A subsequent update from Metro asserts that they will be rescheduled.

Housing Rights

• The LA County Board of Supervisors has voted 4–0 to strip over $300 million from the budget of the Los Angeles Homelessness Authority (LAHSA), which administers homelessness services for both the city and county. The county will instead administer the funds through a new County-only agency. Mayor Bass and several councilmembers, including recently elected DSA-LA councilwoman Ysabel Jurado, opposed the move. LA Public Press spoke with several unhoused people about their experiences and frustrations with LAHSA. Today, the CEO of LAHSA resigned, citing the county’s decision as the motivating factor.

Environmental Justice

• CalFire has released a new draft of the fire hazard zone map for Southern California. The new map unsurprisingly expands the area in Los Angeles County zoned as hazardous.

• Dwell interviews Dr. Lucy Jones—who for years advised the city about earthquake preparedness—about climate change resiliency in Los Angeles, including what steps can be taken locally, without the support of the federal government.

The post County BOS Divests From LAHSA + Metro Refuses to Comply With Measure HLA Guidelines appeared first on The Thorn West.

The Trump administration is carrying out a historic power grab. The Republicans are trying to cut taxes for billionaires, gut public services and environmental regulations, destroy unions, and intimidate workers. To distract and divide the working class, the Trump Administration is ramping up deportations of immigrants and attacking LGBTQ+ folks, abortion rights, and racial justice […]

If you think that you would like to be a staff organizer, here are five important steps you can take.

The post 5 steps to becoming a staff organizer within your union appeared first on EWOC.

Ronan Farrow’s March 24, 2025, New Yorker article on the case of Sean Williams, one of America’s most prolific sexual predators, exposes more than just individual evil—it reveals systemic rot. For years, Williams drugged, raped, and recorded assaults on dozens of women and children in Johnson City, Tennessee, while local police ignored, dismissed, or even enabled his crimes, according to Farrow’s reporting. Federal prosecutor Kat Dahl’s efforts to hold him accountable were met with obstruction, retaliation, and eventual firing.

Police as Enablers, Not Protectors

From the beginning, the Johnson City Police Department (JCPD) appears to have treated Williams with alarming deference. When Mikayla Evans fell five stories from his apartment—an incident suggesting foul play—officers delayed securing evidence, allowed Williams to tamper with security footage, and left his apartment unsupervised, according to the New Yorker article. Later, when Dahl pushed to investigate rape allegations, detectives are alleged to have shrugged off victims, mocked her concerns, and slow-walked warrants. Their indifference wasn’t accidental; it was systemic.

Williams himself claimed he bribed officers through an ex-girlfriend, Alunda Rutherford, alleging payoffs to avoid scrutiny. While these claims are contested, the JCPD’s behavior fits a pattern: according to the audit by the Daigle Law Group, between 2018-2022 officers failed to even interview suspects in 69 out of 105 rape cases with identified perpetrators, routinely closed sexual assault investigations prematurely, and ultimately paid a $28 million settlement to survivors—a tacit admission of systemic failure.

Class, Power, and Impunity

Business owners like Sean Williams get treated as a special class of people that are better than the rest of us. He wasn’t just some lone criminal—he was a wealthy businessman embedded in local power structures. His depredations were open secrets, his drug trafficking an unspoken perk for those who turned a blind eye. Even while evading arrest, he moved freely, exchanging texts with one prominent real estate agent, according to court records, and selling at least three properties in Johnson City. This is how class operates under capitalism: connections and capital buy impunity, while working-class victims—especially women—are disbelieved, shamed, or ignored.

The police’s contempt for survivors reflects broader societal problems. Victims like Briana Pack and Kaleigh Murray were dismissed as unreliable—too drunk, too traumatized, or too “uncooperative.” When Dahl warned that Williams might be targeting children, Chief Karl Turner brushed her off. Compare this to how police treat petty theft or drug use among the poor: relentless pursuit, brutal enforcement, and prison time. The system punishes regular people while shielding predators who operate with money and influence.

The Failures of “Justice” Under Capitalism

The JCPD’s internal report admitted systemic failures—interrogating victims like they were suspects, closing rape cases without investigation—but no high-ranking officials faced consequences. Instead, the city has agreed to pay $28 million in an attempt to bury accountability under legal settlements.

This isn’t unique to Johnson City. Across the U.S., police departments resist oversight, budgets balloon while social services starve, and survivors of sexual violence are gaslit by the very systems allegedly intended to protect them. The Williams case is extreme but not exceptional—it’s the logical endpoint of a capitalist system where justice is commodified and power and wealth flow to those who already have the most power and wealth.

Johnson City Needs a People’s Budget, Not a Bigger Police Budget

According to the Tennessee Lookout, City Manager Cathy Ball “has had the power to initiate an internal affairs investigation for the past two years that could scrutinize the actions and conduct of those implicated in the Williams case, including herself.”

Instead, Ball ordered any internal investigation be put on hold until the resolution of the class action lawsuit, court records show. That lawsuit is settled. What now?

Change won’t come from polite requests. It will take organized tenants, workers, and survivors showing up at town halls, budget meetings, and elections to demand justice.

For a start, we are calling for community-based Town Halls to discuss this issue, as well as future issues, where the Johnson City Commission can listen to us without the strict limits that city commission meetings place on our time and our experiences, where only twelve people can speak for a total of three minutes each. We need to have a say in what happens next.

But transparency and dialogue are not enough. There is also the question of money. At the time Dahl filed her federal civil complaint in June 2022, the city budget granted police $15,526,561 of the General Fund. The current city budget, drafted by Ball’s office last year and approved by our current mayor and three of our sitting commissioners, increased that figure to $19,370,928. That’s a raise of nearly four million dollars for a police department whose malpractice is set to cost us tens of millions more, to say nothing of the harm it facilitated.

The choice before Johnson City is about priorities.

We demand the Johnson City Commission freeze the police budget and invest funds where they belong: in public trauma care for survivors, affordable housing to stabilize families, and mental health responders and mediation teams that replace police where appropriate. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re what happens when we put victims before wealthy business owners.

Change won’t come from polite requests. It will take organized tenants, workers, and survivors showing up at town halls, budget meetings, and elections to demand justice. The money exists. The power exists. The people must come together and demand it.

When fascism ascends, the conventional opposition often proves surprisingly ineffective, even complicit. This paradox becomes comprehensible when we understand not just political theater but the underlying material interests at play.

The established opposition shares more with its supposed adversaries than with the working people it claims to represent. Both mainstream parties ultimately serve as different management teams for the same economic system. While they disagree on methods and rhetoric, they agree on fundamentals: the primacy of profits over people and the necessity of maintaining existing class relations.

This explains why resistance proves tepid. Meaningful opposition to fascism requires challenging concentrated power—both political and economic. Yet the liberal donor class, its leadership’s personal wealth, and its institutional inertia all align against such confrontation. They fear genuinely popular movements more than they fear their ostensible rivals.

Historical evidence confirms this pattern. In Weimar Germany, the right-liberal German People’s Party and left-liberal German Democratic Party supported various authoritarian consolidations in the name of anti-Communism. The former backed the declaration of martial law in Prussia that helped clear the way for Hitler’s rise, and the latter’s deputies even backed the Enabling Act that granted Hitler dictatorial powers in 1933.

In Italy, liberal parties sought accommodation with Mussolini rather than alliance with labor movements. In Chile, centrists undermined Allende before embracing Pinochet. In each case, property proved more sacred than people.

The theatrics of political conflict mask this deeper unity. Congressional hearings produce sound bytes but rarely consequences. Speeches condemn excesses while budgets fund them–witness Biden’s expansion of prison facilities. Legal challenges drag through courts staffed by identical interests. Electoral campaigns promise transformation but deliver continuity.

Meanwhile, those proposing systemic change—democratizing the economy, redistributing power, prioritizing human needs over profit—are branded dangerous extremists. This framing serves a dual purpose: it distances the opposition from more forceful alternatives while positioning them as the reasonable middle ground in a fabricated spectrum.

The left is particularly threatening because it names the root causes that mainstream discourse obscures. It connects political authoritarianism to economic dominance. It reveals how “normal politics” laid the groundwork for fascist acceleration. It demonstrates that defending democracy requires extending it into workplaces, communities, and economic planning.

The liberal opposition’s vulnerability stems from its contradictions. It cannot mobilize popular energy without raising expectations it has no intention of fulfilling. It cannot articulate a compelling alternative while committed to the system generating the crisis. It cannot build effective solidarity while serving interests fundamentally opposed to collective power.

Most crucially, it cannot win by seeking the approval of institutions already compromised. Courts packed with ideologues, media owned by billionaires, electoral systems designed to diffuse popular will—these will not save us. Yet the opposition remains institutionally incapable of moving beyond these channels.
In this light, the demonization of the left serves a critical function. By positioning leftists as equally extreme as fascists, the opposition justifies its own inadequate middle path while delegitimizing the very forces most committed to substantive resistance.

The lesson is clear: we cannot outsource our defense to those who benefit from the same system as our opponents. True opposition must come from below—from organized communities unbound by the constraints of electoral calculation or donor appeasement.

The path forward demands independent organization, material solidarity, and the courage to envision a world beyond the false choices offered by those who would rather manage our descent than risk the emergence of genuine democracy.