“…For anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world.” – Sanhedrin 4:9:1

This article is not intended to shock the reader as a means of persuasion, but it does contain some references to war crimes and crimes against civilians. Proceed with caution.

There is nothing valorous about war. It is one of the greatest evils of humanity. In the 20th century alone, well over one hundred million people were murdered in the course of armed conflict, and millions more died of the deprivation and disease war brought to their communities. The vast majority of those casualties were civilians and conscripts who had no way to avoid their lives being destroyed by the tools of warfare.

In the West, fear of another global conflict that could directly touch the U.S. and Europe faded in the three decades following the end of the Cold War. Russia was no longer the leader of an explicitly anti-Western bloc of nations; China was a dependable trading partner of the U.S.; and both allowed the U.S. to enforce its will on the Global South and Middle Eastern countries including Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. The U.S. exercised its imperial influence on these countries under the guise of “nation -building” or “safeguarding democracy,” with limited success. Media figures and politicians actively encouraged people in the West to ignore the conflicts they engineered elsewhere. They urged us to treat their wars as simultaneously righteous manifestations of democracy, necessary civil rights interventions, distant and ancient conflicts, and complicated statecraft irrelevant to the life of the average citizen.

War no longer feels so distant. In 2022, Russia’s war in Ukraine brought an active war zone to the borders of the European Union for the first time in two decades. The following year, Israel launched a campaign of genocide to permanently end the possibility of an independent Palestine. This campaign has repeatedly expanded into attacks on neighboring states to force them to submit to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and the Israeli far right dreams of conquering large swaths of the region.

These developments alone threatened global peace, but it was Donald Trump who took the idea of unlimited war to a new level. He has used his unilateral authority as “Commander-in-Chief” of the U.S. armed forces to illegally seize and destroy boats on the open sea, kidnap the President of Venezuela, repeatedly threaten an invasion of Greenland, illegally blockade the island of Cuba, and launch a war against Iran that began with the assassination of entire sections of the Iranian government, in flagrant violation of the laws of armed conflict. He has also repeatedly floated the idea of using the U.S. military as a domestic occupying force to illegally cement his dictatorial rule.

At a time when global conflict is becoming more common and more likely to escalate, we must remember that there is no such thing as a just war. There is no such thing as a necessary war. Waging war is a crime committed against working people and the most vulnerable in any society.

We must stand up as one and reject war unequivocally.

* * *

All U.S. presidents of the 21st century have unilaterally expanded their military power. After the political and military disaster of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the 1973 War Powers Resolution into law. This law reasserted its authority to regulate the president’s ability to wage war by imposing time limits on the amount of time a military action can continue without congressional approval. In recent decades, Congress has consistently refused to hold the president to account for repeated violations of this law.

In the patriotic frenzy following the September 11th Attacks, Congress granted sweeping powers to President George W. Bush to intervene anywhere in the Middle East through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It was extremely broad, granting the president the authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”. Bush used this authorization to justify the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as military strikes across the greater Middle East. These wars wasted trillions of dollars, killed nearly one million people, destabilized the region, and reasserted a presidential prerogative to wage ill-conceived wars anywhere in the world.

Obama quietly expanded his military authority through his extensive use of drone warfare, asserting his right to order the killing of any person anywhere in the world. Biden made less intensive use of drones than Obama, but he did not take any steps to limit the powers of future presidents. He does deserve some credit for ending of the twenty-year war in Afghanistan, though his long history of support for war, militarism, and empire building, and the subsequent resurgence of reactionary rule in that country, must also be taken into account in any holistic evaluation of his record.

Trump has taken the power to wage war to the extreme, untethered as he is by any sense of morality or propriety. He imagines his powers as president to be nearly absolute, and there is no telling how far he may escalate his military recklessness as he becomes increasingly unpopular, embattled, and unhinged.

All presidents have known on some level that what they are doing is morally and legally indefensible. The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in large part because politicians fear it could prosecute U.S. military and civilian leaders for the numerous war crimes they have committed over the last five decades.

The Bush administration took this exceptionalism a step further. In 2002, Bush signed a law (nicknamed the “Hague Invasion Act”) authorizing the President to “to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person […] who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court,” which includes the use of military force to invade the headquarters of the ICC in the Hague, Netherlands. This law is still on the books today and could be invoked by Trump or any future president.

* * *

Liberals have justified war for centuries, treating it as another tool in the geopolitical arsenal. This is why Democratic establishment figures like Chuck Schumer have quietly cheered Trump on in Iran from the sidelines. They disagree with Trump’s procedural ineptitude, not his stance on the necessity of bombing Iranian cities. They see war as an extension of normal political levers of power.

Meanwhile, the far-right treats war as a rite of passage, the ultimate way to prove valor, courage, and loyalty to their ultranationalist project. To that end, they use the violence of war as a way to motivate their followers to interpersonal violence, turning the methods of imperial domination perfected thousands of miles away on their own people.

Trump has repeatedly shown that he engages with the seriousness and tragedy of war as if it were an exercise in childish imagination. He has repeatedly insisted that military personnel killed in action are “suckers” and “losers.” His administration spliced footage from the video game Call of Duty into a montage of missile strikes on Iran. He nonsensically claims that a new class of U.S. battleships (widely considered to be nearly a century out-of-date in an era of drones and high-altitude precision air strikes) will be “100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” as if he were taunting a schoolmate on the playground.

If it is true that “war is all hell,” as the famous and earnestly serious appeal to peace by Civil War-era General William Tecumseh Sherman has it, then Trump, self-styled “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, and their brand of chickenhawks imagine themselves to be the Doom Slayer. In their minds, they are the macho heroes of a video game, gunning down endless waves of demonic enemies with no sense of danger, consequence, or moral weight.

As central as violence is to the far-right project in America, Trump has normalized engaging with it in a totally unserious way. The Bush administration spent nearly a year lying to sell the war in Iraq to the American people; Trump launched his strikes on Iran effectively without warning, and has faced no consequences for doing so.

* * *

The reality both factions deliberately obfuscate is that civilians always bear the overwhelming cost of war. The numbers are horrific in their own right, but they get worse when we consider that record numbers of civilians have been displaced by armed conflict – over 122 million as of 2025. War crimes against civilians are also rising at an alarming rate, in part due to a lack of regard for international agreements and the tendency of far-right governments to use dehumanizing rhetoric and escalating violence to achieve foreign policy goals.

These trends have only become more acute in the era of unrestricted drone warfare, where soldiers use modified Xbox controllers to pilot weapons of war from air-conditioned bases. The use of enormously powerful explosives to “mistakenly” destroy civilian targets no longer requires risking the lives of U.S. military personnel. These drones are the bane of the existence of millions across the Middle East, parts of Africa, and across the world, and they are the ultimate expression of the U.S. war machine’s demand that it be allowed to violate the sovereignty of any nation anywhere in the world to assassinate its enemies.

Most of the wars raging around the world today are not conflicts between two well-defined nation states. They are most often messy civil wars with multiple competing sides that drag on for decades with no end in sight. There is no valor to be had in such a war, only grinding death.

Embargos and sweeping economic sanctions are warfare by other means. They are more palatable in foreign policy circles because they are a relatively “easy” way to politically coerce smaller, less powerful economies that do not require commitment of soldiers or materiel. But the overwhelming costs of embargoes are felt by the poorest civilians, not leaders. As one academic report puts it: “Economic sanctions are the modern equivalent of a siege.” Sanctions impose immense hardship on civilian populations and often cause mass deprivation and even starvation.

Sanctions are also a way to “punish” left-wing governments for adopting pro-worker policies that harm foreign interests. For example, the U.N. estimates that the U.S. has drained $130 billion from the Cuban economy since the blockade was imposed in the early 1960s; without the blockade, it is easy to imagine that Cuba’s economy could be as strong as Vietnam’s, which has experienced immense growth in the past few decades. An example of socialism “working” in a country with so much cultural contact with the U.S. would be destabilizing to neoliberal and neo-fascist political narratives, however, which is why our government has repeatedly intervened to sabotage left-wing governments around the world innumerable times in the last hundred years.

* * *

Trump’s war in Iran deserves special consideration in all this, in part because it is arguably the most ill-conceived war in American history. Even David Frum, the morally detestable cheerleader for the Iraq War, openly states that Trump started this war on a “whim.”

In addition to serving as a billion-dollar market manipulation to enrich himself and his allies, Trump’s Iran war is a test to see if his political base will let him get away with genocide, as evidenced by his suggestion last month that he would destroy Iranian civilization. Every indication shows that they will.

Right now, the only thing preventing the president from launching an unprovoked nuclear strike against a non-nuclear state is the kind of unwritten consensus Trump loves to violate. Even the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the organization that created and maintains the “Doomsday Clock,” is expressing alarm at the possibility. Trump recently insisted that he has no intention to use a nuclear weapon against Iran, but there is no reason to think he wouldn’t change his mind at any time in the next two and a half years.

A nuclear strike on a civilian population is unquestionably a method of genocide carried out in a matter of hours rather than months or years. It also inflicts unimaginable and wholly unnecessary physical suffering on survivors. Contrary to popular consensus, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not militarily justifiable. Seventeen years ago, comedian Jon Stewart rightfully stated that Harry Truman should be considered a war criminal for his decision to use nuclear weapons on civilians. America being what it is, he was forced to apologize for his remarks.

The world is now one tweet away from Trump declaring that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against his enemies anywhere in the world is permissible under U.S. and international law. Such a proclamation and the accompanying use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state would unleash an unimaginable new era of terror on the world.

* * *

We live in a dangerous time. As tempting as it might be for the left to cheer on the collapse of the American global military hegemony, what follows will almost certainly be worse. Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Trump, and any number of tinpot authoritarians cannot be left to carve up the world into political and economic spheres of influence. This is exactly what the current international system was set up to prevent. We must remember that the laws of that system were written in the blood spilled by countless millions in the Second World War. If we allow those institutions to crumble, that horror will descend on a new generation.

There is not a single armed conflict the United States has waged since the Second World War that was morally or politically justified against its human cost. In most U.S. political discourse, this would be considered an eminently radical statement. But if we are to stand with oppressed people everywhere around the world, the victims of war are among the highest on the list of those who need and deserve our solidarity.

There is no such thing as a just war, or a justifiable war. We do not need to be “bleeding hearts” to recognize that war has never served our interests as working people, and that innocents bear the overwhelming cost of wars waged for territory, wealth, geopolitical influence, “regime change,” and genocide.

International law is unusually sweeping in allowing United Nations member states to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world. Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, and all manner of other butchers and warmongers can and must be held accountable for their horrible deeds. There is no statute of limitations to expire. Every war criminal is subject to prosecution for the rest of their natural life.

It is up to us to build a world where justice for the victims of war is not only possible, but inevitable – a world in which war itself is rendered obsolete as a tool of punishment, extraction, and oppression.

The post War is a Blight on Humanity appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

At the upcoming Chicago Democratic Socialists of America chapter convention on June 6, members will debate a proposed rewrite of our chapter’s bylaws. This proposal was the product of the Local Democracy Commission (LDC), an appointed body of seven members tasked with developing a comprehensive consensus package of structural reforms to improve the day-to-day operations of our chapter.  

Our commission was able to agree on the vast majority of changes to the bylaws, and made substantive improvements and clarifications that we all believe will greatly benefit the chapter. But the commissioners had some substantial disagreements on how to structure the Executive Committee (EC). A majority of the commissioners supported a near-identical version of the proposal which was brought forward at the March General Chapter Meeting (GCM) and failed to secure the two-thirds majority of votes needed to adopt a change to the bylaws. We’re happy that the LDC was able to agree on so much, but we think the membership should have the option to choose between the two visions for the chapter’s executive leadership. 

Our concerns aren’t solely structural: we see the makeup of the EC as a fundamental political and organizing question as well, and we feel a few key changes are still needed to maintain structural connections between the membership and leadership, help the leadership move the membership behind chapter priorities, and limit the potential for siloing. So, in keeping with the guidelines set during the establishment of the LDC, we’re proposing an amendment to address these concerns.

Our Proposal

Currently, the EC is composed of eight officers and proportional representation from the territorial branches, as well as a Labor Branch delegate and a YDSA delegate. As the chapter has grown, so has the EC; the body is set to have roughly 30 members in June. Our existing bylaws also include a provision that empowers the EC to appoint a Steering Committee (SC) to handle many of the day-to-day issues that require leadership attention but don’t call for substantive debate, such as small expenses or approvals of minor requests from chapter groups. Any decision made by the SC can be overturned or revised by a vote of the full EC.

The proposal that was submitted at the March GCM reduced the EC to 11 members by eliminating all branch representation, and removing the voting authority of the Political Education Coordinator, among others. The base proposal also did not formalize an SC to handle day-to-day administrative decisions within the executive body. The main substantive difference between the March GCM proposal and the one introduced by the commissioners who supported it was the inclusion of a seat for a “labor coordinator” elected by the entire membership, rather than a delegate elected by the Labor Branch, in the way all other branch delegate seats are currently elected. We felt this change did not substantively address the concerns that members had with the earlier versions of the proposal, and did not move far enough from the failed March proposal to seek consensus and compromise with the concerns then expressed. 

We agree with the other commissioners that, because the demands of executive-level leadership can lead to burnout, a much smaller executive body is needed to allow for sustainable middle-layer organizational development. But we need a political leadership that is present across the chapter, can move an all-volunteer membership through organic connections, can coordinate operational units, and, critically, has an incentive to build consensus. 

We believe that by removing branch delegates and not formalizing an SC, the base proposal actually risks working against these interests. On the contrary, that structure would likely create a greater burden for EC members, sever the point of connection between branch-level leadership and the central executive body, and set up potentially adversarial relationships between the executive leadership and the branches.

Our alternative proposal reduces the EC by about 50% from its projected June size, down to 16 seats. This EC would still include an SC composed of seven members — the two Co-Chairs, Secretary, and four “at-large” members without specific officer duties elected by the full membership — to free up valuable organizing capacity for EC members and open up more space at EC meetings for political discussion. Its minimum 4-vote threshold keeps it in line with the minimum vote threshold of the base proposal, which has a quorum of 6 for the 12-person EC.

Ten of the 16 EC members would be elected by the full membership of the chapter: two Co-Chairs, Secretary, Treasurer, Membership Engagement Coordinator, and Political Education Coordinator, and the four at-large members. Other officer-level positions, such as Communications and Campaigns, could be opened up to the membership or appointed from among the EC’s elected at-large members, as the EC or GCM decides. The four territorial branches and the institutional branches (e.g., the Labor Branch) would each have one delegate, as would YDSA. 

Ten generally-elected members and six branch delegates ensures a structural majority for generally elected members. The territorial branch delegates would be elected by the membership of the branch and would have a seat on the branch steering committee. The Labor Branch delegate would be elected by the Labor Branch members, and the YDSA delegate would be elected by local YDSA chapters.

Our Reasoning

This proposal addresses the major pain points members raised in our outreach as commissioners: that branch leadership should be able to focus primarily on branch work; that generally elected members should hold the majority of elected seats; that we need a nimble body to handle day-to-day administrative and political decisions; and that the executive body should have fewer seats to encourage more competitive elections. 

As part of our work, members of the LDC looked at the structures of similar-sized chapters with high recruitment and retention statistics. The 16-member EC in our proposal is in line with three high-performing chapters in our tier of membership size: Portland DSA (the most successful chapter at recruitment and retention outside of New York City) has 14 seats; Twin Cities DSA had between 14 and 17 seats until February 2026 (including branch and labor delegates); and Philadelphia DSA has approximately 15. There are other well-performing chapters with smaller bodies, but Portland, Twin Cities, and Philadelphia were the best-performing in recruitment and retention. (See Tables 1 and 2 for more context on these figures;  “LQR Rate” is the rate of “lapsers and quitters minus reactivators,” a metric that essentially reflects member attrition.) Portland in particular has had much recent electoral and labor organizing successes.

However, there is an important caveat: we do not believe that success follows from structure itself. As the tables below show, there is not a strong correlation between things like EC size, proportion of at-large members, or number of officers, and different metrics of success. What we found, however, was that of the most quantitatively successful chapters we identified, 14-17 was a common and reasonable range. 

Certain elements of our EC’s composition have significant impact on the organizational health and functioning of the entire chapter, and we want to state those stakes clearly. 

Branches Matter! 

This is a belief we share with the other commissioners, who have argued that branch delegates should be removed from the EC to free them up to focus on the work of expanding branch-level organizing. While we don’t disagree with the spirit of that argument, we’ve instead proposed that each branch be given one delegate seat on the EC to maintain a formal connection between each branch and the central leadership body. 

We believe that direct connection between branches and the EC is necessary to avoid siloing or pushing branch leadership to take on even more work to stay abreast of developments across the chapter and in leadership. Labor Branch already has this setup within the current EC: One dedicated delegate is tasked with liaising between the branch and the leadership as a voting EC member with substantive input, while the rest of their SC dedicates its organizing efforts towards branch and chapter work. This has been an effective model, and we believe it will serve the chapter’s operations well.

The EC is Not a Legislature—The GCMs Are

We see the function of chapter leaders elected to the EC not as representatives who advocate on behalf of a constituency, but as leaders who facilitate the work of the chapter by being embedded in it. The EC is not a legislature—that’s the GCM. Rather, it is a body delegated to efficiently execute the will of the membership between GCMs.  

What’s more, the high rate of member turnover means that, at any given time, a significant portion of the membership aren’t connected to its leaders and didn’t vote in the most recent leadership election. In a typical year, 18-25% of members lapse or quit, while 15-25% of the chapter consists of new members recruited that year — meaning roughly 35-50% of the membership composition turns over annually, presenting major operational challenges for even the strongest chapters.

Conclusion

Should this amendment fail, we are concerned that the EC will become disconnected from chapter formations, sitting above them and overly factionalized in the way similar structures in other chapters have been prone to factional domination. There is also a real risk of this structure creating an adversarial relationship between leadership and membership, with an EC that is factionally proportional but not set up to implement the inherent compromises that emerge from GCM decisions, in part because it will not be composed of operational units. Most importantly, we are concerned that without this amendment, the EC may drift from its practical leadership function and begin to act more as a policy-making body detached from the membership.

In developing this amendment, we’ve prioritized a scientific approach, drawing from recruitment and retention data from comparable chapters, our own chapter’s recruitment and retention data over time, an analysis of the purpose of an executive executory body versus a legislative body, and a practical study of how members become organically connected to the central leadership. We believe this proposal is a balanced compromise between the original proposal that failed at the March GCM and what we have seen work in Chicago and comparable chapters. Our proposed amendment addresses the consensus complaints with our current structure, while holding the chapter together at the highest level. We hope the membership will agree, and consider voting in support of our amendment. 

Additional Findings

For members’ convenience and reference, here are some additional data that we put together in the course of our research. There was more, but less relevant here.

Table: Metric 1. This shows the membership density of “Huge” and “Extra-Large” DSA chapters based on members per 1,000 residents in their territory. Most chapters are within range of each other; there are local factors that are important (such as geographic spread) and contextual politics is likely heavily determinative of this figure.

Table: Metric 2. This is a simple table showing the percentage of members in a chapter who either pay monthly dues or are enrolled in Solidarity/Income-Based Dues (SIBD), a measure of commitment intensity.

The post A Vision for a Lean, Political, and Effective Executive Committee appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Events & Actions

Tuesday May 19 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) Ecosocialist Bi-Weekly Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Wednesdady May 20 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM) Guarantee Act Petition Dropoff/Pickup (Mission Playground, 36 Cunningham Pl)

Wednesday May 20 (6:00 PM – 7:30 PM) What is DSA? (1916 McAllister St)

Thursday May 21 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM) Social Committee (zoom)

Thursday May 21 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM) Education Board Open Meeting (zoom)

Thursday May 21 (6:00 PM – 7:00 PM) Immigrant Justice Regular Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Friday May 22 (9:30 AM – 10:30 AM) District 1 Coffee with Comrades (2 Clement St)

Friday May 22 (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM) Maker Friday (1916 McAllister St)

Sunday May 24 (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM) Physical Education + Self Defense Training (Panhandle, William McKinley Monument)

Sunday May 24 (1:00 PM – 3:00 PM) DSA Spring Picnic (William McKinley Monument, Panhandle)

Sunday May 24 (5:00 PM – 6:00 PM) Tenderloin Healing Circle Working Group (zoom)

Monday May 25 (6:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Tenderloin Healing Circle (Kelly Cullen Community, 220 Golden Gate Ave)

Monday May 25 (6:30 PM – 8:00 PM) Homelessness Working Group Regular Meeting (1916 McAllister St.)

Monday May 25 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) DSA Run Club (McClaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park)

Monday May 25 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Labor Board – Flex Meeting (zoom)

Tuesday May 26 (5:30 PM – 7:00 PM) Social Housing Working Group (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday May 26 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Public Transit Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Wednesday May 27 (6:45 PM – 8:30 PM) Tenant Organizing Working Group Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Thursday May 28 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) Public Bank Project Meeting (zoom)

Thursday May 28 (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM) Bilingual Emergency Planning Training: How to Show Up for Immigrants at Their ICE Check-Ins (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Friday May 29 (9:30 AM – 10:30 AM) District 1 Coffee with Comrades (in person at 2 Clement St)

Sunday May 31 (1:00 PM – 2:30 PM) What Is DSA? (in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Monday June 1 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) DSA Run Club (in person at McLaren Lodge)

Monday June 1 (7:00 PM – 8:00 PM) Labor Board – New Union Organizing (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister St)

Tuesday June 2 (6:30 PM – 7:30 PM) Ecosocialist Bi-Weekly Meeting (zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

We kicked off our campaign for the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act!

Come out to Mission Playground this Wednesday, May 20th anytime between 6 and 8 PM to drop off filled out petitions and pick up fresh petitions! We’ll train you in signature gathering and get you set up everything you need. Come help us guarantee our affordable housing funds!

RSVP here.

Join our Community Forum for wide-ranging discussions

We’re holding our Community Forum from 12-3 at the DSA SF Office. This will be our first run of the event, so we’re focusing on members first before rolling out to a wider audience, and we’ll be soliciting feedback and suggestions from attendees.

The goal of the event is to facilitate a discussion around concrete issues that people are concerned about at the global, national, and local levels, to discuss how problems that seem distinct are often interconnected through the logic of capitalism, and how socialism can tackle these challenges by targeting the roots.

EWOC Fundamentals of Workplace Organizing Course: Reportback for Weeks 2-4

The four week long Fundamentals of Workplace Organizing course had its final session this past Sunday. Our cohort was 8 to 12 comrades strong and we learned about the building blocks of organizing. These trainings are run regularly, with the next one coming up Tuesdays in July. You can find out more details here!

During the second session, the big idea was “socialize before you organize.” Building real relationships with coworkers outside of work creates the trust you need before any organizing conversation can actually happen. We talked through the 80/20 rule, 20% asking questions and sharing, 80% listening. The goal isn’t to come in with your own list of issues, but to get curious about what your coworkers care about and let them articulate what’s wrong in their own words. From there, you can start connecting people to each other and turning individual frustrations into collective ones, since a problem affecting one worker likely affects another. We also got into some of the practical strategies as well, such as not having organizing conversations at work or on internal communications tools like slack, always updating your chart afterward (if you don’t write it down, it didn’t happen!), and never assuming someone will say no before you’ve actually had the conversation. A few people shared updates on their own charting, including one person starting a chart at their workplace who got connected with another attendee organizing at the same company! We wrapped up talking about what makes someone “organizable”, things like prior social connections or signs they care about a cause, and how to redirect hopelessness by pointing to workplaces where organizing has actually won.

The third week’s plenary focused on “Campaigns and Collective Action,” and after watching it together we dug into how an organizing committee actually moves from building relationships into running a campaign. A big theme was structure tests: the idea that every action doubles as a diagnostic for how much cohesion you actually have. You want to front-load smaller, lower-stakes actions (stickers, swag, socials, asking OC members to commit to 1:1s, getting a question upvoted at an all-hands, raising an issue in a visible internal forum) so that if something flops, it flops early and tells you where the gaps are. Someone made the point that in tech especially, demands tend to be more amorphous than in service-sector campaigns, so you often have to get creative about what counts as an action. We also talked about how the most common failure mode isn’t unclear messaging but workers not feeling like others have their back, which is really a 1:1 trust problem dressed up as a communication problem. Recruiting natural workplace leaders into the OC matters a lot, and tactics like anonymous-signature open letters can lower the risk threshold for people who are nervous about visibility. On scope, we got into how a campaign can carry a #1 and a #2 issue rather than shoehorning everyone into one demand, with the Starbucks example as a reference point (pay and benefits across the board, hours and scheduling shop-specific). Identifying the actual decision-makers, which often means going past your immediate manager to the board, shareholders, or execs, came up as something bosses actively try to obscure. We closed by touching on the spectrum from business unionism to class-struggle unionism, with the sense that tech organizing probably can’t stop at the business-unionism layer. Recommended reading from the discussion included *What the Boss Doesn’t Want Us to Know*, *Class Struggle Unionism*, and *Unions of Our Own*.

The final session went over inoculation, which is the practice of preparing your coworkers against common talking points the boss and anti-union coworkers may share. We used the Union Busting Bingo Card to practice responses and reasoning behind the canned responses that union busters will have. Our scenarios went over phrases including “We’re already making those changes”, “If you don’t like it then don’t work here”, “You can always come to us”, and “We’ll give you a pizza party <or any kind of small gimme>”. We also discussed how to respond to concerns about immigration/work status being threatened and the myth that unions only ask for raises so that they can get more union dues. The boss is your strongest organizer because inoculation can prove to your coworkers that the boss isn’t there to support the workers and that they’d rather read from a union-busting playbook than respond to worker demands.

If you’d like to get involved with the SF local chapter of EWOC, reach out to the lead coordinator Caitlin S or email labor@dsasf.org. EWOC is a standing topic at meetings of the Labor Board, which are held every other Monday at 7:00 PM, both in-person at 1916 McAllister and over Zoom. Anyone is welcome to attend, and we’re always looking for people interested In workplace lead canvassing, organizer trainings, and volunteer outreach. If you’re interested in organizing your workplace and would like to be connected with an EWOC organizer, fill out the request form here.

Shasta County DSA faces the challenge of organizing in a rural, heavily Republican corner of far northern California — but years of persistent effort have paid off.

The post North California Home to New DSA Chapter appeared first on Democratic Left.

Procedure Steps

1. The Chapter Member(s) wishing to make an expenditure request (hereafter referred to as the “Requestor”) fills out and submits the Milwaukee DSA Expenditure Request Form at least one (1) week in advance of any deadlines associated with the request.
2. The Chapter Finance Team and/or Chapter Treasurer (hereafter referred to as the “Reviewer”) reviews the request within one (1) week. The Reviewer then determines if the request meets the following:
   • Criteria:
     • If the request meets both these criteria, the next steps of this procedure are then performed. If the request fails to meet any of the above criteria, the Reviewer denies the request and informs the Requestor of the reason(s) for denial, after which this Procedure is complete and no further steps are necessary. 
     • It is qualified for consideration according to the Governing Documents of Milwaukee DSA
   • If the request meets both these criteria, the next steps of this procedure are then performed. If the request fails to meet any of the above criteria, the Reviewer denies the request and informs the Requestor of the reason(s) for denial, after which this Procedure is complete and no further steps are necessary. 
3. The Reviewer determines what body of the Chapter is required to approve or deny the request (hereafter referred to as the “Grantor”), and refers the request to the appropriate party.
4. The Reviewer contacts the Requestor to inform them of the date, time and location at which the Grantor will consider the request, and asks if the Requestor or another person is available at that date and time to explain and motivate the request to the Grantor.
5. The Grantor approves or denies the request at the next available opportunity, and informs the Requestor of their decision. 

Purpose

The Internal Communication and Moderation policy will ensure that chapter communication spaces remain welcoming, constructive, and aligned with the DSA’s Code of Conduct for members as well as Milwaukee DSAs Online Code of Conduct policy and Meeting and Events Code of Conduct.  By establishing consistent moderation practices and clear guidelines, this Policy will help facilitate productive discussion, reduce disruptive behavior, and protect the ability of members to organize effectively online. 

Community Standards

1. At all chapter meetings and events, members must adhere to the Policy: Meeting and Event Code of Conduct.
2. For all online communication, members must adhere to Policy: Online Code of Conduct. 
3. Members may appeal a moderation decision through the Procedure: Moderation Appeal Process. All thoughts and concerns regarding a moderation action may not be shared on public platforms. Any questions regarding a moderation appeal or action must be asked privately and directly to a moderator or HGO.

Platforms

1. Milwaukee DSA members may use the Discord server, moderated by the chapter (hereafter referred to as the chapter Discord) to communicate with other active members, to discuss among themselves as individuals, and to advocate for their own individual perspectives. With the exception of announcements from moderators or duly elected or appointed chapter officers, posts are understood to represent individual opinions, not official decisions or positions of the Milwaukee chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
2. Signal should be used occasionally, concisely and for person to person, immediate communication. Signal may also be used in the event that said communications need to be encrypted.
3. The Milwaukee DSA Signal Chat has been terminated. There is no official Milwaukee DSA Signal Chat. 
4. The primary official method of outreach shall be through regular direct outreach to members and supporters at the contact information they have shared with DSA and Milwaukee DSA (e.g., email newsletters and occasional phone calls or texts). Chapter officers shall organize this outreach. Outreach using chapter contact lists shall be conducted using DSA resources to ensure members’ privacy. Scripts and emails shall be approved by duly elected or appointed chapter officers to ensure that they reflect the collective decisions of Milwaukee DSA.

Role Definitions

1. Moderators: members who moderate and monitor discussion in chapter chat servers
2. Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs): responsible for overseeing the investigation of Members accused of engaging in prohibited behavior according to the Harassment Policy (Resolution 33) of DSA. See chapter bylaws for more detail. 
3. Administrators: Maintain membership in the chapter chat server, adding in new members and channels plus removing members who are no longer in the chapter. Admin roles will be given to mkedsaoutreach@gmail.com and milwaukeedsa@gmail.com and be maintained by the Secretary, Outreach Officer and Communications Officer. More admins will be added on an as needed basis.

Role of Moderators

1. To remove, mute or ban any content or person that does not follow all applicable codes of conduct and policies 
2. To document all incidents in which the moderation team removed, muted, or banned content or persons
3. To seek advice from those on the moderation team for guidance on how to proceed with member infractions/removals
4. To cooperate with Chapter HGOs in the event of content needing to be retrieved for an HGO filing
5. To keep discussions and other chapter business on topic and concise
6. To receive feedback from members regarding content or user interactions, and clarify to members why the moderators modified their participation in the chapter server
7. Provide 48 hour notice to members who receive infractions or banning

Guidelines for Moderation Actions

1. This set of community guidelines follows a “three strikes you’re out” guideline for removing members from the chapter server. Once a member has acquired three or more infractions, they will be removed from the chapter server for a year or possibly more, depending on the severity.
   • Infraction #1
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member about how to interact with the chapter chat server in the future
   • Infraction #2
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring.
     • Member will be banned from server ranging from a day to a week, depending on severity
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member about what they can do in the future
   • Infraction #3
     • Member(s) will be notified by a moderator why the content they shared did not follow the Community Guidelines within 48 hours of the incident occurring.
     • Member will be banned from server ranging from one  to indefinitely, depending on severity 
     • Member and Moderator will discuss and/or re-educate the member after the length of the ban time to determine if both parties are ready to bring the member back into the server.

2. Moderators will use their best discretion to enforce all applicable Community Standards (see section I.) and to maintain an orderly and safe place for all members to organize.  
3. At any point a member may discuss with the moderation team about why they received any moderation actions (deleted posts, account banned or muted)  against them. Questions regarding a moderation appeal or action must be asked privately and directly to a moderator or HGO. Members may appeal moderation actions through the Procedure: Moderation Appeal Process. 
4. In the event that a conversation is generally heated and may escalate, a moderator may temporarily put a channel or thread into “slow mode” to allow all parties time to cool down. Moderators should consult other moderators and/or HGO(s) if they chose to put a channel in “slow mode”  

Choosing moderators

1. Chapter Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs) will manage the moderation team under the purview of the Executive Committee; they will not personally moderate membership posts except in the case of inappropriate moderator behavior or when immediate emergency action is needed.
2. There must be at minimum 2 moderators (not including HGOs). The Executive Committee may appoint additional moderators as recommended by the moderation team. Appointed moderators will be subject to a confirmation vote by membership at a General Meeting.
3. Moderators must be members in good standing
4. A Moderator’s term shall be no longer than 1 year following their confirmation vote, unless reappointed by the Executive Committee. All moderators are subject to appointment or reappointment by the Executive Committee in June each year.

Purpose

A primary goal of DSA is to be welcoming and inclusive to our members and others who share DSA’s core values of liberty, equality, solidarity, as well as our commitment to restructuring gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable and not oppressive within the context of building a diverse working class movement. As such, we are committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all.

This code of conduct outlines DSA’s expectations for all those who participate in DSA meetings, conferences, and other public-facing events, as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. That includes DSA members, allies, vendors, donors, supporters, and others. We invite all DSA members and allies to help us create welcoming and positive experiences for everyone

1 Expected Behavior

The following behaviors are expected and requested of all persons – including members – who participate in Milwaukee DSA meetings, conferences and other events:

1. Abide by DSA Guidelines for Respectful Discussions and with all applicable Community Codes of Conduct;
2. Refrain from demeaning, discriminatory, or harassing behavior and speech;
3. Participate in an authentic and active way. In doing so, you contribute to the health and longevity of DSA;
4. Exercise consideration in your speech and actions;
5. Share analysis and opinions rather than accusations;
6. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. 
7. Alert a DSA chapter officer if you notice a dangerous situation, someone in distress, or violations of this Code of Conduct, even if they seem inconsequential;
8. Trust your gut if you notice someone who might be an infiltrator, and let a DSA chapter officer know. For DSA resources as to what infiltrators historically do, please read this and this.

2 Unacceptable Behavior

The following behaviors are unacceptable within our community and may lead to the person being subject to our harassment policy or code of conduct and expulsion process:

1. Violence, threats of violence or violent language directed against another person, as well as language which could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging or threatening violence;
2. Concealing, carrying, or brandishing weapons;
3. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language;
4. Posting or displaying sexually explicit or violent material;
5. Posting or threatening to post other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”);
6. Personal insults, particularly those related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability;
7. Inappropriate photography or recording. You should have someone’s consent before taking their photograph and/or recording their voice;
8. Inappropriate physical contact. You should have someone’s consent before touching them;
9. Unwelcome sexual attention. This includes: sexualized comments or jokes; inappropriate touching, groping, and unwelcome sexual advances;
10. Deliberate intimidation, stalking or following (online or in person);
11. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior; Disruption of community events, including meetings, talks and presentations; including by anyone who is in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization, as provided by the DSA Constitution.

3 Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior

3. Unacceptable behavior from any person who attends a Milwaukee DSA meeting, conference, or event will not be tolerated. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately.
4. Infiltrators will be removed from meetings, conferences, and all other events immediately. An infiltrator is defined any of the following: (a) anyone who is advocating for principles or actions which are in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization, as provided by the DSA Constitution (b) anyone who is engaging in systematic/planned disruption of DSA meetings/events/etc. regardless of their stated principles, (c) anyone who misuses DSA data. For example: tracking/compiling/using/disseminating DSA data (lists, minutes, etc.) for the purpose of surveillance, for use by an outside organization, or for other unapproved uses.  
5. If a person engages in unacceptable behavior, Milwaukee DSA leaders/organizers may take any immediate action they deem appropriate, including expulsion from the meeting, conference or event, and without refund in the case of a paid event. Until the chapter can investigate whether the unacceptable behavior violated DSA’s harassment policy and/or any applicable code of conduct, the person may be prohibited from further participation in the organization.

4 Reporting Guidelines

1. If you are subject to or witness unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify a meeting marshal, HGO, or DSA officer (including the elected chapter leadership and/or meeting or committee chair). 
2. Solely as an option of critical need, depending on the nature of the conduct, DSA officers may help community members engage with local law enforcement or to otherwise help those experiencing unacceptable behavior feel safe. At in-person events, organizers will also provide escorts as desired by the person experiencing distress.
3. Chapter HGOs (harassment grievance officers) can assist with filing a grievance for a potential violation of DSA’s harassment policy, Resolution 33, and/or chapter codes of conduct. If an HGO is not present at the meeting, please contact a chapter officer or look on the chapter website to obtain the confidential email address to submit a grievance.

5 Scope

3. We expect all community participants (DSA staff, members, allies, vendors, donors, supporters and others) to abide by this Code of Conduct in all community venues–online and in-person–as well as in all one-on-one communications pertaining to DSA business.
4. This code of conduct and its related procedures also applies to unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members.
5. The Executive Committee may pre-approve appropriate security for any meeting or event if needed. Nothing in this code shall be interpreted as prohibiting security steps deemed necessary by the EC.

More than 300,000 people in Maine are renters who live in one of Maine’s 155,000 units. And almost half of those people are paying much more rent than they can afford. 

In the past decade, many have seen rent increases in the double digits, well above inflation and raises in pay. On top of that, tenants can be evicted for no reason, have their rent gouged regularly, and have very little recourse when a landlord violates the rules.

And yet, most housing affordability solutions in Maine have focused on property tax relief, or some form of homeowner assistance. In reality, on average, property taxes amount to less than 4% of a homeowner’s income, compared to almost 50% of a renter’s income. 

To that problem, I offer the “Tenant Bill of Rights.” This is an action plan pulled from all the best ideas I have seen or based on personal experience as a renter in Maine. While it should be enacted statewide, municipalities can take up many of its tenets as well.

1. Prohibit no-cause evictions. No tenant should be kicked out of their home for no reason, yet the practice is legal and frequent in Maine. Half a dozen states have laws requiring landlords to show “just cause” to terminate/not renew someone’s lease (even New Hampshire, for heaven’s sake). Maine should do the same.
2. Cap all rent increases to the rate of inflation. Right now, as every renter knows, landlords can and do raise the rent hundreds of dollars a month. A freeze tied to inflation, preferably permanent, but for five years would work, will protect hundreds of thousands of Mainers from rent gouging, as we look to longer term solutions.
3. Create a statewide rental registry including rent levels. In order to fully understand the rental housing crisis, and to track the rent gouging which has made thousands homeless, we need a statewide registry of the rent charged for every unit and all increases imposed. This is also essential to administer number two (rent increase cap).
4. Require landlords to negotiate with organized tenant unions. Unions for workers have basic protections. If a majority of employees vote to form a union, ownership must negotiate with them as a unit. While landlords can’t evict tenants for forming a union, landlords are not required to negotiate with them. They should be.
5. Require 90-day notice for all rent increases. When a landlord raises the rent, it is only humane to ensure that they give a tenant a full 90 days to prepare. That creates an opportunity for the tenant to seek a new place, ask for a raise at work, or, most likely, squeeze some other part of their budget to stay housed.
6. Limit security deposits to one month’s rent. One of the biggest detriments to tenants getting an apartment is that under current law, a landlord can ask for two months’ deposit plus the first month’s rent. For a unit renting at $1,500-$2,500 a month, that can be entirely prohibitive. Limiting up-front costs to a one month deposit and the first month’s rent will free up many tenants. And while we’re at it, landlords should be required to pay the tenant back the interest they earn holding that deposit for years.
7. Ban broker/application fees to apply for an apartment. Currently, a landlord can require a tenant to go through a broker to rent an apartment, who, in turn, can charge a tenant thousands to secure the unit. Also, a landlord can pass on the costs of doing a background check. Both should be banned.
8. Allow tenants to recover legal fees/damages for illegal evictions. Current law does not allow for tenants to recover legal fees or damages, even if your landlord does something illegal to you. When mine tried to evict me for organizing a union, we had to raise tens of thousands of dollars, including thousands of dollars of my own money, to fight back. Very few tenants have access to those kinds of resources.
9. Require significant civil penalties against landlords for violations. Right now, landlords in Maine face almost no consequences for breaking the law. The repercussions for health hazards, illegal fees, confiscating deposits, violating lease terms, etc, are basically fix it/pay it back. If the penalty for getting caught stealing was just to return the money, we’d all be bank robbers.
10. Create a cabinet level office to protect tenants. New York City has the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. The office advocates for tenants by enforcing rent laws, reversing housing discrimination, stopping landlord harassment, and preventing illegal evictions right in their tracks. Maine needs the same.

While implementing the above will not end our housing crisis overnight, it will quickly begin to alleviate the economic straightjacket currently burdening renters across Maine. I hope elected officials, candidates, and activists alike take up the torch. 

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post A Tenant Bill of Rights appeared first on Pine & Roses.

The candidate for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District is one of at least 14 DSA candidates on the ballot Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, and Kentucky.

The post Chris Rabb Makes the Establishment Nervous appeared first on Democratic Left.

Las Vegas DSA’s Electoral Working Group (EWG) has prepared a process-driven voter guide targeting Southern Nevada. EWG developed a list of candidates that had the potential to be aligned with our positions, and invited candidates on the list to fill out the questionnaire. Based on the questionnaire responses, EWG made recommendations to the General Body, which approved the following voter guide for publication.

Please note: Las Vegas DSA treats recommendations differently than endorsements. When we endorse a candidate, we commit a significant portion of our chapter resources to fight to get that candidate elected and they are expected to act as representatives of LVDSA. Although multiple candidates sought our endorsement in 2026, only two were endorsed – Val Thomason and Shaun Navarro. The additional recommendations in this guide are intended to help voters with their choices, but they do not imply endorsement.

View the full guide