Economic Justice Financial Justice Organizing Social Justice

Watch: Forum on Politics at the Local Level

This past Sunday, February 5th, Voices for New Democracy hosted our latest monthly political forum exploring the possibilities for progressive politics at the local level with former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and former New York City Council Member Margaret Chin.

Recounting their personal histories of — and motivations for — running for office, Quan and Chin discussed the challenges they faced and the victories they secured in building more just and equitable local politics. The forum covered a wide range of experiences and insights, from Quan’s fight for police accountability and experience battling against well-funded and well-connected opposition in the halls of power and on social media, to Chin’s organizing and phone-banking electoral tactics, her fights for affordable housing, and her efforts to organize progressive BIPOC and women members of the City Council into a majority bloc.

Watch the full forum, including presentations and audience Q&A, below.

Analysis Democracy: Rule of Law & Elections Economic Justice Financial Justice Immigration Organizing Social Justice

Watch: Forum on 2022 Elections and Meeting the Moment

Last Sunday, Voices for New Democracy hosted our latest monthly political forum discussing prospects for the upcoming 2022 elections with friend, contributor, and MIT professor Phil Thompson.

Following up on his recent writings in the New Labor Forum (‘Is Now the Time to Break with the Democrats?: A Debate‘ and ‘Democratizing the Knowledge Economy: Will Labor Accept the Challenge?‘), Thompson contends that today’s moment is the one the Left has been waiting for since the 1970s, and outlined some of the key (and sometimes contradictory) trends of today’s political moment:

  • The rise of the far-right, anti-democratic radicalization among the conservative movement
  • Right-wing attacks on immigrants, labor, climate, and other progressive priorities
  • Timid union leadership hesitant to seize power
  • Long-standing weaknesses and failures of the Democratic party
  • Resurgence of labor organizing among service sector workers and strong public support for unions
  • Left-wing radicalization among young people and certain legacy institutions
  • Progressive movements expanding and pushing local government to the left in strongholds like New York
  • The growth of the knowledge economy and the possibilities it presents for organizing and the role of consumers
  • And much more

Watch the full forum below.

Analysis Democracy: Rule of Law & Elections Economic Justice Global Peace & Collaboration Social Justice

Webinar: Brazil Elections, What’s At Stake?

Brazil’s historic upcoming elections will pit the Worker’s Party’s Lula da Silva against the far-right former President Bolsonaro, and the results will shape the future of the country and global geopolitics.

To make sense of the challenge and understand the high stakes of the elections, the Brazilian progressive legal group Crivelli Advogados is hosting a webinar this Tuesday, October 11th from 7 – 9 pm EST with political analysts and a former Minister in Lula’s government to discuss and analyze the historical moment. Live English translation will be provided, and additional details can be found below.

Click here to register for the webinar.

Panelists will be Ricardo Berzoini, former Minister of Labour, Communications and Social Security during the Lula and Dilma governments, and Fabiano Santos,  political scientist, professor and researcher (IESP-UERJ). The mediation will be by Ericson Crivelli – Labor Law and International Rights specialist.

The polls on Sunday, Oct. 2nd, revealed a more conservative and radical Congress. The initial analysis of specialists shows that if Lula is elected – even with this Congress – there will be openness to dialogue, more possibilities for negotiation and a less adverse scenario.

But if Bolsonaro is reelected, there are risks of authoritarian advancement, reduction of social security, imposition of the conservative agenda, criminalization and even persecution of both social and workers’ movements.

So, how to organize to continue resisting? And how to advance on progressive agendas?

Economic Justice Financial Justice Organizing Social Justice

Watch: Forum on the Future of American Socialism

Last Sunday, Voices for New Democracy hosted our latest monthly political forum with a wide-ranging discussion on the future of American socialism.

The extensive conversation covered key themes in contemporary American political economy and the state of class struggle today. Steve Clark kicked the forum off with a presentation on his latest essay, outlining several important currents in the trajectory of American politics and society, and offered interpretations of how these currents may shape opportunities to build socialism in the United States over the coming years. Thomas Blanton carried the conversation forward, discussing the importance of theory and building partnerships with diverse movements (especially those of oppressed peoples) in advancing a more progressive future. Eric Gill also discussed his perspective on the trajectory of the American left, class formation, modern imperialism, and the contradictions of contemporary capitalism amid the shift to a service economy, drawing on his own experience as a leader of the hotel workers union in Hawai’i. Finally, the forum shifted to an open dialogue drawing out key themes from these presentations.

Watch the full forum below.

Analysis Commentary

September 11 Monthly Political Forum: The Future of American Socialism

Is the present situation in the US a revolutionary situation?

Did Post-Industrialism change the balance of class power in the US?

Is US financial capital on the political ropes?

Will we be living under socialism with American characteristics by the end of this decade?

Yes to all, says Steve Clark, who elaborated and defended his thesis in a recent e-booklet: American Socialism Lacks Vision and Plan: Post-Marxist Social Science Can Help

Join us on Sunday, September 11 at 4 PM PT / 7 PM ET for our next monthly political forum to discuss these questions and more. Steve Clark will briefly reprise his essay, followed by an open discussion and debate. Click here to join the conversation.

Analysis Social Justice

The Handmaid’s Tale is Reality

| Sherri Donovan |

I remember meeting Supreme Court Justice Brennan in his chambers at the Supreme Court when I was in law school. With his eyes sparkling brightly, he told me that it was letters from women around the country that inspired his vote and determination for Roe v. Wade. My late term abortion was traumatic enough when a hole in the stomach of the fetus was discovered. I can not imagine if I would have been forced to carry to full term only to give birth to a dead fetus. I am forever grateful to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Vermont that assisted me with an early abortion. My friend Donna had an ectopic pregnancy and would have been dead if not for her abortion. My mother was forced to do a back alley dangerous abortion in Puerto Rico because abortion was not legal. My daughter is distraught that she and possible children in the future will have less rights than her mother and their grandmother.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will go down in history and herstory as a catastrophic Supreme Court decision. I was appalled that Alito, who writes for the majority compares overturning Plessy v. Ferguson which legalized race segregation to the Dobbs decision which overturns Roe v. Wade and permits the restriction of a woman’s rights to control her own body.

The Dobbs majority completely ignores the Women’s rights movement and advances over the last century and recent decades. It completely ignores that it is a matter of healthcare, life, liberty and privacy for women. The majority opinion refuses to recognize that the clear majority of the US population is in favor of pro-choice. More than two-thirds of Americans are in favor of retaining Roe. One quarter of American women will have an abortion before the age of 45.

The Supreme Court does not mention that this decision is out of step with the rest of the world.  Over the past several decades, more than 50 countries throughout Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas have liberalized their abortion laws. Latin American countries have more reproductive rights than the women in the USA. Only the United States, Poland and Nicaragua have reduced abortion access in the 21st century. Canada has decriminalized abortion at any point in a pregnancy. Most Western European countries impose restrictions on abortion after 12 to 14 weeks, but they often have liberal exceptions to those time limits, including to prevent harm to a woman’s physical or mental health.

The Court without unanimous support overturns precedent of two Supreme Court decisions, Roe v. Wade, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood and more than twenty other cases reaffirming or applying the constitutional right to abortion. There is no change in law or fact that necessitated this drastic, action. As the dissent in Dobbs makes clear, “Casey is a precedent about precedent. It reviewed the same arguments made here in support of overruling Roe, and it found that doing so was not warranted.”

The Alito decision is stuck in the criminal earlier history of abortion. Women were chattel in this country and could not own property, vote or obtain a credit card or law license. How far back would these extreme right judges and appointees of Trump go?  The dissent points out that, “The majority makes this change based on the question: Did the reproductive right recognized in Roe and Casey exist in “1868, the year when the Fourteenth Amendment was Ratified? … Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second class citizenship”. The dissent continues, “…our point is different: It is that applications of liberty and equality can evolve while remaining grounded in constitutional principles, constitutional history, and constitutional precedents. Roe and Casey fit neatly into a long line of decisions protecting from government intrusion a wealth of private choices about family matters, child rearing, intimate relationships, and procreation. … In the Fourteenth Amendment’s terms, it takes away her [a woman’s] liberty.  In conclusion, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer state “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

According to the majority of the US Supreme Court, guns have more rights than women over their bodies. The hypocrisy and blatant political nature of the Dobbs decision is clear. In their opinion June 23, 2022 forcing New York and other densely populated states to allow more handguns in public and causing more danger to the public, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that medieval law imposing arms restrictions – specifically, the 1328 Statute of Northampton – “has little bearing on the Second Amendment” because it was “enacted… more than 450 years before the ratification of the Constitution.” Yet in their ruling the next day, June 24, 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, setting women’s rights back half a century the conservative justices, led by Samuel Alito (who was also in the guns majority) and joined by Thomas, argued precisely the opposite. They justified abortion bans by citing, among others, “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise.” That was written circa 1250 and referred to monsters, duels, burning at the stake – and to women as property, “inferior” to men. The moral hypocrisy about helping families and children is noted when considering that, a state-by-state analysis by public health professionals shows that States with the most restrictive abortion policies also continue to invest the least in women’s and children’s health, as the Dobbs dissent exemplifies.

The dissent begins by stating, “For half a century, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), have protected the liberty and equality of women. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions… Today’s Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life”.  The dissenting opinion written jointly by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer states that the Court is “rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes for the first time in history.” The Dobbs dissent points out that the majority’s brazen rejection of stare decisis, respect for precedent, “breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law.” The dissent said the majority’s refusal to address real world consequences “reveals how little it knows or cares about women’s lives or about the suffering its decision will cause.” The dissent raised questions about rape, incest, threats to a mother’s life, interstate travel for abortion, morning-after pills, IUDs, and in vitro fertilization. The dissent writes, “Most threatening of all, no language in today’s decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest. If that happens, “the views of [an individual State’s] citizens” will not matter … The majority’s refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment,”

Even Chief Justice Roberts admonished fellow conservatives for cavalierly overturning the Roe v. Wade super-precedent. “Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed” Roberts wrote, The majority’s “dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary,” and “a serious jolt to the legal system”.

The concurrence of Clarence Thomas makes specific reference to overturning other well established precedents that rely on the 14th Amendment. He cites Griswald which concerns the right to use birth control; Lawrence v. Texas protecting consensual adult sex and Obergefell granting the right to same sex marriage. How peculiar he does not mention Loving v Virginia which relies on the same constitutional principles and protects interracial marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate concurrence made crystal clear that he would indeed do away with the entire substantive due-process doctrine on which the right to abortion rested. As the Justices Sotomayor, Kagan & Breyer sharply note in the dissent, “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

Pregnant women, health care providers, pharmacists, as well as possibly volunteers, family members, friends and anyone who has significant contact may be investigated, or arrested as suspect if a pregnancy does not end as a healthy birth. Surveillance will certainly increase.  Half the States will move to outlaw or restrict abortion. Will there be trials and investigations if a miscarriage is murder? In certain States, Women now risk criminal prosecution for ordering a day after pill. Health care providers will now have the dilemma of letting women die or suffer serious injury or risk loss of their license or a lawsuit if they perform an abortion. Poor, Black & women of color will be punished the most. Approximately fifty-two percent of women of child bearing age will face abortion restrictions.  During the past four years, eleven states have passed abortion bans that contain no exceptions for rape or incest.  In Texas, already, children aged nine, ten, and eleven, who don’t yet understand what sex and abuse are, face forced pregnancy and childbirth after being raped. States might also ban other reproductive practices, such as in vitro fertilization or the use of intrauterine devices.

What is to be done?

  1. Utilize your First Amendment right to protest.
  2. Join and support reproductive rights organizations and organizations assisting women in States that restrict abortion and other reproductive rights/ birth control options.
  3. Support electoral candidates that advocate for abortion rights.
  4. Get active in the mid-term elections.
  5. Advocate for the passage of federal legislation to codify Roe.
  6. Advocate for the immediate addition of judges to the Supreme Court and other judicial reforms.
  7. Learn and teach women how to protect their privacy to avoid unintentionally providing possible evidence to prosecutors who can get access to information through health care institutions and technological devices.  
  8. Utilize and share the following resources:
  9. If you need to find a clinic or help people find a clinic: 
Global Peace & Collaboration

Watch: Monthly Political Forum on the Threat of World War III

On June 5, 2022, Voices for New Democracy hosted our latest monthly political forum on a pressing global issue: “Are we headed towards World War III?”

Moderated by Dennis Torigoe, our guest speakers Sherri Donovan and Jerry Tung discussed the international crisis of the war in Ukraine, the conditions that have precipitated it, and the broader geopolitical trends that have seen the U.S. becoming more aggressive against China amid the fracturing of American global hegemony.

Watch the full forum below and we invite you to share your own thoughts and analysis around these issues. If you would like to have your response posted for discussion, please email


Democracy, Strategy, Modes of Struggle: The High-Stakes Strife in DSA

| Max Elbaum |

This piece was originally published in Convergence Magazine. We encourage dialogue and debate around these questions; if you would like to publish a response, please email

The campaign in Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to expel U.S. Congressmember Jamaal Bowman is not at the root of the sharp conflict taking place within the organization. But it was the trigger for its escalation into a problem that threatens the future of the organization and has major implications for the entire Left. So before getting to the political differences underlying the bitter disputes underway, let’s start there.

Bowman, a member of the Squad, was first elected in 2020 in a contest where he received DSA’s endorsement. In November 2021, he went on a J-Street sponsored trip to Palestine and met with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet. Then he voted in favor of U.S. funding for Israel’s “Iron Dome” military program.

DSA as an organization is committed to Palestine solidarity in general and to BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) in particular. Bowman did not claim to be representing DSA when taking these actions, and DSA’s membership policies do not forbid members from publicly disagreeing with, or acting in ways inconsistent with, organizational positions. But he is a high-profile figure, and it was both warranted and inevitable that his actions would attract substantial criticism from other members.

A significant number of members raised the demand that DSA should go beyond airing criticism of Bowman’s actions and expel him from the organization. Others disagreed that this was the appropriate response. A major debate within the organization ensued.

From the perspective of building power toward ending U.S. support for Israeli apartheid —the main task of the Palestine solidarity movement in this country—actions other than expelling Bowman would have seemed more in order. For instance, what about DSA committing to a grassroots campaign in Bowman’s district to educate his constituents about Israeli apartheid and U.S. backing for it? Allotting organizational resources, deploying organizers who live in the district and members from other areas, identifying allies, and aiming to build a robust, mass-based voting bloc in that district for Palestinian rights? For that matter, why not launch such campaigns in other districts where there are progressive congressmembers (and local and state electeds) who are on the progressive end of the political spectrum but, because of both their own shortcomings and the weakness of support for Palestine in their districts, do not stand firm on this crucial component of an anti-racist and internationalist agenda?

This kind of effort could help build the clout of the Palestine solidarity movement. By showing that DSA was serious about putting its political muscle where its principles are, it could attract potential allies, including electeds and people considering running for office. It would show that DSA, a disproportionately white organization, is committed to building a strong relationship with progressive Black leaders, Bowman being the most radical Black male in the U.S. Congress. DSA members who participated in such an outward-looking campaign would gain rich experience and be better organizers coming out. And it could educate the entire organization on some home truths about doing politics: you cannot win “at the top” what you haven’t won at the base; elected officials are not the source of radical power; they reflect how much power we do (or don’t) have.

The expel-Bowman effort, in contrast, is inward-looking, focusing more on purifying DSA’s ranks than affecting U.S. policy. And by enlisting non-DSA members’ participation in the campaign to expel Bowman it has added new obstacles to winning broad mass organizations—unions, religious groups, etc.—to adopt BDS; those groups now have to add to their considerations the possibility that their own internal organizational policies will be challenged if, say, a prominent member who does not support BDS indicates that in public. Rather than show that DSA is into building the kind of base that will make it possible for electeds to take positions that are not easy to take in U.S. politics today, it is—consciously or not—a sign that DSA wants electeds to provide a short-cut route to gaining political power.

After a sharp debate in the various bodies and media platforms that DSA members utilize to consider political issues, the matter went to the National Political Committee (NPC) for a decision. The body voted to reject the demand to expel Bowman.

Things didn’t stop there

In a healthy big-tent organization, this vote would have resolved this disagreement.  Democracy means, among other things, respect for majority rule. The national convention is the highest decision-making body of DSA, and that convention elects (or appoints via its elected leaders) bodies that are authorized to make various decisions in between conventions. When a decision is made that some substantial number of members disagree with, they of course can retain their opinions and try to change policy or personnel at the next convention. But until then, decisions of authorized bodies have to stand. Otherwise, an organization descends into a debating society.

That didn’t happen. The campaign to expel Bowman simply continued, with a pressure effort on the NPC to change its vote. Members who disagreed did not simply register that fact, which would be perfectly appropriate. Rather, they utilized official bodies of the organization that are accountable to the leadership (including the organization’s BDS Working Group) to wage an effort to reverse the decision.

The way many of this campaign’s most aggressive advocates conducted it indicated, as noted above, that the issue of Bowman’s mistaken actions in relation to Palestine was not its main driving force. Had that been the case, the central arguments raised would have concerned how elected officials (and socialists’ relationship to them) fit into an effective strategy to build power to change U.S. policy on Israel/Palestine. There is both a rich history and extensive current practice to look at in this regard.

The gains made by the anti-Zionist Palestine Solidarity Committee in the 1980s via work in the Rainbow Coalition, Jesse Jackson’s campaigns, and Harold Washington’s campaigns and administration in Chicago hold important lessons. So do the current efforts to build support for Rep. Betty McCollum’s bill to protect the rights of Palestinian children, which falls well short of BDS but is the key legislative project of groups that are willing to throw down for Palestinian rights, ranging from the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights to M4BL. (A measure of the balance of forces around Palestine in Congress, the bill now has 32 co-sponsors, all Democrats, including Jamaal Bowman.) But no discussion of strategy looking at these experiences was present, much less at the center, of the continuing expel-Bowman effort.

Rather, the political focus of debate shifted to DSA’s relationship to the Democratic Party. The most aggressive proponents of expelling Bowman have expanded their argument and now anchor it in a critique of the Squad, Bernie and other progressives and socialists who believe fighting for multi-racial, gender-inclusive political power at this stage of history requires engaging the fight within the Democratic Party over its direction. The argument is now that those who oppose expelling Bowman don’t take that position because they think it’s better for building Palestine solidarity; rather, they are accused of siding with Democrats against Palestinians and the Palestine solidarity movement.

And, besides the shift in political emphasis, the expel-Bowman forces have shifted their immediate demands and arguments to focus on various organizational decisions made by the NPC.

Let’s sort out both these levels.

The political agenda: break with the Democrats

The combination of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s exciting 2016 Presidential campaign and the victory of Donald Trump triggered a period of explosive growth and political transformation for DSA. Even though Bernie was not a member of DSA, his popularization of “democratic socialism” was a huge boost for the organization sharing that self-definition. The successful campaigns of the four women of color who formed the Squad in 2018, and then in 2020 Bernie’s second effort and the Squad’s expansion to six, carried that momentum forward. DSA works on many battlefronts besides elections, and its members’ involvement in today’s upsurge of militancy and unionization at workplaces is of great importance. But it is mainly DSA’s identification with Bernie and the new wave of progressive congressmembers, and to a lesser extent some important state and local officials, that has driven its growth. And the organization’s capacity to deploy volunteer canvassers has been the main source of its clout.

Despite this trajectory, from 2016 on a portion of the new members who flooded into the organization did not agree with the political strategy of the candidates themselves. Bernie and the Squad operate from the view that defeating a Republican Party now controlled by racist and misogynist authoritarians at every level is a prime task; that this requires building a broad electoral front of all those opposed to the Trumpists and voting for non-progressive Democrats to beat MAGA supporters; and that these tasks need to be done alongside building independent progressive clout. In short, they share an “inside-outside” strategy which involves both unity and struggle with the mainstream forces in the Democratic Party.

A portion of the DSA membership disagrees strongly with this strategy. And within this cohort are several groupings or caucuses with a well-developed alternative. In their view, treating the Democratic Party as a terrain of battle is a fundamental error which inevitably leads to abandoning the socialist project. For them the key task of this period is to establish an untainted revolutionary pole in the mainstream of U.S. political life. To do that it is necessary not only to differentiate this pole’s politics from liberalism and all other left-of-center currents, but also to be completely separate organizationally. Forming a purely working-class revolutionary party is therefore the overriding task, to which all other tasks must be subordinated.

Even with the MAGA bloc aiming to take the country back to some hybrid system combining Jim Crow, Christian supremacy, and McCarthyism, the amount of attention paid to defeating that bloc at the ballot box or anywhere else is seen as a purely tactical matter. So is what kind of relationship should be built with non-socialist progressives or socialists who advocate work that entangles anyone with the Democrats or in any other cross-class alignment. These are to be considered only by the criteria of how they might or might not advance the task of building a revolutionary party, allegedly ensuring the “class independence” necessary for any forward motion in the direction of socialism.

Bernie changes the game

Before Bernie’s campaign, those who held this view opposed voting for anyone on the Democratic Party ballot line without exception. But Bernie’s 2016 campaign, where running as a Democrat he made socialism more popular in the U.S. than it had been in decades, punched a huge hole in that position. It was a factor (though not the only or even the main factor) in the largest group holding that view—ISO—disbanding; in splits within Socialist Alternative; and in many members of Solidarity and partisans of this view with no other organizational affiliation backing Bernie and/or joining DSA.

These activists now acknowledged, as did people with different histories and many newly radicalized individuals, that it was acceptable for socialists to run on the Democratic ballot line. But for many (not all) of these, no engagement beyond that was to be permitted. And DSA should only endorse socialists who promised to prioritize accountability to DSA itself over accountability to the broader progressive coalition that had to be forged for any campaign to be successful. The goal was still to build a self-contained revolutionary party, but the road to a complete break with the Democrats—including a separate ballot line, which was supposed to happen as soon as possible—now lay through the temporary tactical necessity of capturing the Democratic ballot line where possible.

Post-2016 DSA electoral work, often appearing to reflect a unified organizational effort, was in reality a complicated mix. Some members conducted that work as a steppingstone toward a break with the Democratic Party. Others pursued the kind of “inside-outside” strategy practiced by Bernie and the candidates who became the Squad. Tensions existed beneath the surface. But in practice, in campaigns to win a Democratic primary and to win the general election after a nomination was won, alliances with a wide range of other progressive groups were both necessary and possible. And many non-socialist progressives ran for office on programs that were all but indistinguishable from those advanced by socialist DSA members.

So, despite attempts by some in DSA to build a high wall between hoped-for members of a soon-to-be-established pure revolutionary party, serious political alliances and relationships developed between most DSA electoral activists and much wider circles. And in these wider circles, the strategy of Bernie and the Squad, including the high priority placed on electoral defeat of the Trumpified GOP, was—and is—overwhelmingly dominant.

In 2019, when the Left had high hopes for Bernie’s success in 2020 and the mainstream Democrats failed to offer a compelling agenda, the “stay away from the Dems” view in DSA had wide appeal. The result was passage of the “Bernie or Bust” resolution at that year’s DSA convention. But in Spring 2020 Bernie conceded the nomination to Biden, endorsed him and campaigned hard for his one-time opponent.

The vast bulk of progressives and radicals outside DSA, especially those rooted in labor and communities of color, worked hard for Trump’s defeat. And following the election, the extreme danger posed by the Trumpist camp was underscored by the GOP closing ranks after January 6. Simultaneously the Democratic Party mainstream shifted away from their previous neoliberalism. DSA members moved toward a more realistic assessment of the actual balance of forces in U.S. politics than had been the case in 2019. A resolution reasserting the “Bernie or Bust” perspective in different form (demanding that all DSA-endorsed candidates incorporate public advocacy of a break with the Democratic Party into their campaigns) failed at the 2021 DSA Convention.

But a section of those who disagreed with the Convention vote did not reconcile themselves to waiting until the next Convention to re-raise their view. Then came Bowman’s serious misstep regarding Israel-Palestine. Here was an issue that—if Bowman were expelled—could lead to a break not just with him but with the entire Squad, Bernie, and others who identify as radical or socialist but see the Democratic Party as a terrain of struggle.

No doubt those whose main priority is building a pure revolutionary formation believe expelling an elected who is not firm on Palestine is the right thing to do in itself. But their underlying strategy is more rooted in the demand to break with the Democrats. In that context, the Bowman controversy is a convenient “wedge issue” to accomplish that break without a frontal assault on the position adopted at DSA’s 2021 convention.

Internal democracy?

Those are the politics that account for the campaign to expel Bowman continuing and even intensifying after the NPC vote. The effort, at least for a time, crowded other matters off chapter agendas and became a preoccupation in internal DSA media. Rhetoric and accusations escalated, reportedly up to and including death threats. Tensions mounted among people on different sides and within leadership bodies. People with various views on the issues at hand tried to simultaneously lower the conflict temperature and raise the political level of debate. But overall, an all-too familiar pattern characterizing internal battles in socialist groups took hold: issues of internal democracy and alleged “top-down” leadership became prominent, obscuring the political issues underlying the internal conflict.

With respect for majority rule having broken down (it was thin in DSA in the first place) all kinds of uncomradely behavior became common. The leadership—and others—tried to enforce organizational rules. But sorting through the rights and wrongs of each specific situation was time-consuming, wearying, and thankless. With vital external work tasks not getting the attention they required, the NPC succumbed to the temptation to try to move forward by using organizational means. In this case, that took the form of moving to de-charter the BDS Working Group.

Proponents of the de-charter argued that the Work Group was not staying within its mandate as a body subordinate to the NPC, was using organizational channels to oppose majority rule and violating democratic norms; and that several members were making abusive allegations against some NPC members. They made a strong case. But a membership overwhelmingly committed to Palestine solidarity would clearly react differently to the suspension of a BDS-focused committee than to the decision not to expel Jamaal Bowman.

A broader and deeper discussion in the organization about the Working Group’s violation of democratic norms, with more specifics about how it would move forward with Palestine solidarity efforts, would be needed to avoid another round of bitter conflict. Instead, the de-charter, and the rush by some DSAers to galvanize support for the NPC decision before the organization as a whole could obtain and absorb all the necessary facts, caused more problems than it solved. And the decision was later rescinded.

Utilizing organizational means is a perilous course, especially when important political issues underlie internal conflict. Identifying and debating those issues in full view of the membership—putting politics front and center—is a far better course. Failure to do this, and failure to use all available channels to give the membership information and an opportunity to air their views, almost always backfires. It allows those violating democratic norms to assume the posture of victims being persecuted by an allegedly dictatorial leadership.

Especially in a young organization where leadership bodies have not yet earned significant political authority—and given the lack of leadership accountability in so many past socialist groups—this stance generally garners sympathy. By their nature, crackdowns on abusive behavior or rule violations have a large proportion of messy, “they said, they said” charges and sometimes facts and allegations are at least partly confidential. These problems are exacerbated in DSA because the NPC, rather than some independent, non-leadership body, is designated as the arbiter of grievances and other kinds of disputes.

All that played out in DSA in arguments about the de-chartering and applying discipline to certain individuals. Mistakes were made on all sides. These need to be identified and the lessons used to improve organizational practice, and perhaps do some restructuring, going forward. But whatever mistakes were made on this front, they are not the reason tensions in DSA have reached the point they have.

The fundamental reason the political differences shaping this struggle have led to tension and crisis rather than greater political understanding is this: A minority in the organization refused, and still refuses, to accept the will of the majority, as expressed in the last Convention and in the NPC vote rejecting the demand to expel Jamaal Bowman.

Tear members down or lift members up?

An additional factor makes the current fight in DSA so toxic. “Call-out culture”—harsh criticism of individuals that attributes political views a person disagrees with to character flaws or lack of commitment on the part of the target—is widespread in DSA, as it is in all too much of the broad Left. The result is that political debates, especially on the internet, deteriorate rapidly into personal attacks.

My generation is no stranger nasty and destructive internal Left debate. The sectarian wars we conducted during the 1970s and ’80s were counter-productive to say the least. But it was political sectarianism: we lost any sense of proportion, exaggerated small differences, and gave our opponents’ views every negative label in the book. But for the most part, we considered our opponents carriers of bad—even counter-revolutionary—lines, not bad people. We aimed to “win them over” to our supposedly enlightened perspective—”cure the disease to save the patient.”

There are lessons to be drawn on this from my generation’s mistakes. Yes, each of us carries baggage from growing up in an individualistic society founded on racism, sexism and other forms of dehumanization. But people enter the radical movement and join an organization like DSA to contribute to changing that society. They are to be valued and given the tools to grow as they engage in political activity. Except for police agents (when we can identify them with certainty) and the occasional person too damaged to work in any collective setting, our default assumption must be that everyone acts in good faith. Attacking people’s character or treating others in ways you would not want to be treated—not to mention threatening someone’s personal safety—should be out of bounds.

That does not mean that there aren’t political views and practices that are destructive. There are. But they need to be taken on as political views one thinks are badly misguided, not as indications that their proponents are bad people or less committed to social justice than “our side.”

Some kinds of politics are destructive

Keeping that polemical standard in mind, it is still true that there is a political perspective held by some currents in DSA that is not just erroneous but destructive. Whatever the good intentions of its advocates, it translates into the kind of “rule or ruin” practice that has weakened or destroyed numerous broad Left organizations in the U.S. and around the world. This perspective holds that building a purified revolutionary party is such an important priority that it justifies doing whatever it takes within DSA to gain influence and recruits for that perspective. If DSA is badly weakened or even destroyed in the process, that is not just acceptable. It is a good thing.

This general perspective has a long history in the socialist movement. Its clearest expression is not in the words of its critics, but in those of its own proponents. For example, dedicated revolutionary and main founder of U.S. Trotskyism James Cannon voiced it as he offered his summation of the results of his group entering the Socialist Party USA in the 1930s, and then exiting to form the Socialist Workers Party:

“The [SWP Founding] convention adopted the entire program of the Fourth International without any opposition. This showed that our educational work had been thoroughgoing. All these accomplishments can be chalked up as evidence of the political wisdom of our entry into the Socialist Party. And another of them-and not the least of them-was that when the Socialist Party expelled us and when we retaliated by forming an independent party of our own, the Socialist Party had dealt itself a death blow. Since then the SP has progressively disintegrated until it has virtually lost any semblance of in-fluence in any party of the labor movement. Our work in the Socialist Party contributed to that. Comrade Trotsky remarked about that later, when we were talking with him about the total result of our entry into the Socialist Party and the pitiful state of its organization afterward. He said that alone would have justified the entry into the organization even if we hadn’t gained a single new member. Partly as a result of our experience in the Socialist Party and our fight in there, the Socialist Party was put on the side lines. This was a great achievement, because it was an obstacle in the path of building a revolutionary party. The problem is not merely one of building a revolutionary Party, but of clearing obstacles from its path. Every other party is a rival. Every other party is an obstacle.”

James P. Cannon, “The History of American Trotskyism,” Pathfinder Press, New York, 1972, pp 252-253

Let me be crystal clear about this. I think the labels from the pre-1989 Left—Maoist, Trotskyist, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Social Democrat, etc—are mostly useless in understanding today’s Left. Not all those who identify with Trotskyism share Cannon’s views or engage in anything like the kind of practice he praises. And all too many who identify with other ideological currents in the pre-1989 Left do engage in “rule or ruin” adventures. So broad-brush generalizations about any ideological tendency must be resisted. (To reinforce this point: what use are pre-1989 categories when leading voices in the allegedly “Stalinist/Tankie” Communist Party USA vehemently condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while three groups from the Trotskyist movement (Socialist ActionWorkers World Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation) refuse to criticize the Putin regime’s aggression and blame the entire situation on US/NATO imperialism?)

That said, it would be the height of naiveté not to see that there are groupings within DSA that are operating in a manner that subordinates the integrity of DSA to their conception of a higher good. Some entered DSA as a group with their own discipline; others evolved within DSA since its 2016 explosive growth and transformation.

Political strategy is the bottom line

This is not an issue DSA can resolve by organizational means. It is a matter of identifying the core political issues and the different views advocated by the contending currents in the organization. Peel away all the back-and-forth about who mistreated whom, all the noise and call-out attacks on social media, and all the “gotcha” questioning of people’s character and commitment. Then you get to the bottom-line political choice DSA must make.

DSA can focus outward and continue on the path most connected to its recent growth: establishing itself as a socialist force within the progressive trend in U.S. politics whose most prominent figures are Bernie and the Squad. Taking that course would mean focusing, like the vast bulk of that trend, on both defeating the authoritarian right and building the independent strength of social justice and socialist forces in the process. It would point to synergizing electoral work with efforts to revitalize the labor movement; strengthen the urgent movements for racial justice, gender justice, and environmental protection; and root the organization the multiracial, gender-inclusive working class. And it would involve work to rebuild the tattered and beleaguered peace and solidarity movements, including serious efforts to build a voting bloc committed to Palestinian rights in as many congressional districts as possible.

Alternatively, DSA can prioritize a purification effort and set a course toward building a new revolutionary socialist party outside of and in opposition to that trend. Expel Jamaal Bowman and move to break ties with others in the Squad and Bernie because, according to one of the prominent expel-Bowman advocates:

“DSA’s “electeds” and allies, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and of course Bernie Sanders, all ceased any semblance of being an opposition and instead branded themselves as the staunchest liberal Democrats who would try to work harder in service of the Democratic Party.”

This choice is at the core of DSA’s current internal conflicts. The debate about it can be conducted in a way that brings more light than heat. It is a multi-faceted debate that in this case pivots on electoral strategy but reflects different assessments of the current balance of forces in U.S, politics, different views on the relationship of the fight for democracy and the fight for socialism, and—of special importance—the inter-relationship of white supremacy with U.S. capitalism and what that means about the nature and danger of today’s Trumpist bloc. (Besides what is in this essay, my opinions on these issues are presented in the 20-plus columns I have written for Convergence—formerly Organizing Upgrade—over the last two years, available here. And for a specific critique of overly narrow views of the alliances needed to effectively challenge U.S. racial capitalism, see the Convergence symposium “The White Republic and the Struggle for Racial Justice,” especially the concluding essay here.)

Once DSA makes this choice, it can and should be tested out for a period of time. Those who disagree certainly have the right to remain in the organization and re-raise their alternative perspective at the appropriate time, likely a national convention. But no socialist organization can function effectively if it is embroiled in constant internal strife over a fundamental question such as where it positions itself within the politics of the country in which it functions.

DSA is the largest socialist organization the U.S. has seen in at least 70 years. Its explosive growth since 2016 has heartened everyone on the progressive side of the spectrum at a time of humanity-threatening crises and a dire threat from right-wing authoritarianism. The entire Left has a stake in the direction DSA chooses to take.

Global Peace & Collaboration

Military Buildup Ain’t The Way

| Sherri Donovan |

Military buildup is not the way to peace, climate change, or a safer, sustainable and productive earth that serves the majority of people.

Military buildups and financial wars conducted by the U.S. and their “allies” are a part of the late stages of stagnant, monopolistic, finance capitalism and is being desperately utilized to prop up the U.S. dollar regime and the U.S. hegemonic empire. It is extremely dangerous in a nuclear world that is also facing ecological disasters. War and the concept of declaring enemies should be avoided.

Recent and historic examples are frightening, disconcerting, unjust and have caused immense suffering to millions of people globally. For example: Biden’s recent passage of billions of dollars to the Pentagon, an historic increase in military spending. As reported by Peace Action, President Biden submitted his request for the 2023 Pentagon budget – a staggering $813 billion. In December, 2021 Biden signed into law a military budget of over $777 billion.

As stated by Peace Action, this “2023 Pentagon request is being marketed as keeping pace with China, though China’s military budget is $252 billion, 69% smaller than the U.S. In fact, the U.S. now spends more on its military than the next 11 highest-spending countries combined.”

The truth is that half of this spending will make its way to arms manufacturers. The U.S. is the largest arms dealer in the world, responsible for 39% of arms exports globally, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute. Arms manufacturers spent over 2.5 billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last 20 years with 177 million dollars of this sum in 2021 (see Truthout, “Ukraine and Yemen Wars Highlight US’s Role as Biggest Arms Dealer in the World,” April 15, 2021, by Mike Ludwig).

The situation in Ukraine is being exploited by defense firms to justify even more spending. In the build up to war in Ukraine, U.S. military contractors perversely characterized the Russian invasion as a business opportunity, with Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes going so far as to proclaim “I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.” As stated by Dennis Torrigoe, “The U.S. and NATO are fanning the flames of this war to weaken Russia as well as to create more demand and thus profits for its military-industrial-financial-media-academic complexes. One goal they are pursuing is to get the Eastern European countries like Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States to standardize their weaponry along the U.S./NATO parameters, thus creating more demand for weapon sales for their war industries.”

In the New York Times article, March 18, 2022, “Visualizing the $13.6
Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine
” reporters Bianca Pallaro and Alicia Parlapiano pointed out that, “The money includes weapons, military supplies and one of the largest infusions of U.S. foreign aid in the last decade. But it also covers the deployment of U.S. troops to Europe and money for domestic agencies to enforce sanctions.” According to documents obtained by The Washington Post, the U.S. government is also paying millions for a significant portion of Starlink terminal equipment and transportation to Ukraine to Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX. As reported in Jacobin by Branko Marcetic (“What the Left’s Critics Ignore About Military Solutions to Ukraine“):

“Western weapons have already found their way into the hands of far-right extremists, who are integrated into Ukraine’s national guard, its police hierarchy, and its military. These weapons will doubtless find their way to many more extremists, since arms have, quite understandably, been handed out indiscriminately… These far-right groups are explicitly ethnonationalist and even white supremacist. They believe in taking and wielding power by force and dictatorship, support the reacquiring of nuclear arms… The potential blowback isn’t limited to Ukraine. As West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has repeatedly pointed out, Ukraine has for years been the epicenter for international far-right organizing. That includes white supremacist extremists from nearby Germany as well as US extremists, with even the FBI stating that the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion “is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States–based white supremacy organizations,” including ones that took part in the infamous Charlottesville rally… Washington has consistently dismissed diplomacy ever since this crisis began late last year… Even Zelensky has urged them to be more involved, something recently unwittingly acknowledged by the UK defense minister. This demand echoes the calls of analysts like Ishchenko as well as Ukrainian pacifist Yurii Sheliazhenko, who argues that both US and Chinese leadership should join Moscow and Kiev at the negotiating table to ensure a lasting and balanced settlement. We are endlessly told to listen to Zelensky and other Ukrainians’ requests, but this particular request goes curiously unheard.”

Noam Chomsky has surmised in his March 30, 2022 interview with C.J. Polychroniou of Truthout that, “there are no signs from Washington that the Biden administration is interested in engaging in constructive diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine. In fact, President Joe Biden is adding fuel to the fire by using highly inflammatory language against the Russian president. U.S. General Milley on April 5, 2022 declared that this war will be a protracted war for years. Robin Wright, reported in the New Yorker in April 2022 that, according to a report release by the Soufan Center, a nonprofit, global-security research group, “The battlefield in Ukraine is incredibly complex, with a range of violent non-state actors—private military contractors, foreign fighters, volunteers, mercenaries, extremists, and ‘terrorist’ groups’ all in the mix.” As reported by Chelsea Ong in CNBC, “Russian President Vladimir Putin might resort to weapons of mass destruction, like chemical and tactical nuclear weapons, if he fails to achieve a ‘conventional forces victory’ in eastern Ukraine, says Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.”

Biden declaring that the CIA will focus its resources and set up a mission center against China, appearing to indicate that China is the enemy of the American people. (New York Times, October 7, 2021 C.I.A. “Reorganization to Place New Focus on China” by Julian Barnes). As reported by Al Jazeera, October 7, 2021, “CIA Director William Burns said the new mission centre ‘will further strengthen our collective work on the most important geopolitical threat we face in the 21st century, an increasingly adversarial Chinese government.'” Biden’s National Defense Authorization Act, quoting Michael Klare, calls for “an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank” — meant to encircle China, including Taiwan.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific command is now reported to be planning to enhance the encirclement, doubling its spending in fiscal year 2022, in part to develop “a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.”

Meanwhile, sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE continues, with multiple Saudi Arabia bombings with U.S. weapons in Yemen condemned by Amnesty International. A child in Yemen dies every ten minutes due to these attacks causing widespread starvation according to the UN World Food Programme. Saudi bombing with U.S. weapons has killed more than 150,000 people, including over 14,500 civilians, according to 2022 data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. An official death toll as a result of the war as of 2021 is 370,000, according to Noam Chomsky. The war in Yemen also created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Saudi Arabia is intensifying the blockade of the only port which can bring food supplies.

According to the U.N. refugee agency, about 66% of Yemen’s 30 million people rely on humanitarian assistance for their daily survival, including over 4.2 million displaced people and 102,000 refugees and asylum-seekers. The head of the World Food Program, David Beasley, told The Associated Press that around 13 million people were heading toward starvation in Yemen due to the protracted conflict and lack of funding.

The U.N. humanitarian office has reported that its 2021 humanitarian plan for Yemen received $2.27 billion out of its $3.85 billion requirement, the lowest funding level since 2015. The general warnings are echoed by U.S. specialists, notably Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, formerly the top CIA analyst on the Middle East for four presidents. He charges that the Saudi “offensive action” should be investigated as a war crime.”

The Saudi and Emirati air forces cannot function without U.S. planes, training, intelligence. Yet we do not see these images of war and its victims like 27 children killed in their school bus, on the American news like we did not see images of the children and women killed by U.S. weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Review Madre and Human Rights Watch publications. U.S. moral outage is selective. Code Pink has pointed out, the U.S. has also violated the principle of sovereignty, and (in many of the below listed interventions) killed civilians in the invasions of Somalia, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Korea. The U.S.-backed invasion into Lebanon in 1982 killed 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese people and destroyed much of the country with no credible pretext. U.S. drone strikes have occurred in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Somalia in which 7.27 – 15.47% of those killed were civilians (Wikipedia “Civilian Casualties From Drone Strikesciting New America and Bureau of Investigative Journalism). The largest recipient of US military aid in the Middle East is Israel, which Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has declared an apartheid state. 46,319 civilians were killed in Afghanistan by U.S. forces (Brown University Costs of War Project) and 185,831 – 208,964 civilians in the Iraq war. The Total Human Cost by direct war violence of the U.S. post-9/11 war, as reported by Brown University, The Watson Institute, September 2021, is 897,000 – 929,000 people, which includes civilians, journalists, US contractors, humanitarian workers, U.S. military and opposition fighters in Afghanistan & Pakistan (Oct. 2001 – Aug. 2021); Iraq (March 2003 – Aug. 2021); Syria (Sept. 2014 – May 2021); Yemen (Oct. 2002-Aug. 2021) and other post 9/11 war zones. These figures do not include death from the secondary impact of loss of food, water, infrastructure, war-related disease and displacement.

German, Japanese, European & Australian recently increased their military budgets and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Germany increased its military budget by 100 billion. Australia has added nuclear submarines to its arsenal. As reported by Kosuke Takahashi in The Diplomat, “On December 24, the cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio approved 5.4 trillion yen ($47.2 billion) defense spending in fiscal year 2022. The 2022 defense budget includes 216.7 billion yen for the U.S. troops based in the country.” Japan and the U.S. on December 21, 2021 agreed to increase Tokyo’s cost for hosting U.S. forces in the country for five years starting from the next fiscal year to begin covering spending for joint exercises. Specifically, under the new five-year agreement between the two countries, Japan will pay a total of 1.55 trillion yen from fiscal 2022. The annual average will increase by about 10 billion yen to 211 billion yen from the current fiscal year.

The expansion of NATO to 14 East European countries since the Berlin Wall came down and pushes to add Georgia and Ukraine have only provoked conflict. (View Professor John Mearsheimer’s video, “The Russia-Ukraine War and Who is Responsible;” also author of, The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Conflict”) As Noam Chonsky has pointed out, “Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest…” Have we poked the bear in the eye? Could it have been avoided? There is a NATO base 100 miles from the border of Russia as reported by Chris Hedges in his article, “Chronicles of a War Foretold”. Weapons were flooded into Ukraine by the USA and the UK before the war despite protests from Moscow. In 2021, NATO held over 40 military exercises on the ground, by air and by sea near the Russian border. (, December 2021. )

Brown University Professor Stephen Kinzer has pointed out direct and indirect involvements by the CIA and U.S. government to overturn elected leaders and governments around the world in his numerous books and publications. For example, 2014 in Ukraine, Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossedegh in Iran, as well as installing and defending right wing dictators in Honduras and El Savador, the CIA killing of Che Guevera, capturing of Nelson Mandela and numerous attempted assassinations of Castro, and intervention in Libya.

This also does not include financial wars and sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, China & Russia. Freezing of funds of the Afghani people to the tune of seven billion dollars and embargoes against Nicaragua have also been utilized.

As stated by Dennis Torigoe, author of “The U.S. Dollar Regime” and “The Dollar as the World’s Reserve Currency”,

The other war is the financial war over the future of the US dollar regime.  The heavy-handed and wide-ranging use of economic sanctions are leading countries… like India and other developing economies to doubt the reliability of the US dollar regime in protecting their interests. The US has not only cut off Russia from strategic materials like semiconductors, but has, in an unprecedented move, seized approximately 300 billion of Russia’s central bank reserves kept in US banks. The US has also barred major Russian banks and industries from using the SWIFT system, which settles the vast majority of trade payments around the world.  This heightened financial weaponization by the US government has shaken the confidence in the US dollar as the reserve currency of governments around the world.

“The Ukraine-Russia crisis is driving countries to explore new ways of pricing oil, Qatar says” as reported by Katrina Bishop, CNBC, March 26. “It comes after a Wall Street Journal report that Saudi Arabia is in accelerated talks with China to accept yuan instead of dollars for oil that Beijing buys.” The peaking of U.S. imperialism from 40% of the global GDP to 20% currently, may also mean the peaking of the U.S. dollar regime. The use of debt and interest rates, the IMF and World Bank has the effect of impoverishing people globally and maintaining a neo-colonial dependency concerning currency and economies to serve imperialist corporations, central banks and governments of the U.S. and Western Europe.

We must also recognize racially discriminatory refugee and immigration policies as well as historic indigenous genocides, enslavement, internments, imprisonment, deportations, suppression of workers’ and human rights movements. There are non-white people from countries including Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and Somalia who have been waiting at the border to apply for asylum for more than two years. People all over the world are languishing in refugee camps for years waiting to be resettled. Title 42 permitted the summary deportation of unaccompanied children and there were 1.5 million deportations (albeit some multiple of same individuals) pursuant to Title 42. Human Rights First reported in March, 2022, “Marking Two Years of Illegal, Inhumane Title 42 Expulsions: Nearly 10,000 Violent Attacks on Asylum Seekers and Migrants” occurred, including rape and kidnapping. Biden should have repealed it 15 months earlier.

The use of media, propaganda and censorship to influence the American public to support and consolidate the military-industrialist positions must not be overlooked. The U.S. prosecution of courageous Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and Ed Snowdon demonstrate U.S. censorship. Reporter Chris Hedges has seen all of his years of reporting removed from Youtube. Across the U.S., books and curriculums that deal with the history of slavery, segregation and discrimination or even mathematics and literature are banned and removed from our schools and libraries. Laws like Florida’s recent “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Georgia’s recent voting rights suppression law and the anti-choice prohibitions intentionally impact our most vulnerable and non-wealthy communities. There is constant creation of the “other” to stop global unity for people’s empowerment.

Warning: All of the above actions by the U.S. are elements of modern day fascism. It should be noted that neo-liberal positions that the U.S. can economically support a strong military and provide domestic programs and even an American job guarantee by printing more money or financial maneuvers are harmful to real social change and causes suffering to the majority of people globally as outlined above.

We need to imagine, organize for and implement a more just and safe world with demilitarization and deescalation, diplomacy, neutralization, productive green economic production with long -term planning, racial, and sexual equality, indigenous reparations, independent multiple currencies, multiple monetary reserves, lateral trade, workers’ councils (as set forth by Professor Paul Mattick, Jr.) and debt relief that can empower disadvantaged peoples and southern nations.

Democracy: Rule of Law & Elections Economic Justice

Watch: May Day Forum with Gerry Hudson

On May Day 2022, Voices for New Democracy hosted SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Gerry Hudson for a discussion on the state of the American labor movement. Throughout the conversation, Gerry discussed his history at 1199SEIU, outlining how the union’s participation in struggles for racial justice and immigrant justice mobilized membership and helped secure important victories; how 1199’s emphasis on rank-and-file organizing and leadership was key to their strength; and what lessons these experiences hold for today’s wave of union organizing across gig workers, Amazon workers, delivery drivers, Starbucks workers, and more. Gerry also reflected on SEIU’s political mobilization around the 2020 elections — playing an important role in Biden’s victory — and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in 2022 and 2024.

Watch the full forum below.