Block, Build, and Bella Ciao

By

A look down 4th Street at Portland Avenue where protesters have filled the streets. Thousands protesst in Downtown Minneapolis on Saturday October 18, 2025 as part of nationwide “No Kings!” protest. CC BY-SA 4.0

It appears that the citizen outpouring of rage and discontent over Trump’s autocratic actions resulted in over 2,500 No Kings protests and assemblies on October 18th. Estimates place the total attendance at 7 million, much higher than the previous No Kings day in June. Turnout amounted to about 2% of the US population, nothing to scoff at, but certainly not the 3.5% that Harvard professor Erica Chenoweth says is the boiling point indicator of overwhelming civic dissent.

While the American “No Kings” actions had some participation by US labor councils in areas like the Bay Area and New York City, from a national perspective union participation was anemic. Labor has not been in leadership of the anti-authoritarian front, despite the Trump administration’s aggressive union-busting and dismantling of labor-regulating agencies.

Contrast US labor’s anemic presence to the historic role played by Italian labor in recent uprisings and national actions there for Palestine. On Friday, October 3rd—a workday, in contrast to the weekend protests in the US—an estimated 2 million Italians flooded the streets up and down the Mediterranean boot. This is about 3% of the population—more than the US number, though still not surpassing the Chenoweth threshold.

However, the cardinal difference between the two countries is that the Friday, October 3rd action included a national strike called by the largest union confederation in Italy, the Confederazione Generale Italiana di Lavoratori (CGIL). There was also important participation by the Unioni Sindicati di Base (UBS), which have particular strength in the Port of Genova, the largest Italian port. Their agitation and constant action over Gaza and their intermittent protests helped to fuel the profile of the struggle and exerted pressure on the larger national confederation to act.

The immediate impetus for the strike was the attack on and arrest of Italian participants in the freedom flotilla seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, some of whom were members of the Italian parliament. This outrageous act fueled the call by CGIL for a general strike.

As a result of the national strike call, Italy’s two-million strong street mobilization was combined with coordinated work stoppages in key sectors including shipping, transportation, and education. The fusion of union-led efforts with widespread street mobilization catalyzed a disruptive capacity beyond what any single group could have achieved in isolation. As one participant noted: “There was enormous and truly diverse participation: teachers bringing entire classes, high school students, people of all ages. All sectors joined the strike, including freelancers—psychologists, architects, etc.—and not just unionized workers.”

Italian general strike for Gaza in Ancona, 19 September 2025. Photo credit: Ukrain4Pal, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

It is helpful to take a dive into Italian history to understand the phenomenon and tradition of political strikes. Therein may lie some important lessons for US left-wing organizers inside and outside the labor movement.

Under fascism in Italy, from 1923 until liberation and Mussolini’s execution in 1945, there was one labor federation, with compulsory membership for all workers under their national agreements. In fact when I explain our labor law in the US that provides for unitary representation in a corporation or workplace, my Italian comrades exclaim, “Ma Pietro questi sono sindacati fascisti (But Peter, these are fascist unions!)” And herein lies a great difference.

Soon after Italy emerged from fascism the labor world saw the formation of three major national confederations representing workers in sectoral national agreements covering 13 major sectors of the economy. Membership in any one workplace was voluntary but each of the national federations was tied to one of the three major postwar parties. The CGILthe largest then and today)was tied to the Italian Communist Party; theUnione Italiana del Lavoro (UIL) to the Socialist Party; and the Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori (CISL) to the Christian Democrats.1 In individual workplaces there was—and is—the opportunity to elect members to the Rappresentanze Sindacali Unitarie (RSU), which has responsibility for dealing with local issues not dealt with in national agreements. Today none of the iconic Italian political parties remain, but the labor confederations do, and while they often bargain together, they sometimes sign separate sectoral deals. The bottom line is that workers join unions voluntarily and participate often in RSUs. National union density or level of membership is 25%, more than double that in the US, but Italian labor agreements cover 83% of the workforce!

The structure of post-war Italy’s labor confederations gave birth to a long tradition of national strikes over political issues. For instance in 1960, Italy’s ruling Christian Democrats formed a center right government allying with fascists in parliament. The left-led labor movement engaged in massive strikes that toppled the “Tambroni” government in five months. In the Italian “hot autumn” of 1969, a series of workplace actions ultimately led to a general strike involving more than half of the Italian workforce, alongside students, housewives, migrant workers and other social sectors, which secured big new government investments in pensions, education, and affordable housing.

Italy’s October 3rd strike for Gaza, while of a size and scale not seen in years, thus draws on a long legacy of political strikes, organized by large coalitions that both include and extend beyond organized labor, that articulate social and political demands for the class as a whole.

In contrast to Italy, the United States does not have a tradition of political strikes in the post-war period. While such strikes on the municipal level were part of the militant labor movement of the 1930s (San Francisco and Minneapolis for example), the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act explicitly outlawed “solidarity” strikes, as part of a broader process of both repression and appeasement.

In recent years, the concept of the general strike has seen a resurgence in US discourse. Many have been inspired by the call from United Auto Workers’ President Shaun Fain for US unions to align their labor contracts to expire in May of 2028 to coincide with the expiration of the UAW’s master agreement. The concept is that this would enable a national strike against the billionaires.

This is certainly a laudable goal—and kudos to Fain—but 2028 is a long way off and the urgency of blocking Trump’s authoritarianism is a task that must happen now. Fain has had less to say about that task, presumably for fear of alienating the significant portion of the UAW’s membership who voted for Trump. But general strikes, by their very nature, must be willing to step beyond an ostensibly “apolitical” focus on contracts to articulate a broader set of demands for the class as a whole that are, by their very nature, political. With millions of members under attack, unions have a big role to play in nurturing and supporting militant action and puncturing the narrative that Trump’s actions are supported by working people.

By shouldering the fight against 1930s fascism, the Italian left was able to win broad legitimacy in the working class—a legitimacy that persists to this day in the legacy of the political strike. As we face a new threat of rising fascism, US labor must learn this lesson.

Could this be labor’s “Bella Ciao” moment in the US? The anthem of the anti-fascist fight celebrates the role of partisan fighters in defeating Nazi fascism. The active participation of unions in No Kings and the defense of immigrant workers would heighten their power and build a stronger left union presence in the US. Bella Ciao/Block and Build!


The CGIL was the sole national union federation that emerged in 1944 as the replacement and opposition for the fascist corporatist unions. As part of the cold war both UIL and CISL were chartered in 1950.


After publication, The New Liberator received the following clarifications from Italian trade unionist Leopoldo Tartaglia, which we are appending at the request of the article’s author. 

The article “Block Build and Bella Ciao” is a generally accurate description of the Italian situation. I would however add the following:

Since the mid ‘80s—as result of the relative weakness of the unions—there has been a law in effect governing strikes, with many limitations on the sectors involved, time limits, and nature and scope of the strikes, especially when it involves a national industrial action and/or a national general strike.

In fact the National Commission for Strike Regulation is now opening a case against CGIL arguing that the general strike of October 3 was unlawful.

The relationship among the 3 main Confederations—CGIL, CISL, UIL—is at a very low level, maybe worse than at the beginning of the century (when Silvio Berlusconi was in charge). CISL is clearly linked to the right wing Fratelli d’Italia Meloni government—the previous CISL Secretary General G Sbarra became a member of the government, in charge of policy for Southern Italy. The UIL in the last two or three years stood with CGIL in calling general strikes in 2023 and 2024 against the budgetary law, but this time refused to mobilize and call a strike on Gaza and Palestine and gave a different response to the new budgetary law, while CGIL organized the October 25th national demonstration in Roma (about 200.000 participants) against it.

Although there is not the same level of repression as that of the Trump administration, nevertheless in Italy the right wing government, led by the neofascist Giorgia Meloni, is approving bills and rules that increase penalties and repression against the social movements and immigrants.

On that front, while clearly denouncing these kind of policies, until now the reaction of the CGIL has been very weak in terms of national mobilizations and strikes (So far no general strikes to defend immigrant workers.)

The Dangers of Doing Away with Monsters-Reflections of a soldier fighting Hitler

By

Gene Bruskin’s father before entering military service in early 1940s

My father, John Bruskin, served in WWII, and received two Purple Hearts when he was blown out of the tanks he was driving. While in the military he used a service they provided to record a series of “45s”, 7-inch vinal records, and send them to my mom, Gertrude. This “poem” is a compilation of his messages to my mom from France and other military locations. His hopes and anguish are palpable.

He had been a young Jewish activist in the Communist Party in Philadelphia in the late 30’s but left the Party, disillusioned by its top-down structure.  Working in a radio repair shop when WWII broke out, he entered the service to fight fascism and ironically endured antisemitism while being trained in Georgia.

Although the notion of PTSD didn’t exist then, my father was clearly impacted for the rest of his life. He died young at 61 having been a TV repairman his entire life. The war never left his consciousness. I remember while growing up our summer “vacations” were yearly trips to gatherings of The Fourth Armored Division, held in a variety of cities, giving my father a couple days with the guys to reminisce and leaving me and my sisters bored and playing on the elevators. He read every book he could find on the war and watched every news reel documentary shown on TV.

Like many from the “greatest generation” the defeat of Nazism and the ascendancy of the US as the world’s superpower didn’t do him much good. He essentially worked himself to death, died without health insurance or even a bank account. The hypocritical notion of “Thank you for your service” continues today and vets struggle to earn a living and recover from service in endless US initiated wars. The best we could do as “patriots” is to end US militarism and thank the teachers and nurses and many others for their service in making our country function.


(RECORDED WORDS OF JOHN BRUSKIN DURING WW II)

Gert,

Monsters are roaming the earth
Dinosaurs, leaving anguish, pain, death and sorrow in their wake
That’s why I’m somewhere far away
Fighting to get rid of these creatures
So our children will never see such things
It has to be done now, right?

It’s not an easy life
We all try to keep our chin up
Millions of us
No complaining
No getting sad, you know

Don’t worry
I’m going to survive
Get that one-way ticket home 
Some day
Pretty sure

We can start over where we left off 
Like that wonderful day when we were so excited 
When we permanently joined as man and wife
The nicest day of my life 
And yours too, huh? 

Sure, we’re poor
But we’ll manage 
A little place of our own, our dream spot 
Our beautiful little baby gal Francie
Maybe another one later

And I have you. 
That’s what makes life worth living. 

So that’s it
We don’t want much
The simple things in life 
We don’t ask for more

But it’s out of the question today
And that makes me very sad
Especially after seeing the baby for the first time
She’s so cute 
She’ll be a fine girl
Like her mother is 
Like her mother always was

So be a good soldier Gert
Keep your chin up 
You are strong 
You got common sense 
You understand what’s taking place

I feel from the bottom of my soul 
This thing will be over 
We will be together and never be separated.
Perhaps it’s inevitable for many of us to go. 
We all hope and pray it don’t happen.
But if it happens
Well, you understand.
Don’t you Gert?

This Is Not a Drill: Bravery As Strategy in the Face of American Tragedy

By

Ballads of Bravery. Authors: Baker, George Melville, 1832-1890 from Wiki Commons.

Succumbing to fear often leads to mistakes, including inaction, or too little action, too late.

Look to the year ahead. Those counting on the 2026 elections to provide a course correction should think again.

In the United States, in any normal midterm election, the party that holds the White House loses control of Congress. This was true in 1994 with Clinton, 2002 and 2006 with Bush, 2010 and 2014 with Obama, 2018 with Trump, and 2022 with Biden. It is a truism which—given how deeply unpopular the Trump administration is right now—should remain true in 2026. But it may not.

In 2020, Trump was faced with a classic “Dictator’s Dilemma.” He feared that if he relinquished power, he would be brought to account for his actions. On January 6th, 2021, he attempted a violent coup that was only thwarted due to the refusal of the U.S. military and his own Vice President to subvert the will of the voters.

Now Trump is back and he is faced with a similar prospect. As his advisor Peter Navarro said on public radio a month or so ago, the mindset of the Trump administration is that it must destroy its political opponents prior to the 2026 elections, and that it cannot allow the Democrats to take control of Congress next year.

In recent memory, the prospect of a president preventing congressional elections from taking effect has been unimaginable. But today, it is not at all hard to imagine that this could happen.

For instance, unlike the Electoral College, there are no constitutional provisions that speak directly to how a new House of Representatives is seated. Instead, the rules governing the swearing-in of new House members are determined by the outgoing House. If competing House delegations arrive from states like Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Virginia, will Speaker Johnson and the narrow outgoing Republican majority seat the representatives-elect certified by state election authorities? Or will they follow Trump’s dictates, as they have just done this week in refusing to seat Representative-elect Grijalva of Arizona?

Of course, this is only one possibility—one that Americans may never be so lucky as to face. On the night of Thursday, September 25th, Trump issued his second anti-anti-fascist order. Unlike his first order, which was heavy on rhetoric and light on action, this second order directed all federal law enforcement to “investigate . . . disrupt and dismantle” any individuals and organizations engaged in “anti-fascism . . . anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” as well as “extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

The following day, the architect of Trump’s ICE policies, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, described the Democratic Party as, “not a political party; it is a domestic extremist organization.” Meanwhile, Trump summoned America’s top military officers to Quantico to tell them to prepare for war, even as he escalated his threats against major U.S. cities and other American countries.

In the past, some argued that the way Trump tried to rule was “personalist,” a way of saying that he makes government all about himself. Others argued that he represented a broader authoritarian movement that mixes big-state capitalism with racial nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Today, it should be clear that both arguments were correct. We all knew this was coming. This is not a drill.

The psychological toll is real. After the deaths of so many good people, from the Jewish congregants murdered by a white supremacist at the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh, to the massacre by a rightwing religious fundamentalist of 49 people at the Pulse night club in Orlando, to the young woman rammed with a car by a neo-Nazi in Charlottesville, to the dozens of Americans killed by paramilitaries and police in 2020 while protesting against the police murder of George Floyd, to the many people who have died in ICE detention centers, to the two Minnesota legislators and their spouses shot by a rightwing extremist in the Twin Cities, to the teenagers murdered by a white supremacist at Evergreen High School on September 10th and the father killed by an ICE agent after dropping his children off at school in Chicago, Americans have been forced to reckon with what was once unthinkable. It is not only the death of our republic that we grieve.

In times like these we must remember that repressive violence often fails. This can be particularly true when government repression is in a middle range.

Relatively low levels of repression can sometimes keep a lid on social protest, discouraging citizens from moving from words to deeds. High levels of repression can often drive protest movements underground, making it difficult for activists to communicate with each other, much less with the broader public.

Because Trump and his policies are so unpopular, low levels of repression are no longer effective. Instead, his administration is escalating its use of violence. And while he has expressed admiration for brutal dictators like Kim Jong Un of North Korea, for the moment Trump does not have the ability to successfully suppress the democratic opposition. As a result, American communities are experiencing repression that oscillates in the middle range from low to high and back to low again.

Social movement studies show that if repression is in this middle range that is when it most often backfires. In this middle range, repression can produce popular outrage even as it fails to quell public protest. This is why we must be brave right now: Not because courage is admirable, but because it is opportune, smart, and necessary.

What then must we do? First, Americans must publicly show our bravery. We call street protests “demonstrations” because of what they show: They are demonstrations of strength. They reveal depth of feeling, they proclaim numbers, they show who has overcome fear and is prepared to act. Small and mid-sized protests are happening daily in hundreds of American communities right now. But for the moment, they are not demonstrating the level of national opposition that actually exists to what Trump is doing.

Instead, most are waiting for the next planned major national day of action. In the past, I have been an organizer of nationally coordinated protests. I understand the rhythms of coalition work and the need to assemble resources and organize mobilization. But we should not get stuck in only one pattern of organizing. It has been a month since the last major national day of action. In the absence of mass public demonstrations, Democratic elected officials are left as the primary opposition voices to Trump. That is not good for them—and certainly not for for us.

American labor unions have the power to lead a democratic opposition. Those who are union members or in union families have an important role to play. Some unions have provided significant leadership already. But anyone who was in the streets of Detroit in 1997, Seattle in 1999, Los Angeles in 2006, Madison in 2011, Chicago in 2012, or of Oklahoma City and Charleston, West Virginia in 2018, knows that our unions have the ability to bring many more people into street demonstrations. Labor unions also often have strong ties with community, faith, student, veteran, farmer, and environmental organizations. Together, they have the ability to move more people into the streets, more often, and on shorter notice.

Second, law enforcement officers and members of the U.S. military also have power. Despite Trump’s demands for personal loyalty to him and him alone, many officers and enlisted personnel take their allegiances and their oaths to the constitution and the Republic very seriously.

Historically, both in the United States and in many other countries, military and police forces have sometimes refused orders requiring them to violate their oaths. At times, they have taken the side of the people against authoritarian governments. Being lectured by a chickenhawk about making war on the American people could not have sat well.

This is another reason that public demonstrations are important; they show those entrusted with public safety where the people stand. It is also one reason why disciplined nonviolence is critical; the contrast between legitimate protest and illegitimate repression must be clear. And it suggests that the US needs its moral authorities—its religious, community, and cultural leaders—to lead an ongoing campaign against all political violence.

This brings me to a third insight about this time in American history. At the moment, our cities are where the current crisis is being determined and where the possibility of a better world is being built. American democracy is deepest in our communities. They are where neighbors look after neighbors, schools support children and families, and government agencies are closest to the people they serve. Our cities, towns, and villages are where much needed reforms to provide good housing, healthy food, meaningful work, sustainable economies, sanctuary from violence, representative elections, and more democracy in every part of our daily lives are taking shape. For these reasons, our cities are the places both most targeted by Trump and they are where he has met his most determined resistance.

Petra Kelly once told us that, “If we don’t do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable.” Today we face the unthinkable. But the resilience and resistance of American cities show that another world is possible. We simply must be brave enough to demonstrate our resolve, to recognize that there is no going back to the imaginary safety of the pre-Trump era, and to build a new system as he tears the old one down around us. The national institutions of the old republic cannot provide salvation. Our cities, our community institutions, our unions, and our courage in demonstrating the spiritual power of the democratic creed are the potent mix that can overcome our common tragedy.


MAMDANI WINS!!! – Now the Hard Work Begins!

By and

Wiki Commons

On November 4, New York City voters delivered a resounding YES vote to elect Zohran Mamdani as mayor of the largest US city. The final results (yet to be certified) gave Mamdani 50.4% of the vote to Andrew Cuomo’s 41.6% and 7.1% for Republican Curtis Sliwa

To a great extent, the election was over after Mamdani smashed the Democratic Party establishment by trouncing disgraced New York ex-Governor Cuomo in the June 24 primary: Mamdani 56% to Cuomo 43%.

Mamdani’s primary campaign benefitted from “Ranked Choice Voting” which enables candidates to endorse one another in a coalition to eliminate a candidate perceived as a danger to their shared values. In the June primary, five candidates, led by Mamdani, united to defeat the corrupt Cuomo. In particular, the cross endorsement of Mamdani by NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, who is prominent in the Jewish community, helped to deflect attacks accusing Mamdani of antisemitism.

The 34-year-old Mamdani projected confidence, discipline, and a sense of humor. When he called for a rent freeze in January, he welcomed the New Year on a Coney Island beach by plunging into the freezing ocean. Mamdani was fully clothed in his signature blue suit and tie! Videos of this stunt went viral. Since then, he has produced hundreds of short, punchy social media posts throughout the primary and final election push. 

The most compelling aspect of Mamdani’s campaign has been his platform’s bold specificity. Unlike most candidates who talk in platitudes about values, integrity, and what they are against. Mamdani has put forward very specific policy goals:

Mamdani’s platform has been attacked by the elites as fiscally impossible. He has proposed paying for the increased costs of services by raising the corporate tax rate, and levying a 2% tax on the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers; those earning above $1 million per year annually. 

While Mamdani’s proposals clearly resonated with New York voters, winning elections takes more than a specific program: it requires a strong organization and cadres out in the field knocking on doors. In Mamdani’s case, he had 45,000 volunteers in the primary, with grassroots enthusiasm expanding for the final election to 104,000 volunteers. It’s the largest grassroots campaign in New York City’s history.  At the core of Mamdani’s support are members of the New York’s Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) chapter. Mamdani has been an active member of the chapter and won his election to the New York Assembly with support from the group.

The labor movement with a few exceptions played it safe in the June primary and supported the traditional Democrat, Cuomo. But Mamdani’s smashing victory caused a quick pivot among NYC’s most powerful labor organizations – Teachersmunicipal employeesTeamsters and service workers. Mamdani’s campaign now lists 22 union endorsements.

As Mamdani’s election began to appear very tenable, the attacks magnified. Trump and the billionaires ran a full range of attack ads accusing Mamdani of anti-Semitism for his unflagging support for Gaza and bashing him as naïve and inexperienced because of his populist and “unreasonable socialist” program.

With Mamdani’s victory comes the challenges of governing and delivering on his ambitious platform. While it’s unlikely that New York’s billionaires will all relocate to Texas to avoid higher taxes, it’s very likely that there will be strong political resistance among traditional elected Democrats in New York’s state government, which has purview over NYC taxation and spending decisions. That is why Mamdani has made it clear that the army of campaign volunteers cannot be demobilized. They must remain ready to attack any locally elected state representatives who try to thwart Mamdani’s agenda in the state legislature.

Mamdani’s win stands as an example in the midst of the rising anti worker, anti people authoritarianism of New York native Donald Trump. While New Yorkers are generally considered very liberal, the fact that Mamdani’s message of taxing billionaires to make life affordable for the 99% reverberated so well with New York’s struggling working class is an important lesson for other aspiring Democrats.  A winning candidate that calls out our broken/rigged economic system (just like Bernie Sanders) sets the stage for more “paycheck populists” in the 2026 Congressional midterms.

A second lesson for Democrats is that the Mayor of the second largest Jewish metropolitan area in the world (after Tel Aviv) is an outspoken critic of genocide and a practicing Muslim progressive!  

Finally, this election creates an opportunity for unions in NYC to grow. Will Mamdani’s explicit endorsement of labor translate to using his municipal power to reinforce union power? Will New Yorkers see T-shirts inscribed with “Mayor Mamdani Wants You to Join a Union!”? Especially challenging will be if his policies could help bring justice to the enormous number of misclassified workers in the “gig” economy. 

Mamdani will have a four-year term as mayor. Every Republican and corporate Democrat will do everything possible to ensure he fails to discredit his socialist platform. Any success he achieves as mayor will be due to the strength of the movement that prevailed in the primary and continued to grow for his election in November. If that movement stays mobilized, continues to grow, and delivers for New York’s working class, it will be an inspiring political model that our labor movement should support and attempt to replicate in other US metropolitan areas.

About the author

Peter Olney

Peter Olney is retired Organizing Director of the ILWU. He has been a labor organizer for 50 years working for multiple unions before landing at the ILWU in 1997. For three years he was the Associate Director of the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California. With co-editor Glenn Perušek they have edited Labor Power and Strategy by John Womack Jr and available now from PM Press. Peter B. Olney Papers can be read at Robert S. Cox Special Collections & University Archives Research Center, View all posts by Peter Olney →

Rand Wilson

Rand Wilson has worked as a union organizer and labor communicator for more than forty years. He was active in the Labor Party, was a volunteer organizer, and later a shop steward and executive board member, for OCAW Local 8-366. Currently he is active in efforts to reform the Democratic party, and he is an elected member of Somerville's Ward 6 Democratic Committee. Wilson currently is an advisor to CHIPS Communities United, a coalition working to ensure that the $52.7 billion dollar CHIPS and Science Act subsidies to the semiconductor industry benefit workers and communities, not just its executives and shareholders. He also serves as a trustee for the Somerville Job Creation and Retention Trust. View all posts by Rand Wilson →

Comment on MAMDANI WINS!!! – Now the Hard Work Begins!

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , , , ,

With “Better Alpha Energy”: Can A Squad of Progressive Vets Storm Capitol Hill in 2026?

By and

During the mid-term election next year, the Democratic Party hopes to regain lost ground on Capitol Hill by running a new crop of  “service candidates”—men and women whose campaign bios stress their past experience in the military and national security agencies.

One booster of this approach is Elissa Slotkin, a business-friendly Democrat who won a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan last year. She first entered politics, as a successful candidate for the House in 2018, after three tours of duty in Iraq as a CIA analyst and then working as a top-level Pentagon official, whose responsibilities included “ensuring Israel’s qualitative military edge.”

In a candid interview with Politico, she  urged Democrats to ditch their reputation for being “weak and woke” and field more candidates, like herself, who have “goddamn Alpha energy” and can “fucking retake the flag.” In pursuit of this objective, her mainly male ex-colleagues in the House who served in the military have created a  Democratic Veterans Caucus (DVC), co-chaired by Representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA.), Pat Ryan (D-NY.) and Chris Deluzio (D-PA).

The DVC wants to create “a pipeline for the next generation of veteran and national-security-expert elected leaders.” Its favored candidates will get much financial help from the wealthy donors behind VoteVets, a DP-aligned Super PAC which showered $30 million on candidates like Slotkin last year. (Slotkin has also benefited from more  $650,000 in campaign spending by AIPAC.)

The DVC is rightly concerned about MAGA threats like President Trump’s “politicization” of the military and unlawful multi-state deployment of the National Guard for domestic policing purposes. According to Deluzio, a former Navy officer, it’s now a very “powerful thing for us to organize, as Democratic veterans, on some of those issues where we can’t reach compromise, and nor should we. We should fight for our values where we can.” 

That “fight for our values” did not last long. In a vote taken soon after the DVC was formed, a majority of its members–including Deluzio—folded completely when House Republicans pressured them to back a resolution honoring “a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility.” 

The recipient of this official praise was a deceased non-vet from Arizona named Charlie Kirk. In the same Orwellian language, Kirk was lauded by 85 other House Democrats as a model citizen engaged in “respectful, civil discourse,” who “worked tirelessly to promote unity.”

Three DVC members voted “present” and two were recorded as not voting at all on this mis-representation of Kirk’s “life and legacy” as a right-wing bigot, 2020 election results denier, and defender of January 6, 2021 rioters. Only 46-year old U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton—now an announced primary challenger to 79-year old Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) next year—and two others had the courage to vote against the measure because of Kirk’s long history of being an openly racist, misogynist, and homophobic immigrant basher.  

This revealing performance was the latest reminder that most successful service candidates quickly become part of the bi-partisan status quo in Washington. Whether elected as “moderate Democrats” or, more often, as MAGA Republicans, veterans on Capitol Hill rarely challenge U.S. foreign and military policy. 

Instead, they regularly rubber-stamp ever-bigger Pentagon budgets. They have voted, nearly unanimously, for $22 billion in military aid for Israel, during its genocidal assault on Gaza. And too many have been past supporters of privatizing essential services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which Ivy League-educated officer class vets like Moulton or DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth, rarely need themselves.

Another “service candidate” short-coming, in both major parties, is a shared dependence on corporate funding. Consider, for example, the recent career trajectory of Ruben Gallego, an Iraq war vet from a working-class Latino immigrant background from Arizona. As a House member, he was a defender of the VA and signed a Sanders-Warren backed “End the Forever War” pledge, circulated by Common Defense, the progressive veterans’ group.

When the former Marine geared up for his successful run for the Senate last year, he let his membership in the House Progressive Caucus lapse (claiming that its dues had become too high!) After that drop out, Gallego’s votes on anything related to US support for Israel’s war on Gaza got progressively worse. 

Gallego ended up winning his Senate race with the help of wealthy backers seeking less regulation of crypto currency; their “independent expenditures” on him alone exceeded $10 million last year. Total crypto industry spending on his campaign, Slotkin’s, and others involved in tight 2024 races was $130 million. 

That industry investment paid off this year when Gallego and Slotkin joined sixteen other Senate Democrats in voting for the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.” As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren warned, this Trump-backed legislation provides inadequate protections for consumers and the banking system, while allowing tech companies to issue their own private currencies and “take control over the money supply.”

Fortunately, heading into the 2026 mid-term elections, there are some military veterans, from working class backgrounds, trying to challenge big money in politics by ousting some of its most devoted servants.

Nebraska Senatorial candidate Dan Osborn is one of 5 candidates promoting “Paycheck populism” in Red and Purple states.

With plenty of “alpha energy,” they are promoting what Nebraska Senatorial candidate Dan Osborn calls “paycheck populism,.”  In five red or purple states, they are appealing to blue collar voters (including those with Trump voter remorse). They are trying to recruit a grassroots army of volunteers and raise enough “small dollar” donations to beat corporate Dem opponents in 2026 primary races and then well-funded Republican incumbents in the general election.

Osborn, a Navy and National Guard veteran from Omaha, Nebraska, has already proven it’s possible to become a viable candidate without a professional-managerial class background. The former local union president and Kellogg’s strike leader by-passed his state’s 2024 Democratic primary and ran as a labor-backed independent. To the shock and awe of many, Osborn garnered 47% of the vote in a red state that Kamala Harris lost by 59 to 39 percent last November.

Osborn’s challenge to Republican Deb Fischer, a corporate-funded, two-term Trump-loving incumbent, was initially given little chance of success–even without a Democratic Party vote-splitter on the ballot. When Osborn recently announced his second run for the Senate, as an independent, the state Party again wisely and helpfully bowed out of the race (although any Nebraskan could still grab its November, 2026 ballot line by entering and winning an otherwise uncontested primary). 

Osborn’s new sparring partner is “Wall Street Pete” Ricketts, a former governor and ultra-rich Republican businessman who voted for President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” in July. According to Osborn, that second term legislative triumph provided an “historic tax cut for the 1 percent,” while taking billions “away from social services and healthcare for hard working people” dependent on Medicaid. 

On the campaign trail, Osborn is again blasting both major parties for being “bought and paid for by corporations and billionaires.”  And like other progressive, labor-oriented vets profiled below, he’s highlighting the gross under-representation of workers in a Congressional “country club full of Ivy League graduates, former business execs, and trust fund babies.” 

Nathan Sage is a working-class veteran of the Marines, the Army, and three tours of duty in Iraq who went to college on the GI Bill, and is now running for the U.S. Senate in Iowa.

Osborn’s campaign did not go unnoticed in neighboring Iowa by 40-year old Nathan Sage. He’s a working-class veteran of the Marines, the Army, and three tours of duty in Iraq who went to college on the GI Bill. Before anyone else thought MAGA Republican Joni Ernst, might be vulnerable at the polls in 2026, Sage declared his candidacy for her Senate seat. 

Raised in an Iowa trailer park by a factory worker father and nursing assistant mother, Sage began hammering Ernst even before her infamous April, 2025 town hall meeting comment about federal budget cuts not being such a threat to the longevity of the poor since “we all are doing to die.” After a popular backlash about that, other Iowa Democrats–holding current state or local elected offices— joined the fray, making for a crowded primary field in 2026, for what is now an open seat, because Ernst  decided not to run for re-election,

None of Sage’s rivals for the nomination share his singular orientation as a “voice for every Iowan who struggles to get by.”  The former radio station news director and now small-town economic development promoter is a fierce critic of big business. His campaign platform targets insurance industry rip-offs, big pharma abuses, price gouging by private equity owned healthcare providers, and VA privatization.

“People understand that government’s not working for us,” Sage told us. “We’re the richest country in the world, and over 60% of our population lives paycheck to pay-check…We’ve got to get big money out of politics, by over-turning Citizens United, so elections are not just a pay-to-play scheme and more working-class people actually have a chance to win.”  

Former Marine Zach Shrewsbury launched his second campaign for the Senate in West Virgina.

Like Osborn, former Marine Zach Shrewsbury launched his second campaign for the Senate, after losing to a different Republican in 2024. Like Sage, he decided to take the Democratic primary route. If successful on that hostile terrain, he would be up against incumbent Senator Shelley Moore Capito whose family, he says, “has ruled West Virginia for decades like feudal lords passing power down like heirlooms while our towns crumbled and our people suffered.”

Shrewsbury’s grandfather was a union coal miner but he grew up in a Republican family. After military service abroad, he became an organizer for Common Defense and got involved in progressive electoral politics and then environmental justice campaigning in a state long plagued by poverty and pollution. His current project is Blue Jay Rising, which integrates voter registration and community engagement with much-needed mutual aid initiatives.

As a Senate candidate, Shrewsbury will again draw on his military background to speak truth to power about how billions of tax-payer dollars that could be better spent at home have helped fund Israel’s “illegal, immoral, and massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure…to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.” 

41-year old Graham Platner, who works as an oyster farmer, is challenging Republican Senator Susan Collins. Platner says. “Healthcare is a disaster, hospitals are closing. We have watched all of that get ripped away from us…”

As part of her “war plan” to elect more like-minded corporate Democrats next year, Michigan Senator Slotkin has sternly advised candidates not to use the term “oligarchy.” In Maine, one Marine Corps and Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not get that memo from party headquarters.

When 41-year old Graham Platner, who works as an oyster farmer, announced his challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins, he declared that the enemy of the vast majority of Americans “is the oligarchy.” Like Osborn, Sage, and Shrewsbury, Platner is taking direct aim at the big money in politics deployed by “the billionaire class” to thwart much needed change. 

“Why can’t we have universal healthcare like every other first-world country?” he asks. “Why are we funding endless wars and bombing children? Why are CEOs more powerful than unions? We’ve fought three different wars since the last time we raised the minimum wage.”

On his campaign website, Platner has pledged to support Medicare for All, protect Social Security, push for a “billionaire minimum tax,” a regulatory crack-down on polluters and “urgent action on climate change.” “Nobody I know around here can afford a house,” Platner says. “Healthcare is a disaster, hospitals are closing. We have watched all of that get ripped away from us…”  

At a Labor Day Rally in Portland, Platner welcomed the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders and told a cheering crowd of 6,500 that “our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza.” In a social media post the next day, he doubled down on that message, saying: “It’s not complicated. Not one more taxpayer dollar for genocide.”

This did not go down well with 75-year old Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer. He strongly urged termed out Maine Governor Janet Mills, a 78-year old ready for retirement from politics, to join the Senate primary race. Despite a corporate Dem/MAGA Republican smear campaign against him, Platner is polling well against Mills so far.  He’s also drawing large and enthusiastic local crowds of people who want to send someone to Washington who is not another geriatric “moderate,” like the nearly 74-year old Collins (who embraces that same label as a Republican).

Richard Ojeda began his twenty-five-year Army career as an enlisted man and then went through officer training after completing college; he retired with the rank of major

Richard Ojeda began his twenty-five-year Army career as an enlisted man and then went through officer training after completing college; he retired with the rank of major. In 2018, Ojeda became the West Virginia politician most supportive of the pay and benefit demands of the twenty-five thousand public school teachers who staged an illegal statewide walk-out. 

He spoke on the strikers’ behalf at many rallies and, inspired by their “red state revolt,” decided to take his own populist working class politics to Congress, via an uphill 2018 fight against a right-wing Republican. After his defeat, Ojeda started a PAC called “No Dem Left Behind,” to aid other candidates, like himself, running in rural, conservative districts, with not much support from the DNC. 

He moved to North Carolina, where he has now launched a political come-back as a Democratic primary candidate in that state’s deep red 9th Congressional district. In his current campaign against Rep. Richard Hudson, a well-connected House Republican, Ojeda defends the rights of immigrants and workers, supporting public education and Medicaid expansion, rather than cuts, and rallying fellow vets against DOGE-driven threats to VA jobs and services. 

On the veterans’ affairs front, Ojeda took an unusual step for a political candidate. He collected 90,000 signatures on a petition protesting Trump Administration attacks on VA patients and their unionized care-givers. Then, he personally delivered it to agency officials in Washington and demanded that VA Secretary Doug Collins “reject the unlawful executive order by Trump which rips out long-standing civil rights protections and opens the door to denying VA care based on marital status, sexual orientation, religion, or even voting for a Democrat.”

On the campaign trail, Ojeda finds encouraging signs that others who once voted for Trump (as he did in 2016) are having second thoughts as “they look around at the wreckage so far, the ICE kidnappings, the censorship, and the economic pain.” More people, he believes, “are realizing that they were pawns in the oldest con in the book—blame immigrants, blame workers, blame anyone who doesn’t look or pray or live the day you do.”

“People are waking up,” Ojeda says. “They’re fed up that they’ve been lied to. They’re angry and they damn well should be.  Our job now is to meet that anger with something stronger than shame, because mocking people who got conned won’t win anything. The only way to defeat a movement based on fear and division is to build one rooted in courage and care.”

About the author

Steve Early

Steve Early was an early member of Labor Party Advocates, a pre-curser to Tony Mazzocchi’s Labor Party. He’s been involved with the Communications Workers of America, as a national staffer or rank-and-file member, since 1980. He was a co-founder of Labor for Bernie and has written six books about labor, politics, or veterans affairs. He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com View all posts by Steve Early →

Suzanne Gordon

Suzanne Gordon is a co-founder of the Bay Area-based Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. She and journalist Steve Early are co-authors of Our Veterans: Winners, Losers, Friends and Enemies on the New Terrain of Veterans Affairs, from Duke University Press, which reports on the Vanessa Guillen case. They can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com View all posts by Suzanne Gordon →

Comment on With “Better Alpha Energy”: Can A Squad of Progressive Vets Storm Capitol Hill in 2026?

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , ,

  RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON COURAGE

By

Editors Note:  On Saturday, July 19th my friend Mike Miller celebrated his 88th birthday at the 7 Mile House on Old Bayshore Avenue not far from the Sunnydale Housing Projects where he grew up. The party was great food and a beautiful mixture of Mike’s colleagues, friends and family. One grandson saluted Mike by proclaiming: “I love Mike, he made me Mac and Cheese once but he forgot the cheese!” That brought down the house.

Others saluted Mike’s work and influence on their development as organizers. I told MIke as he was leaving the event that I always esteemed his courage in going South as a Freedom Rider and braving the mortal dangers of the early civil rights movement. I asked that he write something about those experiences and he has kindly complied. Here below are his thoughts on courage.

Peter Olney


This flyer is for an event a year after the events Mike has written about below

Some weeks ago, maybe even months, Peter Olney asked me to write a piece on “courage.”  I’ve started writing these thoughts numerous times.  It turned out to be a more difficult subject than I think either of us realized.

I don’t now recall what prompted Peter’s request; it may have been the fact that I was one of two whites who spent the Summer of 1963 in Greenwood, Mississippi as a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) field secretary.

That was a year before “Mississippi Summer,” when nearly a thousand northern, mostly white, volunteers came to the State in response to a call from the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), largely staffed by SNCC, to break down its wall of racism.  Earlier experiences of whites working in the Delta were accompanied by an increase in violence against local people.  The question was intensely discussed by SNCC staffers Jim Forman, Bob Moses and Sam Block.  The compromise agreement was that we would stay close to the office.

After only a week-or-so there we were picked up a couple of blocks from the SNCC office by a cop. Outside the jailhouse, he yelled up to white prisoners looking out a cell window on flight up, “Got me some nggr lovers here, boys.”  Dick Frey and I were scared.  Waiting at the booking desk, we could hear the muffled voices of the arresting officer and Chief Larry, but couldn’t make out what they were saying.  A couple of minutes turned into five, then ten.  They seemed like hours.  The arresting cop came out of the Chief’s office door and told us to get back in the car.

Now we were in a panic.  Was he taking us to the river to shoot us and dump us in its waters?

No, he wasn’t.

“You see that school over there, boys, we built that for our nigras (he’d modified “nggrs”).  He repeated that performance at a new recreation park.  The next thing we knew, we were back at the SNCC office.  We entered to laughter and applause!  What prompted it is that Project Director Sam Black had called the Chief and bluffed:  “Chief, don’t mess with those boys, they know the Governor of California.”  We didn’t.

Going to Mississippi from the student movement context at U.C. Berkeley didn’t seem to me to be courageous at the time.  I was in a campus “movement’ culture that fully supported me.  Indeed, going gave me a kind of special status when I returned.  I admit to enjoying it.

In those days, I thought (and still think) all the SNCC workers in the south were courageous.  Sam Block and Willie Peacock, the first two field secretaries to work in Greenwood, slept in their cars for several months before any local family opened their home to them.

Local Black people challenging racism took their lives in their hands. Those who opened their doors to civil rights workers, attended “mass meetings” (often only a handful of people) and finally went to the Courthouse to attempt to register were perhaps even more courageous:  Sam and Willie were there by choice.  “Local people” were by definition not.  They risked firing, house burning, beating and death.

Rev. Aaron Johnson was the first to open his church to SNCC meetings.  He lost members as a result. He stuck by his civil rights commitments.  That was courage.

Refusing to go along with the crowd when you think the crowd is wrong is another form of courage.  I’ve been courageous in such circumstances, and I’ve not been in others.

In my junior high school in San Francisco, I was President of  the scholarship society (a group of students who got good grades).  We had an afterschool dance one day, attended by our only Black member.  While others danced, she sat at the edge of the dance floor.

I asked her to dance. In the context of my largely white working class school with very few Black students, I think that was courageous. I stepped up, risking raised eyebrows and gossip behind my back.  I stood up for my values.

In my civics class, I reported on a San Francisco Milk Wagon Drivers’ strike and called those who crossed the picket lines “scabs” — the word routinely used by my left-wing parents to describe strikebreakers.  Homeroom teacher, Miss Madden, was offended by that, and asked me, “Are you a Communist Michael?”  (That was 1950, at the peak of the McCarthy era.)  I was quick on my feet:  “Yes, I am, and Mike _______ is vice-president and Karl _______ is secretary of our group here at Denman.”  (They had earlier expressed support for the strikers.)  My classmates laughed; Miss Madden blushed.  At the time, and now, I thought that was a risky thing to do.

Other times in junior high, and senior high I didn’t do so well.  When Fred ________ used the word “kike,” I didn’t challenge him.  I could have.  We were a group of friends spending a week-end day at Berkeley’s Lake Anza.  Silence was prompted by the fear of speaking against a common slur used in those days.  Why didn’t I?  I think it was a lack of courage, a fear of being different.

A lot of people take daily risks in their work: racing drivers, coal miners, police, mountain climbers.  Are they courageous?  I don’t want to use the word here though I can’t quite tell you why.

Take it to an extreme:  are the Sherpas who accompany people seeking to climb Mt. Everest courageous?  It’s hard not to think of them that way.  On the other hand, economic necessity is typically the driving force in their choice of work.  Does that diminish their courage?  Something in me wants to limit “courage” to acts freely taken, not those born of necessity — economic or otherwise.

What about men at war?  When a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade tossed into a foxhole he shares with others, he gives his life to save theirs.  I think that’s courageous.  But why aren’t the others in the foxhole who were volunteers also courageous?

Are spies who infiltrate Iranian atomic research sites to learn who the physicists are so that their Israeli employers can assassinate the scientists, courageous?  If caught, they are probably summarily executed, perhaps after torture.  Here’s another place where I’m reluctant to use the word.

At some point risk becomes foolhardiness.  How is the line between them drawn?  By whom?

At another point, failure to take risk is undue fearfulness.  The likelihood of danger is exaggerated in the mind of the fearful.  It justifies inaction when the justification is without merit.

I think so.  When a conservative student speaks up in a liberal classroom, that’s as courageous as the radical speaking up in a conservative context.  

Here’s a tricky one:  I think the group that attempted to assassinate Hitler in 1944 was courageous.  What about the man who assassinated Gandhi?  Or the assassin of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy?  Is “courage” only applied to those whose acts we support?  I don’t think so, but I hate to think of King’s assassin as courageous!

If pressed here, I can find no justification for limiting the notion of courage to acts taken by people on our political side of the fence.  That is both a defining characteristic of it, and why courage is not enough.  It is possible to be courageous and immoral.


Postscript: In subsequent discussions, Mike has identified other worthy present day courageous historical actors: The activists who sailed on the Pro Palestine freedom flotillas and the people on the streets defending immigrants against ICE attacks. Peter Olney

Warren Mar Remembers Kent Wong

By

Long time labor leader and educator Kent Wong died in the early AM of October 8. Labor councils, community organizations and prominent political leaders are saluting the multiple contributions that Kent made to reshaping Los Angeles and California. Most recently he helped to spearhead the July nonviolent direct action training at the LA Convention Center to promote resistance to the Trump occupation. Warren Mar has a long history with Kent and here he reflects on the loss of this exemplary leader. The Editors


It was with great sadness when I opened my email, which I check less and less these days and saw a posting about the passing of Kent Wong, who served as the Director of the Labor Center at UCLA for over 30 years.  Like most baby boomers, I have gotten used to losing friends and acquaintances on a regular basis, but somehow, I thought guys like Kent would just chug along forever or at least longer than most of us.

I heard about his passing from an email from the retiree chapter of the AFT: American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121, and for a period in between organizing stints I was a faculty member of the Labor and Community Studies Department at City College of SF.  In a sense it was a notification about the passing of a colleague, and while I also did a stint at the Labor Center north at UC Berkeley, Kent was always more than another labor academic to me. 

I became reacquainted with him, when I was hired as the Western Regional Recruitment Coordinator, for the Organizing Institute (OI).  Under the Sweeney-Trumka regime in the early and mid-90’s, the national federation was trying to revitalize organizing non-union workers, and the OI was the carrot; the federation would foot the bill (for us) to recruit and train young organizers off college campuses and put them on campaigns with field staff trainers.  When they finished the unions had the right to hire them on or throw them back into the pool.  It was a bargain for most locals or regional affiliates who had some gumption to organize, often with lukewarm international support.  I was lucky or unlucky when I was hired on at the OI, because there was also a hole in the southwest and for a time, I covered all of California, Oregon and Washington state.  But covering Los Angeles gave me the opportunity to reconnect with Kent Wong. 

Why do I say reconnect?  Kent came out of the new left, as did I. He was with a different group of Asian leftists when he was an under-grad and later a law student in the mid-late 70’s.  He made his first pilgrimage up to SF Chinatown during this time when we were fighting against the final eviction of the I-Hotel, in 1977.   I was a tenant organizer at that time and already a cadre with the I Wor Kuen (IWK) which would later morph into the League of Revolutionary Struggle (LRS).  SF Chinatown was then primarily our turf and the other major left group was the Revolutionary Union, later Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which had an Asian Community Center in the basement of the Hotel next to the Chinese Progressive Association, which the IWK help start in 1973.  But we were full of ourselves as were most left groups those days, and we did not welcome, outside organizers, even those who were from another area of the Asian American left.  His group never hung around long, never got a foot hold in Chinatown.  They dissolved a couple of years before the LRS, so by the time we reconnected in Los Angeles, in the 90’s, he not only remembered my past, but welcomed it.  We laughed about our sectarianism and also how foolish we often were.

I always appreciated that Kent never hid his past politics from me. Even when I worked at the Labor Center in Berkeley he always treated me as a fellow traveler from the left, not just another labor organizer or labor educator.  While he could walk the academic tight rope, he never fell into the trap of what was popular to study and write about in a particular year, or the expediency of who was in power in a particular union or the university’s over lords in Sacramento who held the funding strings.  He never wavered in the need for UCLA to be involved with immigrant worker centers, the undocumented, dreamers who were his students and the multitudes of unorganized workers of color, who were the parents of his students.

Kent was also a realist about the unions who he was trying to help regain their prominence, and Los Angeles was always a much weaker union town than San Francisco.  Yet we both agreed that like the radical history of UC Berkeley both the academy and Labor movement were living off past glories.  In the case of S.F., the general strike of the 30’s and in the case of UCB the radical student movement and 3rd World strikes of the 60’s.  Kent always said they could not rest on these laurels, and he knew things had to change from the ground up.  Like his mentor and fellow traveler from the 60’s, Reverend James Lawson Jr, Kent knew that the main resistance against capitalism would come from the most oppressed: BPOC people, immigrants and slaves from the former colonies.  He knew and always fought for immigrants and people of color as a part of the working class.  That we had been excluded in the past had more to do with the fault of the unions and U.S. racism, than it was due to our ancestor’s willingness to organize.  Kent knew that BPOC and immigrants self-organized in spite of past exclusions from unions and legal policy barriers.

He knew that the shrinking unionized workforce could not be the entirety of the labor movement.  It is no accident that much of UCLA’s Labor Center stretches as much into communities of color, immigrant worker centers, black workers centers, Day Laborers. These sectors that have built the United States, have been the focus of the Labor Center’s work under Kent’s leadership.  He used the University to give them voice, connections with other workers across, craft, industry and jobs.  He made the formal union leadership see solidarity with the communities of color as key to their own survival, a better bet than the past government deals they benefited from.  His contributions to multi-national unity here in the U.S. and international solidarity particularly with Asians and Latinos; many former colonies of the United States will be his contribution and legacy.  Kent not only made the Los Angeles labor movement stronger by building solidarity with communities of color but forced the past political machines to give labor leaders inroads.  While Los Angeles has elected officials directly from unions and communities, San Francisco, has moved further to the right by directly having billionaire tech bros dominate municipal government.  A resounding reflection on the North – South divides between race and class.  Our state is a reflection of the global mirror.  Kent understood this, which is why L.A. stands today as the beachhead for Trump’s federal invasion into California, an invasion meeting constant resistance..  He made UCLA Labor’s Center a real peoples academy, a worker’s academy.  It was not an accident that the UCLA Labor Center was built in a largely immigrant/POC community opposite McArthur Park, with programs accessible to the young and working class.  Kent not only changed the academy for the better, but the labor movement and municipal government where he worked. 

Rest in Peace comrade,

Warren Mar

About the author

Warren Mar

He is a labor organizer and was long active as a member of Local 2 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE). Before joining labor Warren Mar worked for a decade as a community organizer. He was the co-founder of two organizations which are still in existence today in SF Chinatown: Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) founded in 1973 and the Chinatown Youth Center (CYC) founded in 1969. He has served on the board of the CT Resource Center and helped organize , as an unpaid organizer, tenants at two Chinatown SRO’s. View all posts by Warren Mar →

Comment on Warren Mar Remembers Kent Wong

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: ,

DSA Graphic History: Learning From Our Past

By

If past is prologue, then understanding history is key to understanding the present, charting a course for the future.  Raymond Taylor (writer), Noah Van Sciver (illustrator) and Paul Buhle (editor) collaborated on Democratic Socialists of America: A Graphic History which, in its 24 pages, touches on essential points of DSA’s political evolution.  It is particularly relevant as we seek how best to respond to the fascist threat posed by the Trump Administration and emboldened corporate reaction; how we build upon the possibilities afforded by growing mass resistance and an open socialist presence unseen in ages.

Given DSA’s massive growth from its nadir at the start of the new millennium with only a few thousand members to the tens of thousands who have joined since 2015 some people have concluded that it is really a new organization, its past is of little value, an albatross that needs to be sloughed off.  DSA is, of course, not the same in 2025 as when founded in 1982; only a moribund organization would remain unchanged over the course of forty plus years. The relevant question is to ask why, amongst all socialist organizations, DSA is the one which has grown so dramatically.  

It is a question the Graphic History helps answer. Although constrains of size meant that some areas of DSA’s past received less attention that they should have, those aspects chosen provide a framework to connect the dots between before and now.

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, participation in Occupy Wall Street in 2011, support for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016 are the three movements the Graphic History identifies as laying the basis for DSA’s subsequent growth.  Precursors to each – opposition to war and U.S. militarism, grassroots organizing on behalf of economic and social security, independent electoral action primarily through the Democratic Party — show the continuity of “old” and “new” DSA that is too often forgotten.

Iraq: In the face of aggression and injustice, DSA remained steadfast in its commitment to peace, justice and solidarity

Most of those who founded DSA had been part of the movement against the Vietnam War, a commitment to peace remained central thereafter.  One of the first initiatives of DSA’s Youth Section was to organize against selective service registration (which resumed in 1980 after being ended in 1975).  DSA members in the 1980s joined local solidarity committees opposed to US funding and arming of the Contras in Nicaragua and the violently repressive governments in El Salvador and Guatemala.  DSA unionists challenged AFL-CIO leadership support for U.S. imperial policies in Central America and elsewhere.  

By the late 1980s, however, anti-war movements became weaker and new rationalizations for U.S. military actions abroad developed within liberal political circles, academia and the media.  With the Cold War ending, there was an attempt to portray U.S. foreign policy as having changed, as being essential to a “rules-based” international order. “Irrational” authoritarian government, by which commentators meant newly independent states in Asia and Africa, especially those majority Arab and/or majority Muslim, were deemed the major threat to world peace (such definitions rested on the false assumption of a supposedly more civilized, democratic “West”).  

A test of convictions arrived in 1991 when the first Gulf War was launched after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The invasion and annexation of a neighboring country was clearly illegal and immoral.  Most Democratic Party liberals and some former anti-war activists took the position that the U.S. should respond by force of arms. Significant debates took place within DSA as to our position.  The result: overwhelming condemnation of the US military invasion.  That debate clarified and solidified DSA’s politics, laid the framework for unequivocal opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and for current solidarity with Palestine.

Occupy:  Occupy Wall Street erupted as a grassroots protest against the injustices of capitalism.  DSA worked alongside organizers, lending support and expertise to help advance the movement’s demand for economic justice and equality.

Occupy began in 2011 as a direct action protest against corporate greed and inequality. DSA, without hesitation, joined in New York and other cities as the spirit of resistance spread. Decentralized, made up of relatively autonomous chapters, DSA had a natural kinship with the movement as a form of organizing reflecting the socialist feminist influence at DSA’s origins.

That was exemplified in the 1990s by DSA’s response to the “feminization of poverty,” itself a consequence of the destruction of jobs and communities by the mass layoffs in the 1970s, intensified by systemic pay inequity between women and men (and further intensified by the even greater wage gap faced by African American and Spanish-speaking women).  

Some of this work was national in scope – such as DSA’s opposition to the Clinton Administration’s destruction of existing welfare programs.  Most of the work, however, was locally-based mutual support engagement and metropolitan-wide public policy initiatives alongside workshops and forums highlighting the reality of increased poverty women and children faced.  DSA unionists backed AFSCME’s campaign for “comparable worth” (i.e. raising the wages of women-dominated occupations to the equivalent of better-paid male-dominated jobs).

DSA chapters organized for low-income housing, rent control, expanded mass transit, public education, low-cost childcare while opposing the burgeoning war on drugs and pro-developer urban budgets/tax policies.  The other side of such work was a response to the New Right’s assault on women’s rights.  DSA members were active in abortion clinic defense mobilizations to protect patients and staff from “Operation Rescue’s” harassment and violence, supported ACT UP’s protests to change federal policy of neglect/hostility toward victims of AIDS.  Similarly, diverse forms of local organizing characterized DSA’s approach to labor solidarity, public health, environmental protection.

Member-initiated campaigns against the array of social and political forms of injustice flowing from inequality anticipated DSA’s embrace of Occupy and its growth in its aftermath.

Sanders: In 2015, DSA’s Run Bernie project helped convince Bernie to run for president.  In the modern era, it was the first time people seriously talked about democratic socialism.  

DSA had long supported Sanders, including an independent initiative to support his first Senatorial campaign in 2006.  As the 2016 presidential election took shape, it became clear that political change was in the wind. Donald Trump, with his demagoguery and racist rhetoric spoke to anger without hope, while Sanders spoke to hope and anger rooted in social solidarity. DSA as the socialist organization whose political perspective most closely mirrored his, benefitted by an upsurge in membership.

DSA had prior experience in supporting that kind of popular insurgency when backing Jesse Jackson’s second presidential campaign in 1988 and developing a close working relationship with the associated Rainbow Coalition.

Some members supported Jackson and the Rainbow during his first campaign in 1984, but DSA did not endorse him.  Working within the Democratic Party was initially conceived as building coalitions with mainstream labor, civil rights, women’s, environmental and other social justice organizations.  Jackson challenged that by organizing on those same issues from the bottom up with an expansive agenda rather than a least common denominator program.  The Rainbow Coalition brought those elements together in an on-going movement beyond election cycles – opposing corporate anti-union, anti-egalitarian policies espoused by the Reagan Administration, a politics mainstream Democrats failed to sufficiently combat.

Some in DSA feared that supporting such a campaign would alienate potential allies, some in DSA were concerned about Jackson not being sufficiently socialist.  Jackson’s explicit anti-racism was central to his working-class agenda, a connection which some members believed would weaken a focus on universal economic issues.  Moreover, affirmation of Palestinian rights, rejection of anti-Communism as an ideology, and overall challenge to US imperial foreign policy was not supported by all in DSA. 

A lengthy and protracted debate ensued concluded by 1986 in a Convention decision to endorse Jackson and make work with the Rainbow a national priority.  A full-time organizer was hired to implement the decision. Those politics came to the fore again during Sanders’ presidential runs.

Many left organizations similarly opposed the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq, engaged in community-based organizing and helped spread Occupy, supported Jackson and the Rainbow then supported Sanders.  But DSA is the organization which survived fully intact, in position to expand to its current strength.  Significantly, debates over the first Gulf War, the Jackson campaigns, or other issues did not lead to splits, to people leaving or being forced out.

Key, as the Graphic History notes, was DSA’s founding based on a shared vision for a multi-tendency left in recognition that programmatic unity could emerge out of disagreement.  Members and leaders of DSA at its birth had different world views, political histories, political priorities – the Graphic History mentions Dorothy Healey, Barbara Ehrenreich, Michael Harrington, Rep. Ron Dellums and Harry Britt as reflective of that diversity. A common program and orientation emerged without any expectation of ideological conformity. That flexibility, however, was based on several principals: support for peace, equality, unionism, democratic participation and accountability. 

DSA’s politics developed out of the work of the membership, rather than as a set of prescriptions emerging out of a pre-developed analysis. Working people don’t inherently look at the world through the same lens, activists in unions, churches, community groups, tenant, peace and environmental organizations frequently differ amongst themselves and between each other yet can come to a shared perspective, shared engagement, shared goals. DSA’s commitment to function as a multi-tendency organization mirrors this process.  Class consciousness or socialist understanding can’t be imposed; such awareness develops in the context of experience in political/social struggles and education through organization. 

Solidarity, at the core of working-class strength, similarly, emerges when discovering points of commonality and building structures that reinforce that understanding.  This is always fraught – mutual support is what sustains an ability to overcome the centrifugal forces of class society and systemic forms of racial and gendered oppression.

An organization that encourages different forms of engagement coinciding with different prior experiences and outlooks proved welcoming as it provided room to join others across a wide spectrum of issues and varying levels of commitment.  Sustaining that unity lay with recognizing the connection between base-building grass-roots initiatives on one hand with institutional leadership (elected public officials, union officers, leaders of large membership or funded organizations) on the other, without attempting to conflate them.  Organizing on the ground creates possibilities otherwise lacking, while organizing through institutions create frameworks within which systemic challenges to power relationships can take shape.  The two are interdependent albeit with different impulses. 

The Graphic History underscores what this means in practice – images abound on its pages, “Protect Our Schools,” “Power to the Tenants,” “My Body My Choice,” “Youth Autonomy,” “No One is Illegal,” “Trans Rights is Human Rights,” “Planet Before Profits,” “Healthcare not Warfare,” each signifying issues where DSA members are organizing.  So too, DSA’s support for Starbucks unionizing and teacher strikes, pro-labor legislative initiatives for one fair wage, union rights and other forms of worker solidarity are highlighted. Those slogans and campaigns speak to our times. Insecurity and uncertainty, debt, precarity, assaults on personal liberty and collective rights, are realities which have given birth to wider streams of political radicalism and form the social base behind DSA’s membership rise.

Activists are motivated by some combination of personal experience, moral outrage, strategic analysis. That often leads to different emphasis or approach as does the community being engaged – outreach in an election campaign or a union organizing drive will differ, so too will work to defund police, to force action on climate change, build solidarity with migrants, stop evictions. Socialists will, or should, seek to bring these together (and bring together those mobilized within each) but that is only possible by recognizing and working to resolve the contradictions that can emerge within them.

The openness to ideas rooted in different streams of political engagement – and rooted in the social base of people impacted by the economic and spiritual crisis of contemporary society – has been the basis of DSA’s electoral successes.  The Graphic History highlights three:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whose election in 2020 helped ignite DSA’s growth; her participation in anti-Oligarchy tours with Bernie Sanders has brought the fight against Trump, for environmental justice and economic equality to millions. AOC’s politics are embodied in her Green New Deal Legislation, support for Medicare for all, call to defund ICE.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian American women elected to Congress is a powerful advocate for Palestinian lives and opposition to U.S. support for Israeli apartheid.  She co-introduced the Breathe Act to divest from discriminatory and brutal policing and reinvest in alternative means to ensure community safety.  Tlaib has worked to promote racial justice, immigrant rights, worker rights, full equality for all.

Rep. Cori Bush, a nurse, played a leading role in the protest movement in Ferguson, MO after a police officer wasn’t charged for the murder of an unarmed teenager.  Her focus in Congress was on housing justice, healthcare reform, and criminal justice reform – including introducing the People’s Response Act (supported by Black Lives Matter) that would fund an inclusive, health-centered approach to public safety.

Each of them has been subjected to vicious misogynistic and racist attacks, been in conflict with mainstream corporate Democratic leadership; each has combined legislative and community outreach with support of mass mobilizations. Yet differences have emerged amongst them, in particular over how to oppose US military support for Israel (though there are far more points of convergence than divergence).  Although those differences have divided DSA members, each retains the strong support of the DSA locals where they live and the support of working-class communities they represent in Congress.  

Based on their principled stances and relationship to their constituents both AOC and Tlaib have survived attempts to defeat them and emerged with greater support than ever in their Bronx/Queens, and Detroit home communities.  

Cori Bush, despite serving with a militancy long absent in her St. Louis district was defeated in 2024 – the combination of corporate Democratic opposition, right-wing attacks, pro-Israeli money proved decisive. That fit a pattern. For decades, African American elected representatives who refuse to be coopted by establishment politics have been targeted.  DSA member India Walton was similarly defeated when Democratic officials joined Republicans to defeat her campaign to become mayor of Buffalo after winning the Democratic primary. So too, Representative Jamal Bowman (criticized by some for his voting record on Israel for reasons similar to criticisms of AOC) lost his reelection bid, facing the same enemies. Bush, Walton, Bowman, have all stood in support of each other.

DSA’s history (and the history of labor and socialism) underscores the importance of supporting DSA identified public figures, notwithstanding disagreements, for transformative politics depends on multiple streams of resistance and advocacy reinforcing each other.  Solidarity internally is a sign of class and societal solidarity, each dependent on mutual support and mutual respect across lines of difference.  Such questions become of greater importance as the number of DSA members holding public office increase, and as the possibility of winning executive office looms – most promisingly with Zohran Mandami’s mayoral campaign in New York City and Omar Fateh’s in Minneapolis.  

From prison abolition to mutual aid, from housing justice to environmental sustainability, immigrant rights, and reproductive justice and DSA’s trans rights and bodily autonomy campaign, DSA members are actively involved in a variety of working groups, each dedicated to advancing socialist principles and building socialism from the ground up.

Past may be prologue, but the future is unwritten. There is no guarantee that, like other left organizations, DSA won’t split, dwindle in size and influence. That danger is intensified by assaults on democratic and constitutional rights, urban military deployments, ICE raids, union-busting and budgetary policies that will increase inequality and poverty.

Sharp debate on organizational issues at DSA’s Convention this past August revealed cleavages within the membership, while an underlying unity was reflected in near unanimous support for political resolutions. DSA’s divided leadership now faces a challenge – building upon the organization’s roots as a multi-tendency organization or retreat into a sectarian posture by jettisoning presumed “reformist” or “ultra-left” tendencies.  DSA’s future depends upon a shared commitment to the organization while sustaining connections to the communities members come from, are part of, are organizing within.

Bearing this in mind, three final thoughts make explicit what is implicit in the Graphic History as needs facing tomorrow.

Alliances: DSA’s strength as a multi-tendency organization lies not only in how we organize ourselves, it lies with how we relate and connect with others around us. Other socialist and left organizations with a different conception of how organize for systemic change have their own validity.  So too do larger, broader liberal and progressive organizations and associations, so do unions, tenant associations, churches and a whole panoply of networks and groups all of which form part of the wider world seeking social change. 

DSA needs to retain the flexibility to work with the whole range of political organizations – be they liberal be they further left, be they mainstream or on the margins – where it connects with organizational priorities and the work of our diverse membership.  That doesn’t mean accepting others positions as our own; programmatic not ideological unity is central in coalition as it is amongst members.  Being part of varied alliance – just as being part of varied neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and regions — is how we oppose hatreds which divide, how we build toward a socialism that is democratic in fact, not just word.

Facing Fascism: The fascist threat today is real; it is a threat embodied by Trump but ought not be reduced to him.  The transformation of the Republican Party reflects the authoritarian danger within our political culture; as is the rise of openly racist, openly fascistic organizations.  So too, Agenda 2025 reflects a long-standing drive of key sections of capital to weaken formal democratic rights to “free” corporations from regulatory limitations, “free” U.S. imperial power from all constraints, “free” capital from worker demands and societal obligations.

This means being cognizant of, and opposed to the anti-unionism, anti-labor aspect of Administration policy – it’s assaults on immigrant workers, on federal workers, on workplace DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs are an opening wedge to an assault on all union rights.  It means resisting the intensified racism of “anti-crime” rhetoric and policies, the racism of the celebration of amoral military violence by the Trump Administration – fighting the violence of fascism means opposing the celebration of war and violence abroad of a U.S. foreign policy of long-standing bi-partisan support.

A response needs to tackle the immediate danger posed by the Trump Administration by defending civil liberties and constitutional rights, and the long-term political threat posed by extreme right-wing politics becoming mainstream, and the underlying systemic danger of unmoored financialized capital seeking to impose direct role over existing national and international representative bodies with all who stand similarly opposed notwithstanding fundamental disagreement on program, perspective, goals.

The strength of a socialist organization lies not in enhancing contradictions amongst working people or within broad popular movements, but in organizing to find points of concurrence, to build a broader basis and wider support for structural reforms that challenge the roots of reaction. Rather than pitting one against the other, organizing ought to be conceived as unifying various avenues of resistance and affirmation.

Cohesiveness and Coherence: DSA, as the Graphic History amply demonstrates, has a rich history.  Accounts of DSA in its early years often bear little resemblance to what members experienced partly because we wore our public profile lightly – it’s not the least of its virtues that the Graphic History in readable and visually arresting form presents a fuller picture than usually emerges.  

DSA’s past struggles are frequently not recalled because a lack of cohesiveness all too often meant that the sum of the parts or our organizing was less than the whole. Cohesiveness is foundational to centralized organizations; the challenge for DSA is to accomplish this while maintaining a heterogenous character. Key is for members to realize that being “correct,” and divided is to undermine the struggle – part of the premise of being “correct,” is the ability to achieve agreement (a truism for an organization internally as it is for social justice organizing).  Unity is needed, uniformity is not.

Coherence, in turn, means developing a positive conception of socialism around which to build support for an alternative able to counter Trump’s incoherent patriarchal militarized white nationalism that has built support by touching on deeply felt grievances. Elements of that alternative are already visible in calls for “Abolition Democracy,” a “Third Reconstruction,” the “Green New Deal” which each give shape to a vision of mutuality deeply rooted in our country’s past — yet as something new, something that can engage people in their work, in their sense of the future.

DSA’s vision ought to combine and build upon these as the basis for coherence and convergence of a movement fighting for the political power of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, working-class.   The essence of democracy lies in the shared striving for peace, workers rights, equality and freedom. 

 Even though left-wing organizing has grown, there is a looming threat.  The far right has grown. We live in a dangerous time with an uncertain future.  But the spirit of socialist struggle is alive and well! The only way forward is through collective struggle and empowering working people.  United in the struggle against capitalism and all the oppressions it entails, it is working-class people – you, me, all of us – who today are building the beautiful future we all deserve.

Democratic Socialists of America: A Graphic History, written by Raymond Tyler, illustrated by Noah Van Sciver, and edited by Paul Buhle was published by DSA Fund, June 2025.  All italicized passages are quotes from the (unpaginated) booklet. An on-line copy is available at DSA Political Education.  For a print edition, please contact Raymond Taylor at Raymondtylercomics@gmail.com

About the author

Kurt Stand

Kurt Stand was active in the labor movement for over 20 years including as the elected North American Regional Secretary of the International Union of Food and Allied Workers until 1997.  He is a member of the Prince George’s County Branch of Metro DC DSA, and periodically writes for the Washington Socialist, Socialist Forum, and other left publications. He serves as a Portside Labor Moderator, and is active within the reentry community of formerly incarcerated people. Kurt Stand lives in Greenbelt, MD. View all posts by Kurt Stand →

Comment on DSA Graphic History: Learning From Our Past

Share your opinion, currently 1 reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged:

The Politics of Assassination

By

Thoughts Prompted by a Lengthy 9/28/25 New York Times Exchange Between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi-Coates on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a general consternation about this matter among people of good will.

There is now a great deal of confusion among people of integrity about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I believe many ideas voiced against his killing give him a legitimacy and respect he does not deserve.

The country and world are better off without Charlie Kirk’s poison rhetoric.

His assassination has had the effect of giving his ideas a bullhorn for wider dissemination and was, therefore, a politically mistaken thing to do.

It also gives MAGA a martyr, another political mistake.

Whether it was an immoral thing to do is a separate question to which I will return in my conclusion below.

He should not be treated with the dignity of  having a “different point of view.”  He was a political foe of democracy who, and whose ideas, need to be democratically defeated,  not murdered.

The “isms” of race, gender, nationality and others are outside the framework of legitimate debate in a democratic society because they deny the humanity of a category of people that is based on nothing that group of people have said or done to harm anyone else.

For at least two reasons, spokespeople for these ideas should not be denied First Amendment rights.

Protecting the First Amendment requires the creation of an unbreakable wall between it and “politics” as the term is usually understood.

This wall has nothing to do with the validity of bigoted ideas; it has to do with a suspicion of state power and an understanding that if it can be used for “our side” so can it be used against us.  Indeed its suppression has far more often been of radical democratic ideas than of authoritarian anti-democratic ones.

The public, political, societal question for those who disagreed with Kirk and continue to disagree with those who share his views is how to defeat their power—that might or might not involve “responding” to them—which is a tactical question carefully to be evaluated by those who want to marginalize Trump, MAGA and its spokespeople.

The essence of that evaluation is to determine why those ideas have appeal, the answer to which is to be found in cultural, social and economic realms not in the realm of rational debate.  Mitigate and remove the underlying conditions that make a Charlie Kirk appealing and the support of his ideas will substantially diminish if not evaporate.

No.  It saddens me that a wife has become a widow; that parents have lost a child; that children have lost a father (I lost mine when I was 13; it still haunts me); and that others grieve the loss of a family member, friend, colleague or team mate.

These are personal reactions; they extend to the entirety of humankind.

Don’t confuse the private with the public.

There are times when assassination is warranted.  

This was not one of them.

They are rare.  The July 20, 1944 attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler was one.

The sacredness of human life does not mean everyone has an absolute right to it. In Hitler’s case, tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved had the assassination attempt succeeded.

Nonviolence is not an absolute.

About the author

Mike Miller

Mike Miller’s work can be found at www.organizetrainingcenter.org. He was a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee “field secretary” from late 1962 to the end of 1966, and directed a Saul Alinsky community organizing project in the mid-1960s. View all posts by Mike Miller →

Comment on The Politics of Assassination

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check |

“Your Party”, Will it happen?

By

When considering left wing politics in the U.K. there is often an assumption that people in working class communities naturally swing to the left when deciding who to vote for. That has been an accepted narrative for decades, since Attlee came to power in 1945 leading to unhelpful terms like ‘the Red Wall’ – mostly areas of post-industrial England which could be relied on to return Labour MPs, out of habit rather than ideology, even when the rest of the country had turned blue. The simple reality is that most of this is a myth. British people haven’t elected a truly left-wing government, with a working majority, since Harold Wilson in 1966. Britain isn’t a left-wing country, working class people here aren’t naturally left-wing inclined and never have been.

When Margaret Thatcher abandoned industry and introduced draconian anti-union legislation in the 1980s, she broke the main routes to political activism for most working-class communities. Many of the problems with Britain today can be traced back to Thatcher, from blighted post-industrial communities to sewage in the rivers, from obscene levels of wealth inequality to the reinvention of the Labour Party by Blair as a pale reflection of Thatcher’s neoliberal ideals.

In parallel with this around 90% of the media here is owned by right wing billionaires, and right-wing political influence over the BBC has never been greater. In 1948 Nye Bevan, Labour statesman and architect of the NHS, described the U.K. press as “the most prostituted Press in the world, most of it owned by a gang of millionaires” and with the rise of social media the consolidation of right-wing control over what people see and hear in this country has never been greater.

Free speech protest. Photo: Marc Davenant

We have to consider the creation of a new left-wing party here, and its likelihood of success, with all of the above in mind. Current polling shows the right-wing populist party of Farage/Reform would win 311 seats in Parliament if there was an election today, just 15 seats short of an overall majority. The breathless reporting about Reform on the BBC by their political editor makes me wonder whether he is their PR manager, and everywhere we look the news reports are that a Reform government is an inevitability. Meanwhile Starmer’s Labour Party has taken a stance that everything Reform is saying is right, but people should ignore that and vote for his Thatcherite version of Labour instead. It is a naïve strategy that validates Reform’s positions and is doomed to failure. 

In addition to this the first past the post system of voting makes it extremely difficult for a new party to gain seats or exercise any form of true political influence unless backed by the media. These are the barriers that the new party of Corbyn and Sultana is going to have to overcome, relentless negative reporting on them versus endless push pieces by the media on the rise of Reform.  This is all happening against a backdrop of an exponential increase in race-related hate crime and a breakdown in social protocols over the use of racist language in public, targeted at minority groups.

There is no doubt that there is an appetite for a new form of politics on both the left and right in this country, but the likelihood of Your Party ever being able to wield true political power seems vanishingly small. If they can make it work then they will no doubt win some seats at the next election, most likely in constituencies where the electorate are appalled by the Government’s stance on Gaza, but unless there is a hung Parliament, and Your Party holds the balance of power with its few seats, it seems the most likely outcome will be that they will split the left-leaning vote and trip the marginal constituencies to either Reform, the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats.

There are 15 million people living in poverty in the U.K. today and the numbers are rising. Meanwhile wealth inequality has never been higher with just 50 families here hoarding as much wealth as 50% of the population. Bevan wrote in 1952 that poverty, great wealth and democracy were fundamentally incompatible elements in any society – either poverty would use its political freedoms to destroy wealth, or wealth would use its power to destroy democracy. We just have to look at what is happening in America under Trump to see that playing out in real time. My pessimistic view is that the U.K. is heading down the same path, and the rise of a new party on the left will just be bows and arrows against the lightning. I hope I am wrong.

About the author

Marc Davenant

Marc Davenant is a working-class social documentary photographer who works with marginalised communities and uses photography to highlight social inequality. His Outsiders project on homelessness and substandard housing has had critical acclaim and has been turned into a book and a touring exhibition. Two-time winner of the Portrait of Britain competition, his work has been exhibited across the UK, internationally and inside the Houses of Parliament. Davenant’s current project is called Rebellion! and is a celebration and exploration of peaceful protest as an essential part of British cultural identity in the face of draconian anti-protest legislation. An exhibition of the photos and stories from Rebellion! will open in Newcastle in 2026 and then be toured around the U.K. View all posts by Marc Davenant →

Comment on “Your Party”, Will it happen?

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , ,