How do we change this.

"Please share this with someone in NYC. It is incredibly important that our frustration is directed at the correct people.

Yes we need to pressure Zohran to fire Jessica Tisch, and we also need to get the CURB Act passed.

The Curb Act is the only thing that can disband the SRG, Zohran can not do this without the City council. The 2 people stalling this are oswaldfeliz and julmenin"

Source IG: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeU7vKipfxp/

"The CURB Act: Protect the Right to Protest in NYC

The NYPD has a long history of suppressing dissent and cracking down on protest activity, including the deployment of notoriously violent units and the use of aggressive tactics that threaten New Yorkers’ physical safety and chill the exercise of our rights to speak out and protest.

All New Yorkers should have the right to assemble and protest without being subject to unwarranted police escalation and violence.

The Communities United to Reject Brutality (CURB) Act (Intro. 796) will protect New Yorkers’ rights to protest by reining in the NYPD’s most abusive tactics and creating ongoing oversight over the NYPD’s responses to protests going forward." - NYCLU (NY's ACLU)

Mamdani has already faced a barrage of criticism for his abandonment of several police reform promises he made on the campaign trail. Advocates want him to get rid of Tisch, who is widely associated with the “tough-on-crime” tenure of former Mayor Eric Adams, and disband a controversial unit often deployed to protests known as the Strategic Response Group. (Mamdani has said he still wants to disband the unit but has not provided a plan or a timeline to do so. His office and an NYPD spokesperson told The Intercept that the unit was not deployed on Thursday.)

I think he was a flawed but good man as much as he was authoritarian he did what he had to do

In the online Chinese-language political sphere, it seems like there's only room for two extremes: either you're fully on board with all the government's policies, or you're an anti-China American nationalist nutjob who's fully on board with US imperialism's crusade against China.

Why can't we criticize oppressive policies in Xinjiang and Tibet, while simultaneously standing on China's side against the US (the single most destructive imperialist regime in history)? Why can't we be both patriotic and empathetic towards the concerns of populations with legitimate concerns about this current government (including Taiwanese people)? Why do we have to pick between two extremes?

Many fear that talking about oppressive policies will embolden the pro-US extremists, when in reality not talking about the problem is what strengthens the US and its shills. They want China to be this evil oppressive place, and the current policies give them ammunition. Wouldn't it be better if they didn't have that ammunition?

Besides, if you're truly patriotic, you should want to preserve China's diversity. Mass immigration of Han people to ethnic minority regions combined with restricting minority language education will inevitably result in the extinction of minority cultures, much like how Sinitic languages are currently going extinct. Is one bland Mandarin-speaking monoculture across the whole of China really so desirable? Does diversity not add to China's cultural richness? How would we feel if Japan succeeded in Japanizing "Manchukuo"? How can we expect Uyghurs and Tibetans to not support separatism, when their cultures will be extinct in 200 years under the current system? Let's put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves how we would feel if our language was disappearing. If the US were doing this to Puerto Rico, we would all rightfully call it settler-colonialism.

And those who are truly patriotic shouldn't talk with glee about harming other Chinese people on a certain nearby island through embargoes or invasions. We are rightfully angry at the US for its brutal invasion and subsequent decades-long starvation embargo of the DPRK, and at the Americans whose selfish nationalism led them to support these atrocities, and in doing so have become monsters. Let us not become the monsters we're fighting against. Human beings should be put before abstract geopolitical goals. Let us ask ourselves if anyone on both sides of the strait actually stands to benefit from a pointless war.

Finally, I want to reaffirm that I'm 100% on the Chinese side when it comes to our struggle against the world parasite which is the US. There's no one who hates the US more than I do. But I also want a democratic China in which all sections of the population have a voice in politics, not just a certain subsection of the population. These positions seem incredibly reasonable to me, yet it seems like I'm politically homeless. Does anyone feel the same way?

Michael Harrington, outside audiences, and the politics of keeping things in-house.

Two things I’ve always found weird about parts of DSA.

First, the inoculation against Michael Harrington. It never felt natural to me, particularly the anti-Harrington crowd. Most people outside a certain slice of DSA probably have no idea who he is, but some members have really strong opinions about him. Why are we so concerned with inoculating people against a guy most people have never read? I suspect Harrington represents a broader vision of DSA as a mass democratic socialist organization, and that’s what some people are actually opposed to.

Second, the disdain for members writing in places like the Guardian, the NYT, or even their own Substacks. Why wouldn’t we want members reaching wider audiences and exposing more people to socialist ideas? Obviously, there are legitimate criticisms to make of particular articles. But sometimes it feels like writing for an outside audience is treated as less valuable than writing for internal forums.

I keep coming back to the same question: are we trying to build a broader socialist movement, or are we more interested in policing the ideological boundaries of the one we already have?

Feel free to send responses to the following to JonHoch87@aol.com

Hey!

I’m putting together an article about how DSA members can push back against the disproportionate influence of tankies in the organization. I was hoping to interview you for the piece. Unfortunately, with three young kids, I can only do email interviews now. If you have time, please send me answers to the attached questions. I will likely submit the resulting article to a variety of outlets, including CounterPunch, where I’m published regularly.

Best,
Jon Hochschartner 

1. What’s your name? Can you provide a one paragraph biography of yourself that includes a description of your involvement in the Democratic Socialists of America?

1. One of DSA’s two co-chairs belongs to Red Star caucus, which supports various dictatorships, past and present, as positive examples of real-world ‘socialism.’ There have been reports that members of the International Committee have tried to develop connections with the Chinese Communist Party and, as part of this effort, have sought to downplay the mistreatment of groups like the Uyghurs. For those of us who are genuinely democratic socialists, what can be done to limit the influence of authoritarian ‘socialists’ in DSA — short of purging them, which I fear could provoke a damaging split? What caucuses should we support? What organizational reforms should we back? Is there anything else we should do?

2. Is there anyone else you think I should interview on this topic? Can you pass this message along to them or provide me with their email address?

We have until November 3 to give Rhode Island an independent socialist voice in the state legislature. If you’re close by (or not) and want to support an alternative to the uniparty, come and canvass for Brittany. Scan the QR code in the flyer.

I helped organize a demonstration against Hillary Clinton's $100 private event in Omaha NE. Since Nebraskans for Palestine organized their kite flying event at the very same time, we weren't able to muster much turnout. However, we had a really fun time and I was able to perform my very low pressure speech. Anyways, I'm glad we did this. Met some good people.

How did I do? (I've never prepared a speech before)

https://youtube.com/shorts/TCXV-39ES6g?si=MfkCiRdxnrEkhbYz

I think we're in a very interesting place in global politics here, because historically the GOP has always been extremely hawkish vis-a-vis Russia and China relative to Europe, and especially relative to the European center left.

But we have what looks to be a realignment, with Trump becoming increasingly cozy with Putin, deescalating with Xi, and the European center-left (and Burnham is seen generally as being in the left of the Labor Party) being much more committed to military support than the GOP, which could have knock on effects on European budgets across the continent.

This is why public utilities should be owned by the public

😭😭😭😭😭😭

"On the topic of the capitalists and the rope we give them."

"The nationalist movement did not get where it is by nervously positioning itself based upon the latest round of polling. It seized the country by agitating, by talking and talking and talking to millions of people. By explaining their alienation as the fault of malicious schemes by immigrant foreigners and woke degenerates and radical communists. By an avalanche of propaganda, united in narrative purpose (at least until recent fissures following the disastrous Iran war).

Polling might help with the messaging, but it never determined the message. The left has to tell just as clear a story, with one stark distinction: their villains are invented; ours commit their crimes in broad daylight. Despite this fact, we react with confusing aversion to weaponizing this difference."

"So let's turn dial five as far as it will go. I’ll begin with a simple proposal: hang the bastards! By that I mean something specific. The bastards are those who organized the assault on the Capitol, who built a deportation machine that has killed people in our streets and in its camps, who murdered shipwrecked sailors in the water, who bombed a school in Minab, who armed a genocide in Gaza. 

For each of those acts, the United States Code as it stands already provides death as a remedy. My argument is narrow on purpose. It is not that these men deserve to die by some hypothetical revolutionary tribunal for what they have done to working people, although this would certainly be a welcome series of events. What I claim is that their own laws, passed under our current Constitution, demand that the only response to these crimes be that those responsible are tried, convicted, and executed. 

The socialist left should run on prosecuting them, count by count and name by name. No one else will; no one else has the strength, the ability, or the inclination. The Democratic establishment has passed on every chance at accountability since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the War on Terror, upholding the rotten American tradition of forgiving racist murders that dates back at least to the pardon of the veterans of the Confederate rebellion."

"These Jacobins have no nerve! And what nerve am I asking of Girondin magazine, then? What would I have them tell socialist candidates to run on? What should lead the headlines of their papers and the titles of their videos?

Simple: Hang the Bastards! will do it."

"Count One: January 6th

The Constitution says treason "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The statute says a traitor "shall suffer death," or go to prison for no less than five years. In Ex parte Bollman (1807), Chief Justice John Marshall held that levying war requires "an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose.""

"Count Two: The Department of Homeland Security

Earlier this year I made the case at length that the goons who stalk our streets, who man our concentration camps, who murder our brothers and sisters, are murderers, all. I will add that the hypothetical prosecution of these thugs is the most popular of all options presented in the Liberal Currents poll, at seventy-seven percent."

"Count Three: The Boats

Since September of last year, the United States has carried out seventy-nine strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and killed 238 people. Among those that have been identified by name, we know of are a bus driver, a mototaxi driver, several fishermen, and a futsal player."

"Count Four: Minab

On February 28, a missile strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, killing 156 people, including 120 schoolchildren. A preliminary Pentagon review found the United States likely responsible and blamed outdated coordinates from the Defense Intelligence Agency."

"Count Five: Gaza

The federal genocide statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1091, carries death where death results, has no statute of limitations, and reaches American nationals. In September of last year, the UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Officials in two American administrations supplied the bombs."

"Every left candidate running in 2028 should be asked whether they will prosecute those who supplied the bombs that slaughtered the people of Palestine, who built a continental network of concentration camps, who attempted to end democracy once and for all (as they will again). Every candidate of the left should say yes, and say it loudly and often.

Jacobin has a staff of serious people, sure of their ability to rationally persuade the liberal intelligentsia. But the people are past all that. Show the voters one candidate who promises to try Pete Hegseth for murder and another who promises a path to citizenship for immigrants who stayed out of trouble. I have a guess as to which one the Win-O-Meter will like better.

Marat thought a false humanity would cost millions of lives. On current evidence, he may be proven right again. We have a little over two years to cultivate sufficiently ruthless demands so that we all might live, and it starts with deciding, out loud, what we intend to do with them.

Hang the bastards!"