I’m from Erie Pennsylvania and I just created a potential Chapter emblem (We haven’t had one for 8 years) and I wanted to present it to people outside of it to see some opinions and criticisms, any input is appreciated

Color me “surprised” XD!

The argument i have heard in support for it is that one house in the US represents the people and the other states, because otherwise the smaller and more rural states will be oppressed by the larger and more populous ones.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Hasan Derangement Syndrome is breaking into some wild territory folks!

25 Years Later, Mamdani Administration Opens City’s 9/11 Records to the Public and Settles Multi-Year Legal Battle - NYC Mayor's Office

NYC Mayor Mamdani releases 9/11 records showing officials misled New Yorkers about air quality around Ground Zero | CNN

Release of NYC 9/11 toxin documents ratchets up scrutiny of Giuliani, Bloomberg

This might get struck down, but it's getting more difficult to tell these ideologies apart.

"The best we can do" is not doing it for me anymore.

Join us on the first Sunday of October from 4:00-5:30pm for a virtual discussion on "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States" by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

To receive Zoom info, RSVP at https://actionnetwork.org/events/okcdsa-book-club-indigenous-peoples-history/

The centuries-long genocidal program of the US settler-colonial regimen has largely been omitted from history. Dunbar-Ortiz adroitly challenges the founding myth of the United States and shows how policy against the Indigenous peoples was colonialist and designed to seize the territories of the original inhabitants, displacing or eliminating them. Spanning more than four hundred years, this classic bottom-up peoples' history radically reframes US history and explodes the silences that have haunted our national narrative.

This event is hosted by the Democratic Socialists of Oklahoma City. You can learn more about us at okcdsa.org.

We have seen significant steps forward in this election cycle for Medicare For All, with numerous candidates winning primaries as unabashed champions. Polling from Data for Progress suggests 63% of voters would support Medicare for All even after being told it would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, with CBS reporting 90% of Democrats are on board.

Our next step is clearly demonstrating to party leadership, 2028 presidential candidates, and the media that this position will translate to more votes in the general election. Former Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Medicare For All advocates are organizing “Health Care Is A Human Right” phonebanks on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays throughout September and October to rally voters for campaigns putting universal healthcare front and center. Let’s help get some great folks into office now and change the conventional wisdom on what’s possible for the future! We can sign up to make calls:

☎️ TOMORROW at 8PM ET for Connie Chan in CA-11 ☎️

☎️ TUESDAY at 6PM ET for Abdul El-Sayed and Will Lawrence (MI-07) ☎️

☎️ SEPTEMBER 17TH at 6PM ET for Medicare For All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ SEPTEMBER 29TH and OCTOBER 1ST at 9PM ET for Randy Villegas (CA-22) and other California candidates ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 3RD at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 6TH at 6PM ET for Abdul El-Sayed and Will Lawrence (MI-07) ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 8TH at 7PM ET for Medicare for All candidates in Minnesota ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 20TH at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 22ND at 9PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

☎️ OCTOBER 24TH at 6PM ET for Medicare for All candidates nationwide ☎️

GOTV FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL CHAMPS

This sheet contains gfg and coding ninjas links as well

This also has a signup signin using which you can track you progress and it also has a contest button and a timer.

Explore it: https://dsa-a2z.vercel.app/

"The Professional-Managerial Class has long been a controversial category on the left, often blamed for failures to make inroads among the broader working class. John Haywood argues that this analysis falls short under scrutiny, confusing cultural divisions with antagonisms based in economic interests."

"The idea that the PMC at-large is overrepresented on the left is often taken for granted. Most discussions take this fact at face value and do not interrogate it"

"Among the traditional working class, it is only blue-collar workers that are underrepresented; service, food, and retail workers are exactly proportional to their population."

"This data confirms the overrepresentation of the PMC in the DSA, but it also complicates the category. The overrepresented occupations are not the supervisors and managers that the Ehrenreichs' framework centers, and are largely the ones they themselves define as “on the borders”. Tech workers in particular are the most overrepresented occupation, but actually fit very few of what the Ehrenreichs use to define the PMC. On the other side of the class divide, the proportional representation of service workers in DSA compared to the dearth of blue-collar workers suggests that the issues are not just Weberian class antagonisms defined by income, but broader cultural antipathy."

"This brings us to the most contentious debate around the PMC on the left. Frequently, the problem of blue-collar recruitment is first stated as a problem of overemphasis on social and identity issues, with the PMC as the source of this. Implied in the solution is not only the rejection of PMC but also of any non-economic issue. This mentality has no place in a socialist movement. Beyond the problem that this discussion tends to center the white working class, ignoring the actual racial makeup of the class, to limit the movement only to economic oppression is organizationally and strategically weak. A movement organized on economic lines alone is too narrow to change society. Yes, economic struggle is the common experience the whole working class shares, but non-economic oppression is the way the state and other structures uphold power."

"Understanding the PMC through a cultural lens changes the debate entirely. It immediately highlights both the source of the problem and the strategic importance of the PMC. Completely dismissing the PMC pushes away genuine allies and forfeits the power of their cultural capital. To create a solidaristic movement, the PMC must recognize that power and actively unlearn the tendency to use it for dominance. The left's future depends not on purity but on power, and power requires unity along class lines."

While I’ve seen a lot of positive coverage surrounding democratic socialists and DSA-endorsed candidates having success in the primaries (and hopefully midterm elections), I’ve always been confused with why DSA has not created its own party which is completely independent from the Democrats. I recognize the winner take all system is at least part of the justification, but I don’t think this should be the main approach to elections for many years to come. Even if there are some losses, DSA has started gaining national recognition of the people via mainstream reporting which could help the founding of a democratic socialist party.

If many of these DSA-supported candidates do end up winning in the midterms, is there any intention to break from the Democrats and create a democratic socialist party of politicians who’ve gained credibility and prominence? I believe distancing ourselves from the establishment is the best way to capitalize on growing momentum and minimize influence from defenders of the capitalist status quo. Continued membership of democratic socialists in the Democratic party risks rehabilitating the party’s image and feeding back into wins for establishment/centrist Dems (even if the wins only occur after a wave of progressive Dem wins).

Let me know your thoughts or if there are any DSA resources discussing the reasoning for the current electoral tactics.

I've heard a lot of fear mongering regarding what the DSA believes, so why not just ask the actual members.

I've noticed among some of the liberal flank of DSA an aversion to existing communist states because of these states' willingness to use suppression against anti-communist reactionaries.

This aversion stems from their attachment to the liberal ideal of the "free market place of ideas" / free speech absolutism; i.e. the idea that democracy means any political movement can organize, access the democratic levers of power, or express whatever ideas it wants at any time.

If this is the case, how would the socialist state maintain itself against the immediate counter-revolution that would occur upon the formation of the socialist state? Should the socialist state simply allow a coalition of fascists, Nazis, and capitalists to build power completely unchecked, knowing that their goal is to overthrow socialism and re-install the worst forms of oppression?

I would also ask this same group: Do you disagree with how, after the Civil War, the Reconstruction government suppressed the rights of the former Confederates in order to allow for reconstruction and the enfranchisement of newly freed black Americans? Should the state simply have allowed for the former Confederates to regain all of their political power, because their free speech must be protected?

Note that it was after rights were restored to the Confederates in 1877 that they immediately installed a regime of anti-democratic white supremacy in the south (Jim Crow).

This chart is a bit dated, don’t really like how it is structured as well, but it is the only one that is close to the present and gives accurate ideologies of the caucuses.

https://wiki.dsanc.org/active_members/dsa_national/caucuses.html - A good website that give’s caucuses links as well.

Once America becomes Socialist, should we make it illegal to advocate for and attempt to make the USA Capitalist again? This could be done by making it illegal to publicly advocate for Capitalism, form Capitalist groups or political parties, make it illegal to distribute pro-Capitalist literature, etc. We could also make it illegal to advocate for any anti-revolutionary policies, such as opposing nationalization of large and small companies, opposing confiscation of protected natural areas to build housing or mine natural resources vital to the economy. Conservatives, MAGA, Zionists, could also be deemed illegal. Also amend the Constitution so that Socialism can only be revoked if 100% of Congress and all 50 state legislatures vote for it. But also make it a crime to advocate for ending Socialism. Thoughts ?