The Hype Is Real: DSA's Workers Deserve More Program

On this episode, Luke talks with Michaela about DSA’s new Workers Deserve More Program. We talk about the program’s origins, the drafting process, and all of the cool demands it contains. We also discuss some of our favorite parts, the initial media reaction, future political education opportunities revolving around Workers Deserve More, and how DSA’s elected officials can support the program. Check out a recording of the mass call announcing the program. And of course, the program itself! 

Become a member of Democratic Socialists of America.

Sign up to receive NPEC's newsletter, Red Letter. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:10

Hi Democrats and welcome to the Institute of Democratic Socialist America's National Political Education Committee. My name is Holy. On this episode, I talk with Michael about DSA's new workers deserve more program. We talked about the program's origins, the drafting process, and all the cool things it contains. We also discuss some of our favorite parts, the initial media reaction, future political education opportunities revolving around the program, and how DSA's elected officials could support the program. Before we dive in, a reminder that class is available on all major podcast platforms. Please consider becoming a DSA member by following the link in the podcast description. You can also send us a message about the episode and sign up for Red Letter, NPEC's monthly newsletter using the provided links. I'm really excited today to be talking with Michaela about our Workers Deserve More program. Michaela is the current chair of DSA's National Political Education Committee. You probably recognize her and her voice as the host of many of these podcast episodes. Now I have the pleasure of interviewing you, Michaela. You're also the co-chair of the current Workers Deserve More program committee, and you're a member of North New Jersey DSA. So first off, thanks so much for coming on and talking with us.

SPEAKER_01 1:41

Of course, yeah. My pleasure, of course.

SPEAKER_00 1:44

So let's get right into this new program. DSA's new Workers Deserve More program. I was hoping you could give us an overview of the program, starting with perhaps how it came about. How did we get to the point where we now have this new program?

SPEAKER_01 2:04

Yeah, that's a great question. I think there's two answers. One is like, how has DSA progressed over the last decade to where we actually are now putting out a program that is, well, we'll talk about this more, but that's had such like a big splashy impact. Um, the other part is kind of maybe the technical or internal aspects of how we decided to make it this way. Um, for those of you listening who are already in DSA, you probably know that the democratic part of our name also describes like how we do things internally, right? So like we decide as a collective like how we're gonna do things, especially things as big as this. Um, and over the course of the last five years or so, there have been attempts to adopt programs in various ways through our convention process. 2021, there was a really long one that came about through a collaborative writing process that then was adopted at convention with some amendments. It was really, really long and it was pretty unwieldy. Even the people who wrote it and, you know, championed it were like, yeah, it's a little, it's a little much. Um it kind of had everything in there. And then we've always had like a couple of statements that have sort of floated around as like preambles to different chapters, constitutions, you know, it was kind of like standard boilerplate that looks like a statement of principles, things we stand for, so-called where we stand documents, as well as, you know, kind of the more broader general statements that have been written prior to the big 2016 boom that happened when Bernie ran, and, you know, probably why a lot of us are all here today. But then in 2024, there was an effort by a group that was adopted at convention called the For Our Rights Committee that came out of a another proposal, which um was a kind of step towards preparing for the midterm elections, political independence, kind of trying to have DSA stand more independently of the Democrats. We kind of do different versions of that all the time through our convention process. And the For Our Rights Committee created the Workers Deserve More program. This is the old program. And it wasn't made the same way as this one this time, but the Workers Deserve More program really, really resonated with a lot of chapters without a whole lot of promotion. We didn't have a huge effort behind it because it was kind of made as kind of more like a pamphlet that accompanied a lot of other sort of political campaigns rather than itself standing as a program. Now, this was a surprise to some people, but then when we realized how much it had resonated and how much people were like, yeah, we want to use this for organizing both our membership, you know, tabling at events, talking about it with our work workmates and, you know, our unions or on in their workplaces. Then my idea, and like I worked with a couple of other comrades to do this, um, was to take the Workers Deserve More program as like the centerpiece of an effort to create a program for DSA and have a committee put together by our national political leadership after our convention in 2025, that then we could update to reflect our political commitments in order to keep the momentum of how well the Workers Deserve More program had been for us, you know, as DSA, kind of in an ad hoc way, but really organizing that and focusing it. So that's what happened. We we did adopt that resolution um through a rigorous debate. There were a few other ideas out there about how we would adopt a program, including a fully written program. And this is the idea that went out on the floor of our convention. So in March, um, we finally met for the first time at the end of March as a full committee that had been selected by the national political committee, our political leadership, and elected from the rank and file as well as from their ranks. And then different representatives were elected by the steering committees of different committees in our national body. So I was the National Political Education Committee representative to this. And then I ended up becoming the co-chair alongside Francis Gill, who is a member of our political leadership. And then we met like almost every week for a several months, like April, May, and June. We're still meeting two to kind of finish out our term, you know, it's kind of a short term. And it was like a kind of like a writing group that had uh democratic meetings, right? To like decide on what the language was actually going to end up being. But it was, um, I can say it was really pretty fun most of the time, um, even though it was quite a lot of work, because we got to um really like huddle over things like style and narrative rather than just sticking in everything that we wanted, right? Um, and we were able to really come to a lot of good agreement over, you know, the purpose of this, like the political thrust of it, what we were trying to express, as well as the things that we felt really reflected a broad um set of agreements, like throughout the organization. Not everyone who is in DSA will necessarily read this whole thing and think, I agree with all of that 100%, because we are a multi-tendency organization and people have lots of ideas, and people are kind of also at different levels of development as socialists. But so far, the feedback that we've gotten, the reception that we've gotten has been like overwhelmingly positive from all corners of the organization. Um, and we'll talk a little bit later about maybe more of that. But that's kind of how it came about. And I can say, you know, not only was it really fun, but I learned a lot from my comrades, including people who maybe I didn't fully agree with them on certain phrases and stuff like that. I've been persuaded, you know, not just because of, you know, sort of forcefulness or resignation, but actually because we were able to debate these things respectfully and thoroughly, um, rather than it being kind of like a I guess I'll let you have that one if I get this one. You know, there was there was very little transactional kind of stuff like that. It was really actually an exercise, I would say, in mutual respect. Um, and I'm hoping to maybe write a little more about that at some point once things have calmed down a bit and maybe publish it in Democratic Left or Socialist Forum or something like that. Because I do think that for DSA members, um it might be not just like pleasing to read um something like that, but also inspiring maybe, because I didn't know for sure how it was gonna turn out, you know, like even though I had written the resolution that we adopted, and I had an idea of like, ideally, this could go like this, and that would be so great. It actually really exceeded my expectations. And I again, you know, I said this on our launch call, but I really want to thank like my comrades who are on the committee with me. Um, feel really proud of us and also really like um kind of leveled up in like my own development as a socialist and um an organizer with that experience.

SPEAKER_00 10:21

Well, I appreciate you giving us such a a detailed rundown. I think it's really important for folks to know how this process came about and also to learn that history that you presented of okay, DSA. I think in 2021 it was called a a platform, a political platform. You're right, very long document. Then 2021. 9,000 words, Luke.

SPEAKER_01 10:47

It was 9,000 words.

SPEAKER_00 10:51

2024, 2025. We have workers deserve more. That was sort of put together, you know, prior to Congress. Something then comes out of Congress, gets the ball rolling on this process. And then for this one, we have a really big launch. So I think it will be easier for folks to know that this exists and engage with it, which I think is really positive.

SPEAKER_01 11:18

Yeah, I mean, people knew it existed before they knew it existed, too, because there was a leak, quote unquote, which was really actually just the draft language that we sent to the NPC, our national political committee, for them to decide on adoption as well as some amendments. And it was, it said final on the draft, but it wasn't really final. Nothing's ever final till it's final, you know, like it's that's just like the process of writing. And we did end up getting it back from them, changing some stuff, sending it back to them, changing some stuff, you know. So there was more after that, but uh guy who's shall remain nameless for now, um, got a hold of it and he kind of was like, look what they're doing in secret, you know, which was like, we're it's not gonna be secret. Like this is no, there's no secret. Like we were gonna launch it in a couple of weeks after that. But he took it up, the right took it up. There was like this big outpouring of faux outrage over what was in it. And then Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, read it at a, I think it was uh some conservative group conference. And that ended up going viral because everything that he said, or not everything, I I haven't read saw this. I did not see the whole speech, but a lot of the things that he said that were clipped, people were like, actually, that sounds really great. I think I might be a democratic socialist. Um, and then we were able to capitalize on that a little, you know, like with like some comms and clips and things like that. But people knew about it and were asking about it. They were asking our co-chairs, Ashik and Megan, about it prior to the official launch. And the more that the right was making hay about it, the more it kind of was like excitement was building, you know, and so then we were able to say, hey, we're actually officially launching this on July 14th and have the launch and all of that. So the reception and like the kind of like, you know, the planned rollout ended up getting boosted a little. And when uh when these things happen, you know, we're a member-driven organization. We have some staff and some people who have like stipends, like, you know, on decision. I'm not paid for any of this, you know. Um, so I'm not a whatever paid crisis actor or whatever. I'm I'm a person who's normal, like DSA member who cares a lot about this. You know, you could call it a hobby, I guess, except it's a commitment, you know, like political commitment. And a lot of other people put in a lot of time to try to make this work. So the comms that we're doing, um, it's vastly, you know, same thing, like members who are putting in their time to try to make it really good. And I think it's been going great so far. And and we're gonna do another rollout, like at the end of the month at the Socialist Summit, which is a um couple day long conference that we're doing this year. And um, we're gonna launch the print version there. Uh, people will be able to print it from the website but and also buy it on the DSA store. But at the con at the summit, we're going to have copies for comrades to take. And um yeah, it's kind of cool. Like it's it feels very like not necessarily professional because we're not professionals in the in the sense of like we have like a full, you know, um publicity kind of like rollout with people managing it all. But because I think of the strength of the program and because it's so attractive to people, it's generating a lot of positive interest from good faith actors and also a ton of pushback by the right, um, who are going far out of their way to cherry pick certain things and make them sound terrifying. Um, and most of the time that's back.

SPEAKER_00 15:29

So well, the website for the program looks great. I love the artwork. I love how it's put together. So, in that sense, it is very professional. I'm excited.

SPEAKER_01 15:39

Oh, yeah. Well, I can say this this was also made entirely by um members, yes, members with expertise and skills. So Margaret Vale Palmquist made the artwork. Um, and a comrade named Nick and also Colin, who is my fiance. Shout out to Colin. He's been on the podcast before. Um, uh, as well as a several other folks, um, put this together and launched it for us. Um yeah, so we have a committee in the national org called the National Tech Committee, which is a member-run tech committee. People get their websites made, like the chapters get their websites made. They make other tools for us. And so it was thanks to the NTC that this popped off right on time with you know everything looking so perfect.

SPEAKER_00 16:32

Well, I'm really excited for not only my local chapter, but all the local chapters to get their hands on physical copies, as you were saying, hand them out at the events that we go to, do political education events on them. I think we might touch on that a little bit later in our discussion. Share it, share it far and wide with folks.

SPEAKER_01 16:55

Yeah, so the print version is currently being finished up um for our launch, where the deadline for that is the 24th, because that's when we can get it to the Chicago printer to make sure we have the copies we need for the Socialist Summit. So that was part of the deadline part. And it's gonna look very similar to the website, but with slight differences because you know, two different artists or two different, you know, designers, but we're all working together on it. So um, it's actually also the product of collaboration. So shout out to Jill in um uh San Francisco DSA uh for helping us with the print version. Jill is a fairly new member, um, someone who hasn't worked a lot on different stuff. So it's really actually so appreciated that um she's helping us with this um, with you know, kind of like this exciting crunch. It's kind of a it's a way to jump in with both feet, you know, like um as sometimes that happens in a an organization like DSA. Sometimes you're like, okay, well, I guess now folks are relying on me for this for a couple of weeks. And um can be hard, but also just want to let everyone know they're so appreciated for for putting this together for us.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

Let's get into the meat of the program, if you will, the the content.

SPEAKER_01 18:12

Yeah. It's do you want to just go through, yeah, like the sections?

SPEAKER_00 18:17

Yeah, yeah, let's go through the the sections. We've got three of them. We've got thriving working class communities, working class foreign policy, and working class democracy. Would you want to work us through each three of these? And I have my personal favorites, of course, within the long list, but uh wanted to turn it over to you.

SPEAKER_01 18:39

Yeah, sure. I mean, I can also we can talk now or later about like the decision to make it look the way it has, but we're we can talk about the demands first and then go at the front too. Um so let's go with the demands. Like the what we fight for section is the section that maybe looks the most traditional. Um, for those of you who might be familiar with platforms or programs historically, usually it's like, here are all the things, right? Um the old program, the old workers deserve more, had four sections. Um, we had an economy for the working class as like its own section. But what we decided to do this time is combine those things more integratedly with democracy and thriving working class communities. For a big for one really good reason, which is that socialists believe that our material needs and the economics of society is actually integrated with everything. You know, it's not just a separate, you know, section. It really is like everything relies on each other. So when we're talking about something like um freedom to flourish, which is a new section, there are economic demands in there, but it also is organized um, you know, as like this is the thing, or these things are things that would actually make lives not just, you know, an exercise in survival, but actually like give people the freedom to be able to do what they want to do and live their lives. Obviously, that can be the case for every single one of these, but the decision to put something like freedom to flourish at the very beginning is part of a choice that we made to make some of these demands more integrated. Um, at the end, when we have a working class democracy, and we're talking here about or democracy at work, um, is the very last demand. Some people might look at that and think, oh, this is just about labor unions, you know, wages, hours, and working conditions. But we believe that that actually has a lot to do with greater demands for democracy, democracy in the workplace, being able to have agency. It's not just an economic demand, it's not just about like, you know, having a seat at the table, right, at a firm. It's actually about being able to participate fully in the things that affect your life. Um, so that was kind of the choice. And folks should definitely read and maybe see if they can see those things throughout, but having some of these things more integrated and reorganized so that they speak more to like, you know, kind of a broader, more encompassing sense of human life was something that I really appreciated that everyone got on board with. Um, and once it was finished, like once we all had it in, it was like, oh wow, like these actually have a lot of resonance, like as demands. Um so we can start at the very beginning, if you want to, the um the thriving working class communities section. And some of these demands. Healthcare for all, housing for all. Um, these are and Green New Deal, you know, these are classic, um, you know, like sort of slogans of the current socialist movement in the United States. Um and yeah, like there's some new ones in here too. Um besides Freedom to Flourish, we have Finnish Reconstruction, um, as well as a feminism section called Feminism for All that makes it very clear. I just want to note um feminism for all ended up being language that we worked on quite a bit to make sure that it was really, really right. It's the longest um demand, you know, as far as like words, and we really tried to make everything about the same length. Um, but the last program didn't have anything about feminism. It didn't have anything about trans rights, it didn't have anything about queer rights. And so we're sort of making a statement here where we're saying socialist feminism is inclusive, right? Um, it's about working class women being in the lead, it's about compensation and support for care work, um, it's about restoring women's rights, but it's also about not rejecting our trans siblings in the process, right? It makes a very strong statement about what a socialist feminism ought to look like. And I'd be interested, you know, as time goes on, to hear how that resonates, especially at a moment when feminism is kind of, oh, it's a dirty word again. Nobody wants to be called a feminist now or something. And I'm like, well, someone's gonna have to speak up for feminism. And I'm really glad that we were able to get this, uh, you know, get this in and approved. And then the reconstruction section, um, calling it finished reconstruction was something that we talked about quite a bit because we were like, does this resonate or will this resonate with people? Um, in the same way that something like, you know, stop racism or something like that might. And I was actually feeling a little bit skeptical that we would be able to communicate um what we really meant with that language because it isn't necessarily something that average people or is that top of mind for them, like, oh, what happened to Reconstruction? Maybe we should finish that. You know, it's not necessarily something that a lot of people are thinking about. But by the end, and by the time we like kind of got the language together, it did seem right to us, you know, like that it was like, oh, actually, like maybe it will just cause people to think, oh, I don't, I haven't read that word since I was in like, you know, American history in high school. I wonder what they have to say about this. And then, you know, I'll just read it out loud, ending the legacies of slavery and colonialism, reinforcing anti-discrimination laws, honoring all treaties and tribal sovereignty, enact reparations, and massively invest in good jobs, quality housing, and infrastructure in neglected minority communities. So seeing that language there and having it be so direct, and seeing that, you know, the legacy of American capitalism rests on ongoing, you know, racism, colonialism, and the dispossession of communities, um, my marginalized communities, whether they're smaller in number, um, just by dint of history, or whether or not they have been actively, actively marginalized, like, you know, for decades and through extremely genocidal choices by the United States government, um, trying to fix that. And what I said on the call the other day was this actually is important because, from a historical perspective, reconstruction itself happened a long time ago, but it doesn't matter how long ago something ended. It's the fact that the fact that it got derailed means that we can make new rails. And that's what socialists want to do is like we actually believe that we want to transform the world, not just um cover over mistakes, you know, like this is not working. And we really are putting forward, I think, a bold statement about what it is we think would be the correct way. Um, and you can read a lot into that. Obviously, it's only a few lines long, but you know, this is what opens it up for debate. It's like, what would this look like to actually make the effort to do something like enacting reparations, investing in these things that we have never done?

SPEAKER_00 26:44

It's a very strong list of demands. The the Finnish reconstruction one, I'm going through a a reading group on W.E.B. Du Bois's Black Reconstruction.

SPEAKER_01 26:55

Wonderful book.

SPEAKER_00 26:56

It is a wonderful book, and it's a very popular group, and it's bringing up lots of really important points. And you know, someone pointed out to me. I felt a little silly that I didn't think about it without having to have someone point it out to me. But for all the attention that folks on the left, for example, give to the Paris Commune, and understandably, Paris the Commune is happening during Reconstruction in the United States. And so you're right, it it was, you know, a long time ago. And yet you know, I think it's important to consider what events we're looking at. And reconstruction. You know, I see it as really the the the the event, the the the the big revolutionary event or attempt that we've had. So it's great to it's great to see it included.

SPEAKER_01 27:47

Yeah, and I mean not to we we should probably take a tour of all of them, but this demand in particular, I think also opens up a lot about our last like 10 years, like the Black Lives Matter movement, for example, I think was this glimpse of hope in what had been, I think, uh like a stagnancy in um sort of not just activism, like left activism, but actually like expectations of like what people really need in order for us to fix this stuff, you know, like reconstruct what has actually been just like a long-standing um dearth, I would say, of attention to these things. Because from a legal perspective, you know, the legacy of anti-discrimination laws and the Civil Rights Act and the ways in which that has been um managed, I could say, or like regulated. The entire time that we have been um sitting here with our DEI trainings and things like that in institutions, the right had been making incredible inroads into chipping away at all of that stuff through the Supreme Court. And then finally, the SFFA case from a couple of years ago put the last nail in the coffin for race conscious admissions at in higher education, um, which had been like kind of the centerpiece of a lot of people's like hopes about like what could possibly come about with this. And this is maybe a little bit tangential, but I, you know, teach in the area of like law and social thought. And as it was happening, like as these cases were kind of like coming out and as it was building up towards the SFFA case, I was teaching about how in the original case that kind of made race conscious admissions legal, there was already a poison pill in there that was like, well, the only thing that's allowed is diversity. And the reason that that's good is because leaders in business, the military, and like important institutions need to be able to do diversity, essentially. So even that was reliant on a capitalist view or a kind of ruling class view of anti-racism that I think a lot of people were just not aware of because it seemed like, oh, yes, this is how you know people become free, is through this version of um regulatory anti-discrimination. And I do think that socialists should and must like kind of have a strong voice in saying we need to make diversity and anti-racism independent of these institutions by fighting for equality and by ending these kinds of regimes where there's just no resources, but just a lot of rhetoric, I would say, right? Like, I mean, this is really actually important to me as an educator, but also just more broadly, like what kinds of things can socialists bring to the table where everything else has failed? And I think that this particular one, and uh as well as this uh the feminism plank kind of maybe turns the tide a little bit on like woke, if you want to call it that. Um, and we're you know, hoping to maybe pose an alternative to a lot of thought that has been, you know, a little tired lately, I guess.

SPEAKER_00 31:54

Well, it's a it's a very relevant demand. After the Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais, I was seeing some more mainstream discussions, if you will, around Reconstruction. What was that period? Why has the Supreme Court been chipping away at the Voting Rights Act, essentially you know, driving it into the ground, how that mimics a lot of the history of how Reconstruction was rolled back with the Supreme Court limiting all of these constitutional amendments and so on? And it ties in nicely, I think, to a section we'll get into a little later around what we say about the Supreme Court, the Constitution, those large- Well, why don't we go there now?

SPEAKER_01 32:40

There's no reason we can't just go there now, especially because it's so controversial.

SPEAKER_00 32:45

There is there is no reason. There is no reason at all. Can you can you take us through that section, working class democracy and the stuff around a democratic congress, real, a real democracy?

SPEAKER_01 32:57

Yeah. So um this was a fun one to write, in part because it was like I said, working in things that had previously been in other sections into this section in order to make the democratic section really, really robust. It was a it was a choice in case people think, oh, they're just being so repetitive. It was a choice to be repetitive. That's every single demand has the word democracy or democratic in it. Um, that was on purpose because I mean it's a truism, and it's just like kind of not a surprise, not to you, Luke, but also not to me, not to anyone listening, that democracy is it's a life and death issue at the moment, right? Um, life and death, not just of like physically, right? Um, for people, but like democracy dying in the United States. Socialists do think that we don't have a full democracy, which is why we're demanding more democracy and real democracy. We have a section called a real democracy, which you know kind of has all of the not all of the stuff in it, you know, like maybe mostly of the stuff um that people are kind of mad about um or pretend mad about. Um but it kind of tries to provoke a conversation, both on our side of things, like you know, on the left, about what we're willing to do to defend a democratic like way of life that we have now in some semblance, you know, like that it's limited, but you know, we still need it. We still need to be able to vote, you know, we still need to be able to participate in the bourgeois democracy that we have. But then also, like, it's not just about saving what we have, it's also about making a new thing that's better, you know, like that's actually better, like that's more democratic. Um, and so a real democracy, we start off, we we decided to do some things that start off with kind of value statements. Um, we do this with the feminism section too. For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. And it's a very short but direct statement about what we intend, which is that the working class should be leading. And even liberals, if they were to, you know, kind of be pressed, they would say, Yeah, we believe the people should be able to choose their leaders and they should be able, but we know that the current system doesn't allow us to do that in a real way. We know that it's corrupted. And for us, you know, it's like it's corrupted in a very particular way. It's corrupted by capital. It's not just corrupted by bad people, right? Like bad political actors. It's like, no, it's actually a fully corrupt system that intends to subjugate and exploit working class people. And it doesn't just happen in the workplace, it also happens as the ruling class sides with capital and sustains it through governance. So we need a new system. And what we demand here, many of these things are going to be things that people are extremely like, oh yeah, duh, they're very unpopular. Like lobbyists, dark money, and citizens uh united, which is the case that allowed for um essentially unlimited campaign donations through super PACs and PACs, uh, political action committees. Um, a blight, really. You know, if if you're a Supreme Court head, um you might already be calling it anti-canon, um, which is like a nickname for really bad cases, cases that are now considered to be like anathema. But Citizens United is still the law of the land. And in fact, it's only been expanded, you know, it's only been allowed to sort of like entrench itself and like feed into new cases that have allowed even more terrible things to happen, as far as you know, the super wealthy being able to have essentially unchecked influence on political campaigns. So that and then abolishing the Electoral College, also something pretty popular. People are like, why do we have that? That's dumb. Um so this last section, which is the section that's gotten a lot of people very exercised, um replaced the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress. Now, people are like, they want to get rid of the president. I have been uh mocked, I guess you'd say, like on the news channel by the other day when I was on the launch call saying, I don't know, it could be called the head honcho or whatever, as a joke, because all something like head honcho, which is you know kind of a slang term, it just means person in charge. You know, it's like it's like a boss or something, which a president only means the elected leader of a republic. That's all it means. It how it is elected, you know, by whom, within a state, when, frequency, all of that stuff is vague. It's not clear to me that it wouldn't be called the president if Congress did choose it. We don't know. But what we're advocating for is something more like a prime minister, right? Um, which is normal in like almost every other country. The way we do it here is actually the thing that's on the outside. And we can also see through the Supreme Court decisions ever since the Iraq War, but also kind of rooted in past history, that the unitary executive doctrine, which essentially makes it such that the president has almost unchecked power over certain areas of government, that is just expanded outward to the point where Congress is just writing, like, you know, checks to the executive office to be able to essentially have a paramilitary terrorizing people in the United States in the form of ICE and Border Patrol. Regardless of whether they're actually near a border, um, regardless of whether they're actually like regulating immigration in any way, they're just harassing people and often killing them, right? Like this is actually a really terrible thing that is fascistic. You know, it's it it truly, and it's it's part of a larger plan to try to expand executive authority and make it unaccountable to people. So the decision to do it like this is not only kind of like normalizing potentially, like this is actually in line with a lot of other more democratic systems than than what we have here, but it also says, and this actually gets us to the Democratic Congress part, the executive needs to be accountable to the people. And so does the judiciary, because right now the judiciary is um, I don't want to use the word corrupt again, but you know, might as well say it. It's like true. Um, but it also is um essentially handpicked by uh oligarchs, you know, in order to um ensure that nobody gets onto the highest court that would um do anything that is responsive, I guess, to what people really want. But there's this kind of idea that, like, oh, we want judges to be independent of politics. Like, they need to like be able to say what the law is. That's the Marbury versus Madison line, right? We get to say what the Constitution says. That is so not true. Um, they are very responsive to politics because they also regulate themselves. They don't have to be responsive to um congressional demands to uh, you know, not take gifts and things like that. They're self-disciplining. So the idea that they somehow are independent of any of these things when they're actually allowed to kind of do whatever they like as individuals as well as a group doesn't make very much sense to me. And I can say that, like, you know, there's a lot of different ways to skin the Supreme Court cat when it comes to regulation, you know, changing the constitution to um make it such that it's more clear about how long their terms are, things like that, or or even just doing some regulatory stuff around the edges. But I also just think that this might be one of the worst ways to run a judiciary. Um, I know that you have a lot of opinions, and I'd like to hear your views on like what you think about the Supreme Court. Um, I know you have a lot of them, um, but it's it's just, I think, fairly clear to a lot of people that the Supreme Court um is not somehow um a reliable authority on what the law either ought to be or what the law really is. They're very, very responsive more to um the whims of the ruling class, I would say. Um, and I think that we can see a lot of that just increasing over time.

SPEAKER_00 42:49

Yeah, that's that's well said. You know, I'm thinking of Aziz Rana, who we've had on class. We also did an event not too long ago, Aziz and Matt McManus talking about some of these ideas. And Aziz has written about sort of the loss, if you will, of a constitutional critique or sort of the going underground. And I remember reading his latest book, The Constitutional Bind. I was thrilled that he had a section commenting on DSA's 2021 platform. His book came out in early 2024, and he said, Aha, look, here are socialists doing what we haven't really seen socialists in the US do since the Socialist Party of America, way back in the early part of the 20th century, critiquing the Senate, critiquing the powers of the executive, critiquing just all of these checks, right? Just checks on majority power, and then saying, Hey, we need a new constitution, we need a new Political playing field. So I really love feeling like we're a part of history, if you will. I really do feel like with this program, we're part of the history of the U.S., excuse me, of U.S. socialists coming back in as vigorous opponents of this undemocratic political system that hangs over us and weighs us down. And it's happening at a same at the same time that I think other sections of society, those who might not yet be DSA members or might not necessarily even call themselves socialists, are also starting to wonder what the heck kind of constitutional system is this? We have this Senate that doesn't get anything done, and when it does get stuff done, it's stuff that harms the majority of people. We have the Supreme Court that is obviously corrupt, and then what? Five or six of them just get to decide what they like or they don't like, and that becomes the rule. And then the president, you know, we're living in a time in which people are hitting the streets under the banner of no kings. You know, the same time we're celebrating our 250th anniversary as a country for getting independence from a king, it's like, oh, oh my gosh, what's going on? What's what's happened here? So I think it's a really, it's a really uh interesting confluence of constitutional critique. And I'm just very glad that it's it's it's in it's in the program. I'm particularly excited about it.

SPEAKER_01 45:26

Yeah, I know. It's like your favorite topic. And um I I think that too, like it's the thing that people seem to be the most exercised about, um, the Senate. That's been getting a lot of play on Fox. Um, there's been these Chirons that have said, no Senate, no president, no jobs, um, things like that. And I'd love to talk more about like kind of what people, how people are reacting to this stuff, because it's, I mean, it's currently happening with me kind of like being set on blast on Fox News and stuff like that. And um, you know, I'm okay, guys. Don't worry. Um, like it's it's kind of interesting that they're they're going that hard on something like the demand to abolish the Senate because the Senate, like it's actually it's acting like, oh no, they're gonna take away our Senate. Like it's just like, what? Like that, that does not it, it shows the disconnect between a kind of um clueless, in many ways, like ruling class media apparatus that are just like, oh my God, the sacred cow of the Senate. When if you were to talk to any average person on the street and be like, hey, what do you think about the Senate? They just like, it's I don't know, it's the Senate. Like they don't they would not have any strong feelings about this. And if they really thought about it, the Senate, like the the most prominent senators right now are Bernie Sanders. And the reason he's popular, the most popular senator, is because he ran for president as a Democratic socialist. That is why he is popular. It's nothing to do with him being a senator, like his office. And it seems like the Senate is a place where it's like a holding pen for presidential hopefuls. Because where else can you go unless you go and like become the governor of a state? So it's kind of almost like just a professional political class, which I think a lot of people are very primed to hate right now because of how badly things are going, right? And like you mentioned, they don't do anything. They are in gridlock, right? They they both um sort of what they would say check, but they cancel the will of the majority as expressed through Congress, right? And this also gets into the gridlock already in existence with the two-party system, which is exacerbated by things like Citizen United. So these things are connected, right? It's not just, oh, if you get rid of the Senate, you have we're also calling to expand the House of Representatives. Why? Because it's not just to make up for the loss of a Senate, it's also to make a more responsive and representative Congress. Um, and there's, you know, well, what about the states? What about the states? States have their own police powers, they're expansive. Police powers are power over public health, welfare, security, right? Like these are actually things that states do have in them. And most people actually have their lives are touched more frequently by what's happening more locally and in the state, with, you know, a lot of funds and things like that coming through. Um, but that's actually how most people experience government. Well, a Congress that was represented on the federal level would actually give people more voice, right? Like it would we would have an increased number of people who are representing our interests. And that would actually result in likely more representation of the majority of people who live inside a state. Like if you had more people in Congress. So the idea that senators are somehow this like sacred, like we cannot touch this. It's just like you're you're making the argument for us. You have no argument about why senators accept it's a waste of taxpayer money. It's a holding pen for political aspirants, and they're more loyal to each other and their donors than they are to their constituents. Um, so yeah, like, and obviously it wouldn't happen just by magic, but a more representative Congress, people who are able to vote um more frequently for people who are kind of more local to them, you know, like more representative, would also then make having a multi-party democracy much more feasible, right? Because you would actually just have a lot more people with different views who could then create coalitions, right? Um, so this is how other countries run their single parliaments, is just they're extremely large and they have a lot of parties. Um, so I mean, probably won't happen overnight, you know, but um, we can make the argument that this is a horizon that we would like to see. Um, and it's important for us to be able to do that. And it's important for us to be able to persuade both people who are, like you said, people who don't consider themselves socialists, but who might read this and just be like, yeah, I actually don't know why we have a Senate. But they might also be like, wait a minute, what happens if we take away the Senate? And then we can like talk about that with people, right? Like we this is what organizers do is we talk about it, but we talk about it directly and we tell people, this is what we believe. What do you think? You know, and like get people involved in talking about this with us instead of I can't believe that you don't like the Senate. What's wrong with you? It's just like, oh, please, you know, it's just at a certain point kind of gets absurd, and you just have to like be like, okay, I guess you like the Senate for some reason.

SPEAKER_00 51:24

I'm I'm thrilled, like I said, that DSA is really standing at the vanguard of saying we need democratic institutions, we need proportional representation, you know, all this stuff that we've been having around gerrymandering. We need a unicameral legislature, you know, these checks do not serve us. Like you said, these are pretty unpopular institutions, but the unpopularity of them doesn't automatically generate political leadership. There does need to be a group that says, we're gonna take the lead on this. We have an idea. You know, come join us, elect us. We have an idea for how we can change this. Because it it does take, you know, we were talking about how things get done in DSA. It does take someone saying, I have a plan, I have an idea, I'm gonna do it, let's go.

SPEAKER_01 52:24

And so I think with this program, and then people have to debate it and democratically adopt it. Don't forget that part.

SPEAKER_00 52:30

That's true. That's true. You're not just running roughshod over people. That's very true. That's very true.

SPEAKER_01 52:35

Yeah, I I actually want to pick up on that because we have been having a lot of very high-profile electoral success lately. Um, New York City obviously is a standout, but then uh Melek Karos in um Colorado and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania. And then we have other um primaries that are coming up. Um, you know, one thing that we do have in the resolution that we adopted last year is a requirement that, to the best of their ability, nationally endorsed candidates adopt and champion our workers deserve more program. And it's only been a few days since it's been out. I do not expect that all of our electeds, whether hopeful or actually um elected, have read it. Um, but it's actually a kind of an interesting thing to think about like who's leading here because we're a we're a political organization, a proto-party. And this is something that we're using to build our mass power, right? We believe in mass democracy, believe in mass power. We're at uh over 120,000 DSA members, a huge, huge increase. And, you know, it's it's exciting, but it's also like, well, how do we get everybody on board, including our electeds, right? Um, and I know that the right is already starting to sort of pop up and ambush people and saying, like, what do you think about this? What do you think about that? People who haven't yet read it, people who maybe DSA members, you know, pay dues, but they're not involved in like all of the debates and stuff. And it's a it's a really, I think, exciting prospect to kind of unify our organization around championing this program and using it in all the different ways that um chapters have already started using the old workers deserve more program, you know, just using it in their everyday organizing, but also championing it like on the highest platforms, you know. Um, and I know that different people in DSA have different ideas about what that could look like, you know, whether it's like maybe some kind of pledge or something like that. And we are we're not sure yet exactly what it will look like exactly because it takes organizing to be able to bring people closer to you and to be able to use this thing as something that is more than just a formal like if you're in DSA, you believe in this. Because I think that the great thing about the old workers deserve more program is that it inspired people to ask questions, to um discuss these big political ideas in ways that brought people in no matter what level they're at. And there may be things in here that um people are like, huh, establishing public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to people. What's that mean? You know, the right is gonna say, oh, it means that they want um, you know, sort of Soviet oppression and forced labor or something like that. And then other people, maybe people who are kind of more like on the market socialism side of things, will say, no, actually, what it means is that necessities and large-scale um production could be brought under state control in the sense that it's highly regulated, right? There, we left the language large enough to where we can encompass our big tent and we can kind of actually talk about the different policies. Because a program like this can't have like prescription in it, in part because we are a big tent. But what it can have is some like core values that are really, really important. And one of these things about public ownership is about um essentially saving um industry from um what's happening to it right now, which is monopoly capitalism turned up to 11. You know, what we're seeing right now is the denigration of public institutions like NASA, like all of these like absolutely like crown jewels of US um, you know, public life. I would even say the internet, right? Like the internet is now broken. And the reason it's broken is because it's been privatized, essentially, you know, because um, you know, I don't want to name any names, but because certain companies have been able to essentially capture the value and squish it down, what Corey Doctorow has called inshidification. So I think that like this kind of demand, while if you were to throw it in front of somebody who hadn't thought about it before or an elected, they might be like, uh, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure about this. I think that socialists can say, look, what do you think isn't working about the way that capitalism has been handling these questions so far? You know? And in our um section called Our Perspective, which is kind of like a vision statement, it's a it's the section kind of in the middle of our program. Um, we talk about this, you know, we talk about the way in which, and I'll just read it off, capitalism fails to save problems of its own making. Or solve, sorry, solve problems of its own making. As capitalism fails to solve problems of its own making, it turns to right-wing authoritarianism. This isn't new, you know. This is also what launched the Nazi Party, you know, the failures of capitalism, the Great Depression, the decline of industry after, you know, record-breaking profits of the Gilded Age. Um, and then we ended up with, you know, some of the worst travesties ever in human history. Um we can intervene, you know, like socialists can intervene in these moments. And when you said earlier, Luke, that like this is historical, like, you know, I co-chaired this committee, so I'm kind of, you know, uh, I hope it does well. I don't want to say like, oh, it's historical, but I do think that it's important for us at this moment to really say something about where we stand, you know, and and say it loudly and say it proudly. And say it, you know, yes, we do want capitalism to end. We aren't just trying to fix things around the edges. Because I think there's been a lot of confusion about that because we're a big tent. It's like, nope, if you're a socialist, you do want the opposite of capitalism, which is socialism. So it's kind of out there now and people have to deal with it.

SPEAKER_00 59:52

Well, the point around elected officials, how people who we ask to represent DSA relate to this program, it's really important to grapple with. You know, DSA is an organization that engages in the electoral arena. And then the question becomes, well, how do you do that? And I think a big part of that is what do you expect people who represent DSA to say? And in order for that to happen, there has to be something that says this is DSA. And you know, I think we we have that with the program. It'll be interesting. You know, I have my I have my hopes that soon candidates will really champion, as we said, that demand for getting rid of the Senate, writing a new constitution, all the other parts that are in this. Those are big asks of people. But I'm glad at least that we have something that we can put out there. And I'm sure that the conversations will only continue around that point.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:05

Yeah, so we didn't cover everything in the program, um, because obviously we want people to go to program.dsausa.org and read it themselves. But just on the the part about what we expect people representing DSA to do, um not everyone has the same attachment to DSA, right? Like it's like we we have people who pay their dues and then they kind of don't do much else. Then we have the people who are active and doing a lot of stuff, like you and me. And then we have electeds who have either come out of DSA and gotten their sort of organizing teeth through DSA and they're kind of cadre members. And then we have people who have been endorsed by or kind of brought in like after they were already politic, like politicized differently, or maybe even already kind of aspirants to office. Something I think that is really important right now, even if some of these other more technical future horizon things, like you know, nationalizing or or or creating public ownership of all the industries, is the section on foreign policy. Because right now we are involved in several wars, um, and our tax dollars are flowing like the Yukon River towards um the war machine. And it's devastating um countries in the Middle East, but it's also devastating us here. Our you know, inflation is is runaway. Um gas prices are excruciating, grocery prices are excruciating. Um, won't even get into the diarrhea parasite because you know that's that's that's on everyone's minds right now, hopefully just their minds and not other places in their bodies. But like it's um, you know, it's kind of a farce, right? That like we are spending billions a week on wars that nobody wants, nobody asked for, um, that don't have an impact except to make things worse for everyone. And so we have four demands here, including abolish ice, which is new. Um, but we have end blockades, embargoes, and sanctions, and the US war machine by defunding the Department of War. It's the first sentence, and also freeing Palestine. Now, all of these, I think, should be a minimum for anyone who is in federal office, you know, under the DSA banner to be like this is the most important thing that people go in. We have to end the genocide. We also have to stop runaway defense spending. And we have to end the paramilitary takeovers of our cities and the murders of people here. That is, I think, the number one thing. You might feel differently, but I think that this is the thing that can actually be the most immediately actionable for people who are heading into Congress um next year, who've been elected already, or who may be elected in the near future.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:29

Yeah, there are there are many things that are really, really horrible about what's going on in the world. I think the reason that I, you know, folks will notice have been talking so much about the Senate unicameralism presidency stuff is I look at it as basically saying what will give us the power, what will give us the political power to do these things and and what currently interferes with our power. But it's it's certainly useful, I think, to have within a program demands that might be more immediate or are very galvanizing, also a critique of the power structure and and who manages the political system, what we want to see done with that political power. So it's it it it comes together in this in this document.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:22

Well, I mean, this is actually kind of also about what kind of program is this, because in DSA we have a lot of people who are like program siccos, you know, who have like read every single socialist program, maybe in several languages, and they're just like, we have to make it exactly like the Erfurt program or exactly like the Black Panther Party program or something like that, in order for I guess it to be legible, effective, or or something along those lines. And I'm really, I really appreciate the fact that you said you think that these things come together in this document because what it Does is it does mix together the minimal maximal program more like integrated than normally it would maybe be for a historical socialist program? The horizon of abolishing the Senate and having like an expanded house, like that is going to take, you know, massive constitutional upheaval, right? Which we have, you know, technically, just to remind people, we do have the right to change the constitution currently. It's just really hard, you know, it's really, really hard. And um, advocating for it, I know that um people in Marxist unity groups like a very, very big part of your sort of six points of unity. Um, others are like, okay, that's gonna have to come later after some other things. But to the extent that we kind of tried to figure out like, what are the things that we understand to be both on the horizon of what if we had, we would have a socialist um program, but also things that we can agitate around now and maybe make like rapid progress towards. I mean, you can even see that ever since um October 7th and the war in Gaza, how much the conversation has changed around Palestine, even in just the last couple of years. People have been elected, um, beating out, you know, 15-term incumbents who were funded by AIPAC and made it into Congress, hopefully, fingers crossed. Um, you know, but these are the things that like is it's exciting to see some of these things changing already, but then being like, well, we need to complete these things. And like the democratic road to socialism is hard and full of, you know, bumps. But as if we have some things that we can just be like, this is what we're really like striving towards is a more democratic, freer society, and really reclaiming freedom from those who wish to um, you know, malign us and um those who want to say, oh, actually, freedom is, you know, being at home. Like, I mean, just the the various kinds of ways in which they're trying to say, like, they want to take away your freedom, just like it was the Cold War all over again. Um, I think that we have a strong position now to say, no, like what we want is actual human freedom and flourishing and emancipation from exploitation and oppression. And here are the things that we think we need both immediately, you know, that we could actually try to get now and also in the future.

SPEAKER_00 1:08:55

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Programs do come in different shapes and sizes. The ways that people unify looks different. You know, the Black Panther Party 10-point program, as you mentioned. I know SDS had their statement, their port her on statement. You're right, the Airfurt program. I think that folks will take this program perhaps and emphasize different aspects of it. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm it's not I'm not gonna say I won't be surprised. I know that that will happen in DSA because as you said, there are different groups with different political emphases, different strategies for how they imagine these things playing out. Is one thing possible first, or do you need to win this prior, et cetera, et cetera? So I can imagine, you know, at a at a tabling event, one pitch of the program might not look the same. You know, one person might open it up to page three and point at this, and one point person might open it up to page two and point at this. But there is there is something called DSA's program, and it creates that space to have that conversation and also have the conversation of, you know, what would you like to see in the program and how can you run and you know make it so that those things get included in the program? And you know, I I I I think there's only uh progress that can that can come out of of what we've created here.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:29

Yeah, I draw the line at it once again becoming 9,000 words, though. I think that we need to somehow figure out a way to prevent that from happening. Um, but I just before maybe we finish out, and um, I do want to talk also about like the reactions and stuff, I did want to talk a little bit about the beginning because the beginning is very unconventional for a political program. It is a narrative piece that asks people to imagine a day off from work in a future without capitalism. And this has been stirring up a lot of people on the right because they're like, oh, they're so pie in the sky, which is really funny because the point of this beginning part is to imagine an alternative, something that does not currently exist in the United States. So, yes, it is imaginative. It is something that is fictional in the sense that you're being asked to step outside of what we are trained to believe is normal and the pressure to believe that it is the only alternative, right? Like, or the only way to be, right? The Tina, there is no alternative idea that came out of the Satcharite era, but also has been kind of a rallying cry for no, it's wrong to think of a world without capitalism. I mean, right now the right is losing it a bit because the idea that we would have the temerity to actually put something out that asked people to imagine what it would be like to live without a system that was man-made, right? Like the efforts to naturalize capital and capitalism come out of, you know, 18th century economics. It's it was a design to say, oh, well, now there's this thing called the profit motive, and we have to figure out a way to make it seem like it's inevitable. And everything was built around that. And you know what? A lot of people do think it's inevitable because their experiences have shown that people's motivations have been to take advantage, to exploit, and all of those things. But what would it be like if we didn't have the structures that made that so that it were, that it was like not just like instinctual for some people to just kind of try to get ahead. You wouldn't have to if there were things in your life that just you did not have to worry about, right? That you didn't have to worry about whether or not you lost your job and then lost your health insurance, right? Or you didn't have to worry about competing against um your workmate um for a promotion because you wouldn't have this like pressing set of debts, let's say, that like requires you to have to make more money than you currently do, or something like that. This is not saying anything about people's ambitions. It's not even really saying about anything about what form these things would come in, but it's asking people to imagine what it would be like to, for example, just even something as simple as not having to pay an electricity bill out of your own pocket and possibly having it threatened to be turned off if you lost your job. You know, that is something that actually a lot of people struggle with in the United States. In the US, more than half of people don't have $800 in savings. It is a crisis. Housing is a crisis, these things are a crisis. I currently pay $200 over $250 a month for like not very good health insurance because I lost my health insurance. You know, like so I had to, you know, when things fell apart last year because of the government shutdown, and then there was like, you know, an alteration in health insurance. So now I'm paying out of pocket this absurd amount of money just to be able to go to the doctor if I get sick, you know? So these are things that actually a lot of people struggle with, but then it's hard for people to imagine what it would be like not to have to struggle against those things. And so we're just asking people like, take a take a second to think about what it could be like to just live your life and not have to worry about these things. And it's really resonated with a lot of people. People really, really like this part. Um, and so I'm glad we did decide to include it after all, because there was some discussion about whether it would work and things like that. And I think, you know, the people who this is not necessarily aimed at, um, who are looking for reasons to criticize it, criticize it or read into it stuff that's not there. But I think that for a lot of people, it's a breath of fresh air. It gives people um an idea of like kind of a simple vision of human freedom that we're not allowed to think about, you know, kind of every day, you know.

SPEAKER_00 1:15:38

There's certainly something to be said for a strong hook. And I think one of the things that can inspire people is seeing an organization that's dedicated to these things. Because outside of DSA and the things that DSA candidates do aspire towards and hopefully will continue to aspire towards, there isn't really any political representation for these positions. So I think it can be motivating not only to have that desire of, you know, I want a better world, I want things to be different, but uh, here's something that seems like it can be a vehicle for that. Or here's some really bold political proposals for how we can get these things. I think it's great that we're being bold.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:30

Yeah, yeah. I'm I I'm obviously very pleased at how it turned out. Couldn't have done it myself. I would never have done it myself and it wasn't ever intended to, but I've become something of a spokeswoman for it because I talked about it on our call, our launch call, and now um I've been put on like clips of the call from the other day, which we'll link in the show notes. We can just like send people to that part if they want to hear more about the program. Um, they can they can watch that uh YouTube. But yeah, it's been an interesting last couple of days because um I haven't been myself like digging through the internet to find out what people are saying and stuff, but I've, you know, I've been discovered by the right. Um, and so there's been a big reaction. It's been, you know, I just want to talk a minute about the sexism and the weird, like very typical and unsurprising reaction to three women talking about politics on a call. Um, we've been called spinsters and cat ladies and blah, blah, blah. And actually, it was funny, my fiance Colin, who I mentioned earlier, he's been kind of uh going through and tracking some of these things for me, even though I didn't ask him to. And somebody said, Because um, the call the other day, you could uh sitting basically in the same place I'm sitting right now, but it was like darker in the room. And so there was more reflection on my glasses. And he said, you can see her lonely life reflected in her glasses. So a lot of the stuff they're saying about me has been really derogatory and like aiming at my gender, aiming, like trying to figure out how old I am. Um talking about, yeah, like my hair is up now, but at the in the call it was long, and some uh guy online um said that I look like I was from central casting for a Manson woman or Manson chick, you know, like the like Charles Manson's follower. So like it's it's all become like extremely funny to me because I'm like, okay, they'll do anything to kind of distract away from the ideas. Um, and then they've clipped me out of context saying something like, you know, at the time that we, you know, if there ever is like a Congress that is appointing or electing one of their like however we decide to do the executive part, you know, if it's an election and or appointment or what have you. And I said in answer to the discussion about abolishing the presidency, is that it had already been circulating. Like, we could call it the head honcho or whatever, and it was meant to be a light-hearted kind of jibe, I guess, at like people who are like, oh my God, what if we don't have a president? And it's like, well, it could be called president, it could be called prime minister, it could be called, you know, the final boss. I was like, there's like so many different things that could happen. So the idea that it's just like, oh, she's so lighthearted, or I mean, they're trying to make me sound stupid, basically, um, which doesn't bother me. I, you know, I'm a woman. I know that like people are gonna try to make me sound stupid. So it doesn't really bug me. It it is interesting how fixated they're becoming, especially because it seems like they want to try to turn me into some kind of object when I don't, you know, they it's almost like they want to turn me into something. And I'm like, I am just here, you know, like I I haven't been hiding, I don't have like a high profile because it's like it's not my job to, you know, it's like I I haven't like, you know, turned myself into a brand or what have you. But they kind of want to do it, I think, in order to try to have some target in order to make sure that nobody actually ever really reads this. And like they never like they're inoculated and be like, oh, was it that brown-haired woman who um, you know, said the thing about the head honcho? Ah, screw the DSA. I I think it's a really stupid strategy, um, because nobody's gonna know me from Eve. You know, it's just like they're it's it's it's kind of silly. But I think that it actually speaks to the power of our ideas. Um, that that the right is like trying so hard to dismiss them by associating them with just like one person who they're trying to make fun of how I look or something, and it's really silly.

SPEAKER_00 1:21:37

Yeah, obviously, solidarity with all of the DSA comrades out there who are who are taking the heat with this program coming out. And I think you said it well, which is these are often not political responses or strategic responses to try and take care of the issues that we're talking about. It's attempts to fear-monger or distract or slander or stuff like that. And the road is gonna be long because we're not only gonna get attacked by, you know, Fox News, I think we're also gonna find ourselves in situations where someone says, uh, you know, maybe this, but but not that. Or, you know, maybe this, but maybe it looks a little different. You know, having conversations about, for example, electeds and what people run on. Um when you really put your foot down and stand for something, it gets hard to keep your foot down and continuing to stand for that thing. And I agree, we're we're touching on some some raw nerves. You know, again, I keep coming back to the Senate and the Constitution stuff. But, you know, I think one of the reasons that Mike Johnson talks about, oh gosh, they want to abolish the Senate is because the Senate's kind of a a a linchpin, not just a structural linchpin, but sort of an ideological linchpin too, to sort of touch these, I think as you were saying, sacred cows in a way, to touch these things that aren't really supposed to be touched, that's you know, gonna elicit a reaction. So in some ways, you know, who said it? To be attacked by the enemy is is a good thing, and and to be able to really stand firm and in spite of that.

SPEAKER_01 1:23:23

Yeah, I mean, I'm I'm also well known for those who know me in DSA to be someone who is absolutely not intimidated by much. Um, I I just don't I don't have it in me. So, I mean, this is not a challenge to anyone. I would actually talk to anyone about the program if they were coming in good faith. Um, but I do think that, you know, I'm not gonna let people discredit DSA or me by just having me on some show to do a gotcha misogyny at me in order to try to distract people from what's actually here. You know, like what's here, this is the culmination, I think, not just of the committee, the three months that we spent together discussing. It's about what we're building. It's about what we believe, but also where our action is. And they're terrified of the fact that we're persuasive of the fact that we can win. They say, oh, this could never win in this state or that state. Well, what if it does? What then? You know, like what if they can actually see that our ideas do resonate? And that's also part of why they're not talking about some any really of like the material demands. Of course they're not, because people would be like, that sounds great. You know, they're not talking about any of that stuff because they know that if they did, then they would be called to account on the fact that they've been carrying water for oligarchs, billionaires, ruling class stooges this entire time. People who have only been accruing wealth to themselves at the expense of the people. And, you know, if they wanna, if they wanna tease me about my hair, okay. Maybe I'll get a haircut. Not for you, because it's hot outside. And I probably should get one anyway. But it's just uh it's fine, you know. Like, I mean, I'm sure that I'm not, you know, this is not I'm not the first person this has happened to, and I'm it's not even it I'm guessing that it'll probably not last very long. But um it's been, you know, an honor, honestly. I know that we don't say that a lot in DSA, like, you know, we're collective group and and everything, and we kind of just do the work, but it has been an honor to be able to have seen this like come to fruition this way, and there's more to come. Like I said, at the end of this month, socialist summits happening in Chicago. So, those of you who are coming, you're gonna get a print copy or maybe more than one. I think we're gonna we're gonna try to make sure that everybody who's a delegate gets at least two or three copies. Um, YDSA folks, um, it's happening at the same time, and everyone's gonna get a copy of registration. And then everyone will be able to order um those things and andor like print them off to like, you know, kind of do batches themselves around the 24th. So that's the end of next week. Um and then next month we're going to roll out political education and different things like that, like lots of goodies for for our members. Um, and we're also gonna do more comms and things like that, op-eds around like different planks of the platform or the program. Sorry, we're calling it program now. Um, and yeah, this is just the beginning. And I'm really excited to see where this stuff goes because the great thing about an organization like DSA is that stuff like this engenders debate, it engenders like more thinking, it engenders lots of like, you know, kind of creative um approaches to how we're gonna use it and things like that. And I'm just really excited for everyone um to see it and to to engage, you know, like it's it's another it's another tool, but I think it's a really um central one, or it has the potential to become a very central one and not, you know, just kind of off to the side, but actually something that really unifies us.

SPEAKER_00 1:27:23

Very briefly on this point of you know, calling people to account, I think this is another reason why having a program that makes bold proposals like ours is so important, is because it offers people an alternative. You know, it allows people to say, Hey, DSA is talking about this. We know because we've read their program. Why aren't you talking about this?

SPEAKER_02 1:27:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:27:50

Or you're you know, praising how this institution works. I'm not so sure. These folks are saying otherwise. Or, you know, you say there's no Alternative? I'm not so sure about that. So it's one way of putting the heat on Democrats and Republicans who might otherwise talk about how, you know, they're upholding civil rights or they're doing what's fine by the American people or something like that. It really helps us give people an alternative, which I think is really great.

SPEAKER_01 1:28:23

Yeah. And I think this kind of goes with what you were saying about how people are going to, you know, we have no control really over how people use it. Some people are going to, um, even within the organization, like we're all somewhat free agents, like within DSA, we're a big tent and people have opinions and we want people to like express those opinions and talk about them with each other. So people might even have like, I really think that this is the most important plank, and this is why. And they'd, you know, talk about that. But to the extent that we're also trying to pressure any elected official, whether they're on the right or the um center, we'll say, um, of our political system to say, explain why they're opposed to some of these things, especially because a lot of these things they've been in the discourse for a long time. Medicare for all. So, for example, just to kind of bring it back to like what people have been saying, apparently on one of these shows, someone said, Well, the only thing that we could have a serious conversation about is Medicare for All. And it's like, oh, really? Because, you know, only a couple years ago you said that was pie in the sky. So it's like, in two years, are we going to add another plank to be like, oh, we can actually talk seriously about Medicare for all and housing for all? Like you just kind of get the idea that there's people who also understand that we're not a lot of these demands are just they're popular demands, right? They are hugely popular, and we need to be able to talk to people about why under the current system we can't get them. You know, the demands for Medicare for All, I mean, some state Medicare for all groups have been in existence for like 40 years at this point, you know, like it's why, you know, why is it that we have such an unresponsive system? It's because of capitalism. Because they do want us to pay out the nose for everything we need to live. And people understand that that's not right. And that it really is like an injustice, but also a huge contradiction if we say we live in a democratic society, a free society where people can, in fact, work hard and get what they need, because that's just not true. We know it. You know, we know because of the cost of living, but we also know because if you've been, you know, on this planet long enough and you weren't born into wealth, you know that it's a struggle already. It's a personal struggle, it's a familial struggle. Well, what we need to do is make it into a collective struggle because that's how we're going to win. You know, that like a mass political movement is how we're going to be able to not just get the things that we need, but the things that we want. The things that are going to help us to become ourselves, you know, what Marxist called species being, which is like such a funny way of putting that, but it really relates to human flourishing, you know, like really living and not just surviving.

SPEAKER_00 1:31:28

Well, I'm really excited that we're also going to have some political education modules around this. This is obviously the podcast of the National Political Education Committee and myself, I'm sure other folks as well are involved in their political education committees at the local level. I think it's great that we'll be able to use the program to further our political education, to talk about what are the important things to really talk about? What sort of brings us together? Why does the program say this? Why have a program? You know, it just opens so many doors. And so, like I said, I'm looking forward to when my local DSA chapter gets that first box of programs and we can hold some political education events and hand them out to people, or when us on the National Political Education Committee are perhaps creating some curriculum for folks to use around these particular points. Maybe we do more podcasts around this. Who knows? We've got we've got lots of different avenues.

SPEAKER_01 1:32:32

Yeah, so just, you know, don't want to say too much about what's coming. The hope is also to have um some kind of podcast episode that incorporates responses from people who do attend the Socialist Summit. And um one of our engineers, Tim, has said that he lives in Chicago, so he's gonna turn up and maybe do some like man on the street kind of stuff. Um it should be fun, actually. Like I'm really excited. I'm gonna be there. And um, you know, we're gonna be tabling and talking about the program. We're also gonna do a big, huge hype session at the end um of the socialist summit. So there's that part. And then also for our committee, Luke, um, you know, at minimum, we're gonna have uh maybe something like a socialist night school module that's about the program, you know, which we can kind of make, however, we still need to have a meeting about that. Um, this launch week has been kind of crazy, but we'll we'll totally meet. Um, and then I was thinking too, we have this training series called Talking to Non-Socialists. And it might be cool to do one that's talking to non-socialists about workers deserve more. And like just kind of giving people some tips and training about how to maybe if you're at Thanksgiving dinner and your uncle brings up, like, oh, I saw this segment on Jesse Waters' show on Fox, and they were talking about the DSA program. You guys sound like you don't know what you're talking about because you're too unrealistic about what's possible, or I don't know, whatever Uncle John says. And so, you know, those are hard conversations for some folks to have because it's like, how do you bring people closer to you, even if you know that they probably won't agree with everything or right away or what have you? And so those kinds of trainings, people have responded really well to different topics. Like we've done some on like ICE and immigration, political violence, and just kind of like more generally about like questions about capitalism, and talking about like the things that are in our political program to people who are, you know, close to us, but maybe far away from us politically, I think is also a really important skill for us to have. So we'll see. You know, there'll be lots of stuff, but you know, this is also thing, these are also things that like different chapters and groups, um, you know, political education groups, as well as like labor groups or, you know, um electoral uh committees and chapters. It's not limited just to your formal political education. Any group can use the program. It's supposed to be used that way. It's supposed to be used in all our areas of work. It's very comprehensive. So hopefully people will come up with all kinds of ways to to use it and to educate themselves and others about it.

SPEAKER_00 1:35:27

Well, Michaela, I'm glad we've been able to have such a wide-ranging discussion on the program. We touched on its origins, we touched on what came before it, we touched on what's in it, we didn't touch on everything that's in it, and that's why, as you said, we encourage folks to go to the show notes so they can find the launch video and actually the program itself. We talked about the things that we're particularly excited about in the program, talked about electeds relating to the program, political education material related to the program. I like that point about how you're right, the word democracy does come up a whole lot in the program. And I'm a firm believer that if you've got the right idea, there's nothing wrong with repeating it again and again and again. Now, what people think is the right idea, that depends. But hey, once you feel like you've got it, keep going, keep going, going, going. Thanks as always to our guests and our production crew, Emma, Michael, and Tim, who put all this together. CLASS is a podcast of DSA's National Political Education Committee, or NPEC, which works to expand the knowledge of DSA members and non-members in the service of winning the struggle for socialism and democracy. You can find a link to a recording of the MAS Call promoting the program's launch, and a link to the program itself, in the show notes. You can find out more about NPEC by searching for us online or following us on social media, but the best way to find out what our committee is up to is by signing up for Red Letter, NPEC's monthly newsletter. And if you aren't already, you can become a DSA member by following the link in the podcast description. Okay, until next time, Solidarity.