At the outset, I support both the True North 2.0 and For A More Robust, Democratic, And Powerful Twin Cities DSA proposals. They don’t, to my mind, appear mutually exclusive, though there are obviously differences.
Mainly, I wanted to offer my reflection on the EPNI Roof Depot fight in terms of what it meant to have it approved by the True North resolution last year. My short version is that the chapter convention approval enabled the full capacity of the chapter’s mobilizing power. In this sense, I support focus in terms of these fights, because our chapter mobilizing is necessarily limited.
1)
What does this mean?
One area this mattered was with electeds. For one, it was made abundantly clear to both our existing electeds and our endorsed candidates that the Roof Depot was a priority for us. That did many things. I believe it emboldened our electeds like Chavez to stand firm when all the forces at the city were against him. More than that, it also brought our endorsed CMs into a deeper relationship with East Phillips and Little Earth. In the end, the frontline community gave them the strength to stand strong — we simply provided the connective tissue (though it was critical that we did!).
Take Robin too — there’s no doubt that, regardless of what our chapter endorsed, Robin would be fighting for it and brilliantly messaging the struggle with her platform. But the Roof Depot was in the exact phase of its campaign to truly need that kind of spectacular messaging and fight.
Consider if it hadn’t had the chapter approval: Say we wanted to start an environmental justice (EJ) group and even had a relationship with EPNI or something, but we just started it on our own. Say we really wanted Robin to speak in favor of something or go to a rally, but we don’t have an existing relationship with Robin. We could definitely reach out to her or reach out to the electoral group to see if they would. How would she respond? I don’t actually know, but my guess is that her response would be slower, but also she would want to know: is this an issue the chapter is all on board with? It’s not whether Robin supports environmental justice or ecosocialism, or even necessarily the Roof Depot struggle specifically. It’s like, is this something she should put herself out there on right now? Perhaps more concretely, Jason bore political consequences on the Roof Depot from the city because of his support for EPNI in the winter, etc. That cost him, but was ultimately worth it. But if he is trying to go to bat for a million things that different random groups want him too, he’ll get iced out of everything and probably before that just say no, and then we have a chapter relationship / accountability issue.
I think this was also huge for Soren Stevenson’s campaign. Had our chapter not voted for the Roof Depot struggle, would Soren have thrown down so hard for the Roof Depot? Would Nicole and Joe and others in East Phillips have thrown down for Soren?
But I want to pause here: what would it mean for our electeds and for us to pick an issue that wasn’t ready in the way Roof Depot was? And I don’t mean in terms of the deep political issues—though they are requisite—I mean in terms of the stage of the fight, what has already been built.
One more example, just because I want it to be clear I’m not centering electeds: Another area this mattered was social media and public communications. DSA comms people were enabled to work with EPNI comms people to do socials both from EPNI accounts and DSA accounts, and had a green light to boost whatever EPNI folks were putting out there. This allowed DSA comms to tell the Roof Depot struggle at the pace at which it was happening. As a result, the social drumbeat of the Roof Depot became that much louder and echo-ier.
To sum up: when the chapter voted to make Roof Depot a priority, it allowed the existing mobilizing capacity to be harnessed. It allowed (but didn’t force) otherwise-often-siloed groups — electoral, ecosocialism, labor, comms — to coordinate and produce something more powerful than the sum of its parts.
2)
Now, why was the Roof Depot a good pick for a chapter priority? There’s all the deep political reasons that I think we all agree on and have articulated: environmental justice, ecosocialism, Indigenous sovereignty, etc.
The more surface level reason is because the Roof Depot struggle already had the organizing. It just needed more mobilizing. Little Earth has been an organized powerhouse since its founding in 1973; EPNI had built an organized base drawing partly on LE over the past decade; they had strong organizers rooted in the community; they had a concrete vision and plan developed with community members and field experts like architecture, aquaponics, etc; they had a legit roadmap for victory in terms of city council and at the state level, and they had existing relationships with electeds who understood the game plan; they had lawsuits going — which imposed costs on the city, generated news events, and creating one formal path for victory; they had other mobilizers in the form of CJC; and they had their own comms team.
And to be clear – DSA didn’t build any of that. Far from it. We came in and provided one of the final pieces of the puzzle. I believe fully we provided a necessary piece—and I’ve truly never been more proud in my life than I was and am to be part of DSA. To be a piece of the piece was a sacred joy for me and always will be.
The reason the HERC is the next priority for the EJ group is because it is in a very similar situation as the Roof Depot in terms of a) what’s already been built and b) what needs to happen now. MN EJ Table has built an organized base of frontline community members impacted by the HERC. That work, like with EPNI, took years. They also have strong organizers rooted in community; they have a concrete vision and plan — for example, the Zero Waste plan — and they have a roadmap in terms of the county and state, and where relevant the city, too, as well as existing relationships with electeds who understand the game plan; they have a comms team and strategy too. What they need is mobilizing: getting this fight more public, getting bodies to events, getting elected officials to use their platform to tell the public about the HERC. This is something we can do.
Mobilizing is not the only piece of the puzzle, nor does it replace the more important work of organizing. For TCDSA, it is one important step to help deliver wins and demonstrate commitment to the groups and communities that are doing that critical organizing. This can bring us in solidarity with them and help us deepen our own organizing work.
Additionally, the Roof Depot fight activated some paper DSA members. The EJ group now has a little more capacity than it did at the beginning of the year. Some of that new capacity can be used for organizing—for planting a seed in the form of Reimagining I-94. I hope the HERC fight similarly brings in new people. That can help us mobilize in a bigger way around future EJ fights, and it can help plant some seeds that we can mobilize down the road. In this way, each fight can make our group and our chapter stronger.
3)
To get back to the question of chapter priorities, I hope that our chapter is supportive of planting seeds and letting its members organize. People and groups within DSA need to be allowed to organize, and that shouldn’t necessarily require some chapter vote.
Then, when there is an organized base ready, and good and democratic discussion, I think our chapter should be ready to mobilize the shit out of that fight.
4)
As a full sum up, I see the chapter priorities are largely about mobilizing. Because of that, I think it is important to be focused and limited in what we are prioritizing.
But when DSA members are organizing and want to plant seeds, they ought to be able to do so. They also should be able to promote the organizing efforts and ask the chapter for certain mobilizing asks, etc.
In solidarity,
From Connor S
Author’s Note: For my initial post on slack, there was more emphasis on the SC’s role; upon reflection and discussion, I’ve edited it to emphasize the chapter consensus made possible by a convention resolution.