By Jason Sibert

I’ve always admired Switzerland for so many reasons – its beauty, its wealthy economy, its vibrant democracy, and its social-democratic economy, even though the country isn’t as social-democratic as Sweden and the Nordic countries, which are so admired by Bernie Sanders and his followers among today’s Democrats.

One of the most fascinating things about Switzerland’s democracy is that it’s a semi-direct democracy, meaning a political system in which citizens elect representatives but also retain powerful direct democratic tools to shape legislation. The essence of a democracy – first emerging in ancient Greece (although in a limited form) – is that people are in possession of enough reason to choose the laws they live under by some mechanism. In the United States, and in many other countries, we do this by selecting legislators to make the laws.  Switzerland has a legislative body elected by the people, but it can bypass legislators by passing laws via referendum. The Swiss use different tools to shape the legislative process.  They can amend the Constitution via popular initiative. With 100,00 signatures, a vote will be taken on an amendment. From there, the amendment must draw a majority of the votes in most cantons (the Swiss version of US states). Citizens can also veto a law passed by parliament by collecting 50,000 signatures in 10 days. If they succeed, the law is suspended until a referendum is held, and if citizens vote to abolish it, it is abolished. In addition to the federal level, citizens also vote on cantonal and municipal referendums.

The Swiss have perfected a way to bypass politicians when needed. We do have something similar in our country, at the state level. My home state of Missouri adopted a citizen‑initiated constitutional amendment process back in 1908.  That year, voters approved Amendment Three to the state constitution, which added the initiative and referendum powers to the Missouri Constitution. That made Missouri the seventh state in the nation to adopt statewide citizen‑initiated ballot measures.

However, our experiment with Swiss-style citizen democracy has recently become controversial. Under current state law, such ballot measures require a simple statewide majority for passage, a process that has been used in recent years to grant abortion rights, create paid sick leave, expand Medicaid, and legalize marijuana. In a move backward, the Republican legislature repealed paid sick leave in 2025. In another attempt to move backward, Republican Rep. Ed Lewis first proposed Amendment Four to the Missouri Constitution, which would have required citizen-led ballot initiatives to win a majority in each of Missouri’s congressional districts, boundaries that are drawn by state lawmakers.

It would have created “the strictest passage threshold in the country for citizen-initiated ballot measures only,” said Hannah Ledford, the deputy director of the Fairness Project, a group that supports citizen initiative processes, in a recent report. She added it could have left Missouri’s direct democracy process “functionally dead.” On August 4, Missouri voters went to the polls and rejected Amendment Four.  Remember this is a red state, and what baffles me is how Missourians support semi-direct democracy, abortion rights, paid sick leave, Medicaid expansion, and legalized marijuana in amendments but don’t support politicians who believe in such things.

A big part of social democracy is supporting democratic forms, unlike revolutionary communism. Of course, those norms are under attack by various right-wing populist movements around the world, and semi-direct democracy is just one democratic norm under threat. Republicans have also sought to make it harder for citizen-led constitutional amendments to pass in other states. In November, North Dakota and South Dakota voters will decide whether to bump the threshold up from a statewide majority to 60%. In Utah, a similar measure will appear on the fall ballot, specifically related to tax increases.

In the fight to protect our democratic republic, semi-direct democracy is one of the most important battlegrounds. Will we, as citizens of the USA, fight to protect semi-direct democracy? We’ll see.

Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project.

To be held at the Eugene V Debs Lodge in Buffalo, New York

Friday Night  September 4 

6:00 PM to 9:00 PM Welcoming speeches  to our comrades – near and far- to participate in our education ; to learn about each other; and to set the tone for the events to follow. 

Speakers – Michael Mottern and David Hacker , ”SDUSA history”

Saturday  September 5 

9:00 AM to 10:00  AM Breakfast 

10:00 AM to 10:30 AM Clean up kitchen and prepare hall/room

10:30 AM to 12:30 PM Presentation of Constitutional Amendments and Resolutions 

12:30 PM to 3:00 PM Locals’ Reports, including discussions of organizing, recruiting , contact with local and at-large members and  Facebook development

3:00 PM to 4:30 PM   Aaron Coleman; Dr. Brian Matlock, ”Socialism in the Heartland”

4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Stephen Schwartzberg and Jennina Rose,  Native American Legal Issues     

6:00 PM to 7:00 PM  Jason Seibert, “Sewer Socialism”

Dinner

8:00 PM to 10:00 PM   Readings  from ” The Freedom Budget”  and Bayard  Rustin’s biography

Movie

Sunday September 6

10:00 AM to 11:30 AM  “Share Time” .Everyone in the hall and outside of the hall will share their favorite  informative and/or intellectual,  resources with the group be they websites, Youtube,  journals, local papers , special archives  (such as our own).

11:45 AM   leave for the Naval Park   and tour the park

3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Interviews with our endorsed candidates .

4:00 PM- 5:00 PM  Sheldon Ranz, “Election Analysis”

7:00 PM  to 9:00 PM Readings  and  Movie

Monday September 7 LABOR DAY

9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Breakfast and clean up

10:00 AM to 3:00 PM Leave for the Parade ; arrive at the park and  MARCH in the Parade

3:00 PM to 5:00 PM   Informal discussion on the Parade, and the current state of the American Labor Movement

5:00 PM  Kurt Schneiderman Performing a Stage Reading of” Waiting for Lefty”

Tuesday September 8

10:00 to noon   Wrap up with Sheldon Ranz and Patty Friend

DEPARTURE

By Stacey Barber

As a social democrat, I would advocate for cutting up and regulating A.i. so it can be implemented safely and for the social good, not to be manipulated by rapacious CEOs. Not that the tech bros seem particularly liberal or conservative, but like many business types, they follow the path of least resistance and create technology that they think will help their bottom line but isn’t necessarily useful. While I certainly wouldn’t want to limit anyone’s entertainment options, there is a line between being entertained and being the entertainment that big tech crossed a long time ago, with some of the heads of the surveillance giant, like Palentir’s Peter Thiel ,and others in his orbit, being explicitly anti- human. It’s also pretty easy  to see how conspiracy theories about how the heads of big tech cold, slimy alien lizards are perpetuated. There is an ancient fear and fascination with snakes, lizards and reptiles that can easily be whipped up into a collective hysteria, plugging right into the collective unconscious, none of which has nothing to do with algorithms.

Companies like Facebook and TikTok have a long history of lying to Congress about the safety of social media to our children; and skirt liability via their lawyers and lobbyists. All the while potentially exposing underage children to predation and harassment as well as a barrage of overly standardized, sexualized and scandalized imagery, with little girls as young as 6 or 7 having online followings for their makeup routine. Not to mention the overstimulating schlock that many parents, using the iPad or computer or smart phone as a baby sitter, may simply have to resort to because both parents may be working two or three jobs in what, if the dark enlightenment tech bros have their way, would turn into a slavocracy.

Nor historically speaking is breaking up the major tech giants and treating the service as a public utility only the purview of traditionally more progressive politicians. Even though Teddy Roosevelt was more for putting in place strict anti-trust laws, even the conservative, capitalist president William Howard Taft was more for anti-trust laws, adapting and signing legislation making companies more accountable to the people by breaking them up. The liability posed by big tech in the modern 21^st century is a Pandora’s Box of undesirable outcomes. While some broadcast the downfall of civilization and it can feel like dark times, it is really the collapse of the American Empire, which can lend to a sense of doom of the ruling class. Let them stew!

There is also a strong element of the former Netflix show “Black Box “ that has crept into modern American life: the same constant, low- level paranoia. Also, there are no alternatives like free childcare or youth centers for parents to drop their kids off at, which could be a real, community-based remedy to the phenomena of iPad kids and even help to reverse declining mental health metrics in youth but done in conjunction with regulating a technology that is already beginning to restructure how people live, work and play.

So far, however, this has only happened to a limited degree. It’s not even clear how effective A.I. robots will ever be without humans. Several waitering robots at a Japanese restaurant malfunctioned and exposed the restaurant patrons to harm. Also, Waymo cars are notorious for seizing up in the middle of running a route, even though there is a push to introduce their services currently in major US cities. Currently, the Tesla car or Elon Musk ‘s “f you” mobile, as Bill Maher would put it on “Realtime” on HBO, malfunctions if you don’t turn on the car wash mode, at the expense of customer safety and the high cost of the vehicle. While A.I. uses in publishing and the arts are rapidly evolving, it is still the case that for art of any veracity and authenticity, art and artists are still needed. There has also been hope of using A.I. along with advances in biology and genetics to create carbon copies of pets and people via cloning.

Not only regulate and break up the big tech monopolies, but place them under public control. And, needless to say, put a check on data centers. And there has been increasing community organizing to stop their growth, citing skyrocketing electric bills, air pollution, the fact that according to one study, data centers have are heat islands that raise the temperature around them by 16 degrees within a 10-mile radius, and noise pollution; not to mention potential damage to agriculture. But big tech has openly flouted environmental regulations, where at a data center for Elon Musk’s A.I. , Grok, methane gas generators were illegally used at one point to generate power.  That alone is a glaring example of how unregulated and how the big tech bros care nothing for running slipshod over human society so Elon Musk can post more whining about the post-apartheid government in South Africa.

The US can take a page from countries like Indonesia, France or Australia that just banned anyone 16 and under from social media. But all three have implemented regulatory frameworks that benefit not just rich, ruling-class tech bros, but benefit the many. Outcry is growing in the US and their crimes will hopefully be exposed. Also part and parcel to getting any serious reform implemented is getting big money and dark money out of politics, the Uber cronyism and nepotism going on under Trump as mafia boss actually being the logical conclusion of a system that severely needs campaign finance reform.

But you can make a difference by staying informed, attending any municipal planning meetings around big tech in your area and even running for office yourself. Or, if that is too hands-on, just write and call your elected congressional representative. Let them know:  no more putting the profits of big tech before human needs!

Stacey Barber is a member of Buffalo SDUSA.

By Aaron Coleman

Food banks and food pantries are an important part of America’s charitable safety net. Every day, volunteers, churches, nonprofits, and local organizations work tirelessly to ensure that families don’t go to bed hungry. Their work deserves recognition and support, and there is certainly room to expand these efforts.

But charity alone cannot solve hunger. Food banks were never designed to permanently feed tens of millions of Americans. They are emergency resources. They exist to help people through temporary crises, not to serve as a substitute for public policy. As long as millions of Americans continue to struggle with low wages, rising food prices, unexpected medical bills, and economic instability, food pantries will remain overwhelmed. The question should not be how many more food pantries we can build. The question should be why so many Americans need them in the first place.

The Case for Universal Food Benefits

The long-term solution to hunger in America is universal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known by the EBT card that recipients use.

Currently, food assistance is means-tested. Applicants must prove their income falls below certain limits, repeatedly verify eligibility, and navigate a bureaucracy that often discourages participation. Millions of people who qualify never receive benefits because they don’t know they’re eligible, cannot complete the paperwork, or are embarrassed by the stigma attached to receiving assistance.

A universal system would eliminate those barriers. Every American would receive a basic monthly food benefit regardless of income. Wealthier households would effectively pay for their own benefits, and everyone else’s, through the tax system, just as they do with public schools, highways, and Social Security. No complicated eligibility rules. No stigma. No one falling through the cracks.

“But That’s Socialism”

Whenever proposals expand the social safety net, some conservatives immediately respond with the same accusation:  “That’s socialism.”

Helping people afford groceries is no more socialism than maintaining roads, funding public schools, or providing firefighters. Markets would still grow, transport, and sell food through private businesses. Universal food benefits would simply ensure every consumer has purchasing power, much like Medicare or Social Security operate within a capitalist economy.

A civilized society recognizes that access to food is a basic necessity. Markets work exceptionally well for producing food, but they don’t guarantee that every person can afford it. America produces more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is not scarcity, it’s access. No child should be hungry because their parents had an unexpected medical emergency. No senior citizen should choose between buying groceries and filling a prescription. No veteran should stand in line at a food pantry after serving their country.

The Fraud Argument Doesn’t Hold Up

Another common objection is fraud. Critics warn that expanding food benefits would lead to widespread abuse of the system. But what exactly are we afraid of? That someone might buy an extra bag of rice? That a family might have two scoops of beans instead of one?

Food benefits are among the least attractive government programs to defraud because they are restricted to purchasing eligible food items. They cannot legally be spent on luxury vacations, expensive electronics, or entertainment. The overwhelming majority of recipients simply use them to buy groceries.

Every public program experiences some level of improper payments. The question isn’t whether fraud exists, it always will to some degree. The real question is whether preventing every possible misuse is worth allowing millions of honest people to struggle with hunger.  If the choice is between a tiny amount of abuse and ensuring that every American has enough to eat, the moral answer seems obvious.

Hunger Is a Policy Choice

America has the resources to eliminate hunger. We have the farms. We have the grocery stores. We have one of the most productive agricultural systems in human history. The fact that people still go hungry is not because America lacks food. It is because we have chosen policies that leave access to that food dependent on income, paperwork, and bureaucratic hurdles. Universal food benefits would not eliminate every economic hardship, but they would ensure that no one has to wonder where their next meal is coming from.

Feeding People Is an Investment

Good nutrition improves educational outcomes, workplace productivity, physical health, and mental health. Children who aren’t hungry perform better in school. Adults with reliable access to food are healthier and more productive. Seniors with adequate nutrition experience fewer health complications. Reducing hunger isn’t simply an act of compassion. It’s smart economic policy. The costs of chronic hunger, higher healthcare spending, reduced productivity, poorer educational achievement, and increased emergency assistance, are paid by society one way or another. We can either pay to prevent hunger or pay for its consequences.

America Can Do Better

Food banks will always have an important role. Emergencies happen. Natural disasters occur. Families experience temporary hardships. But they should be a backup plan, not the foundation of America’s response to hunger. The wealthiest nation in the world should be able to guarantee that every person has enough to eat. Universal food benefits are not about creating dependency. They’re about recognizing that in a country capable of feeding hundreds of millions of people, hunger should no longer exist. When future generations look back at this moment, they shouldn’t ask why we built more food pantries. They should ask why we ever accepted hunger as inevitable in the first place.

Fmr. Rep. Aaron Coleman, Kansas House of Representatives 2021-2023 District 37, is the Sergeant-At-Arms of SDUSA.

This was passed unanimously by the National Executive Committee on July 14.

WHEREAS Europe has been torn apart by war for centuries, from the classical Roman era to present times; and

WHEREAS Europe has experienced numerous systems of force by the ruling class from monarchies to democracies. In which democracy is ideal based on stated principles; and

WHEREAS Europe has refrained from major conflicts – exempting NATO interventions, wars of defense, and the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s; and

WHEREAS Europe is home to many great western civilizations that colonized seemingly new world regions spanning the globe, in which western ideals were spread with Christianity, but the slave trade happened with capitalism including the value of the worker in terms of eugenics or race; and

WHEREAS no one country in Europe would represent the diversity of the EU, in that cooperation is essential for land locked allies; and

WHEREAS Europe is a wealthy continent and allies of the United States and other sovereign nations around the world; and

WHEREAS Greenland is crucial to maritime trade and defense. It has been European Danish territory for decades. America has offered to buy it; and

WHEREAS European agreements carved up regions without consideration for the existing population, reminiscent of colonialism where Britain and France held power internationally; and

WHEREAS the European Union has been a noble experiment, created with the intention of sharing economic production lines within a capitalistic market and formed in response to World War 2 to form a united Europe; and

WHEREAS the citizens of the United Kingdom did have legitimate gripes with the EU that ended in a close referendum of Britain leaving.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Europe must continue to prosper and remain close to the US and other sovereign nations based on alliances and needs of the nations; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a version of the European Union must survive and reform to better allow for independence and governmental oversight; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the European powerhouses in means of production and capabilities of soft power are Germany, France, and the UK, in which Germany, Finland, Poland and Greece are recognized as a council representing regional Europe from a west, north, east and south perspective; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a vision of unity must be in Europe’s future since Europe stands against Russian aggression in NATO with deterrence to imperialism and the authoritarian powers; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the European Union must restructure to allow individual nation-states greater sovereignty over sovereign issues; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a new European Union concentrated on Europe must emerge, united in defense and shared culture.