On September 4, 2026, it began and Michael Mottern and David Hacker gave an opening welcome and brief history of SDUSA.

But things got into full swing on the 2nd day, September 5th, when Social Democrats USA held its Educational Conference, bringing members and affiliates together for a full day of political education, organizational discussion, debate, and local organizing.

The conference opened with consideration of a resolution supporting universal food benefits. Members discussed hunger as a fundamental social and economic issue and the limitations of relying on food banks and existing programs with eligibility and administrative barriers. The resolution passed by unanimous consent, affirming SDUSA’s commitment to making the elimination of hunger a legislative priority.

A major discussion focused on SDUSA’s political identity and the organization’s relationship to other traditions on the democratic left. Members debated the differences between SDUSA and organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America while also considering how broad SDUSA should be in its ideological outlook. The discussion ultimately produced language affirming that SDUSA can include social democrats, democratic socialists, and others who differ over the long-term future of capitalism while sharing a commitment to democratic politics and social justice. The amended resolution passed unanimously.

Members also discussed constitutional reforms and the continued development of SDUSA’s organizational structure. Chapter and affiliate reports highlighted organizing efforts in New York, Kansas City, Missouri, and elsewhere, including membership growth, local fellowship, political campaigns, writing, and efforts to establish stronger local organizations.

Another recurring theme was the kind of political culture SDUSA seeks to build. Speakers emphasized the importance of welcoming new members, practicing empathy, maintaining space for disagreement, and resisting the factionalism and personal attacks that can weaken democratic organizations.

The conference also addressed difficult questions surrounding Israel, Palestine, Zionism, anti-Semitism, and SDUSA’s historical positions. The discussion reflected the organization’s continuing effort to engage seriously with internal differences while maintaining democratic standards and opposing authoritarianism.

Educational presentations broadened the conversation beyond internal organizational questions. Dr. Brian Matlock’s presentation, “Socialism in the Heartland,” examined how organizers can build support in rural and working-class communities by listening to people’s experiences, speaking in accessible language, and identifying traditions of solidarity already present in local communities. Other presentations explored Indigenous rights, community resilience, poverty and deindustrialization in Buffalo, and the possibilities of municipal socialism.

Taken together, the conference demonstrated SDUSA’s commitment to democratic political education, economic justice, working-class organizing, and building an organization capable of turning those principles into action.

Read the full conference report PDF for a detailed account of the day’s discussions, resolutions, presentations, and organizing work.

Passed by unanimous consent of the SDUSA NEC

If someone is confusing the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), keep in mind that there are pretty significant ideological differences between the two.

SDUSA is a social-democratic organization that comes from a explicitly anti-communist tradition. Historically, SDUSA has distinguished democratic socialism and social democracy from Soviet-style communism and authoritarian Marxism. Its basic approach is to preserve democratic institutions and a mixed-market economy while pursuing strong labor rights, social programs, economic regulation, and greater economic equality.

DSA is a different organization with a much broader socialist tent. DSA describes itself as a socialist organization and includes members with a wide range of views, including democratic socialists, Marxists, and other anti-capitalist tendencies. That does not mean every DSA member is a communist, but it does mean that people who advocate much more fundamental changes to the capitalist system can operate within the organization. However, whereas SDUSA commitment to democracy is ironclad; DSA in its current incarnation is run by its National Political Committee, a body dominated by non-democratic socialists who have publicly expressed their sympathies for authoritarian regimes of the left. 

And that’s the important distinction.

That said, SDUSA today is not necessarily ideologically uniform. It can serve as a broader democratic-left tent that includes people who identify as social democrats, democratic socialists, and others who believe capitalism should eventually be transformed or replaced. The distinction is therefore not that every SDUSA member must believe capitalism is permanent. Rather, social democracy provides a framework for pursuing economic justice through democratic institutions, while individual members may differ over what the ultimate economic destination should be.

SDUSA’s basic philosophy is to reform capitalism through democratic means. We believe in a mixed economy where the capitalist market coexists with social insurance, social welfare programs, strong unions and wage boards.  DSA’s stated objective goes further: it seeks to move beyond capitalism and ultimately replace the capitalist economic system with socialism. So when someone says, “Democratic socialism is the same thing as communism,” that’s an oversimplification. But it’s equally misleading to pretend SDUSA and DSA are interchangeable organizations.

There is a real historical and ideological divide between anti-communist social democracy and modern democratic socialism that includes explicitly anti-capitalist currents.

You can support strong unions, universal healthcare, worker protections, progressive taxation, a strong social safety net, and economic regulation while still believing that a democratic, mixed-market capitalist economy should remain. Another way to understand the social-democratic position is through its democratic guardrails. Social democracy can defend liberal democracy against authoritarianism on the right while also criticizing authoritarian or anti-democratic tendencies on the left. In that sense, opposition to communism does not come from a rejection of socialism or economic equality; it comes from the belief that democratic institutions, political pluralism, civil liberties, and democratic accountability are non-negotiable.

That position is fundamentally different from believing that capitalism itself should eventually be abolished and replaced with a socialist economy.

There is also an important historical connection between the two organizations. SDUSA is the successor to the Socialist Party of America, which itself grew out of the earlier American socialist and labor movements and was associated with figures such as Eugene V. Debs. In 1972, the Socialist Party of America changed its name to Social Democrats, USA. Michael Harrington and others subsequently broke away and formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973. DSOC later merged with the New American Movement in 1982 to form DSA. In other words, SDUSA and DSA have a common historical ancestry, but they represent different branches of that tradition that developed in different ideological directions. So while both organizations use the language of democratic socialism, they developed within different branches of the same historical tradition and went on to develop in different ideological directions.

Same broad political family. Very different philosophies about capitalism and socialism.

Passed by unanimous consent of the SDUSA NEC

WHEREAS, access to adequate food is a basic human necessity and is essential to the health, well-being, and dignity of every person; and

WHEREAS, food banks, food pantries, religious organizations, nonprofit organizations, and countless volunteers provide indispensable emergency assistance to millions of Americans experiencing food insecurity; and

WHEREAS, these charitable organizations were established to respond to temporary emergencies and were not intended to serve as the primary long-term solution to persistent hunger; and

WHEREAS, millions of Americans continue to experience food insecurity due to low wages, rising food costs, unexpected medical expenses, unemployment, disability, economic instability, and other financial hardships; and

WHEREAS, the continued reliance upon emergency food assistance demonstrates the need for policies that address the root causes of hunger rather than solely its symptoms; and

WHEREAS, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known through the use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, has helped millions of Americans purchase groceries and reduce food insecurity; and

WHEREAS, the current means-tested structure of SNAP requires many applicants to navigate income verification requirements, eligibility determinations, and administrative procedures that may discourage participation or prevent eligible individuals from receiving assistance; and

WHEREAS, a universal food benefit program would eliminate eligibility barriers, reduce administrative complexity, minimize stigma associated with receiving assistance, and ensure that every American has access to a basic monthly food benefit; and

WHEREAS, universal public benefit programs have long existed within the United States through institutions such as public education, transportation infrastructure, and Social Security, demonstrating that broadly available public investments can strengthen society while operating within a market-based economy; and

WHEREAS, America possesses one of the world’s most productive agricultural systems and produces sufficient food to feed its population, making food access primarily a matter of public policy rather than national food scarcity; and

WHEREAS, access to nutritious food improves educational achievement, workplace productivity, physical health, mental health, and overall quality of life while reducing many long-term social and economic costs associated with chronic hunger; and

WHEREAS, reducing hunger represents both a humanitarian responsibility and a sound economic investment that can strengthen families, communities, and the nation as a whole;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SDUSA supports the principle that no person in the United States should experience hunger due to financial hardship or unnecessary administrative barriers to obtaining food assistance; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the SDUSA encourages Congress to study and develop legislation establishing a universal monthly food benefit available to every American through the existing Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system or a comparable national food assistance program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any such proposal should preserve the role of food banks and charitable organizations as emergency resources while reducing long-term dependence upon emergency food assistance through universal access to nutritious food; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should evaluate methods of financing universal food benefits in a fiscally responsible manner while maintaining the long-term sustainability of the program; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that SDUSA shall make the elimination of hunger through universal food benefits a legislative priority.

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

Will be live streamed by our SDUSA Kansas affiliate: https://www.facebook.com/SDUSAKANSAS/

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 Jennina Rose Gorman, “Indigenous Perspectives from a Haudenosaunee woman.”     

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