Monday, March 23, 2026

Source: New Politics

Below is the revised text of a presentation by Frieda Afary to the South African organization, Zabalaza for Socialism on March 15, 2026.

I.  What has happened since the United States and Israel launched the latest war on Iran?

The United States and Israel started a new round of bombing Iran on February 28. Since then, they have bombed oil depots; oil facilities;  Kharg Island, which is the export hub for 90% of Iran’s oil (4-5 million barrels a day); military sites, missile and drone installations, police facilities; banks; a girls’ school in Minab; hospitals; residential buildings; water desalination plants and world heritage sites.

On the first day of the bombing, Israel targeted the housing complex of Ali Khamenei, “Supreme Religious Leader,” killing him, his wife, daughter-in-law, grandchild, and various government leaders.  On March 17, Israel killed Ali Larijani, Iran’s top national security official and  Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the Basij paramilitary force.  On March 18, it killed Iran’s Intelligence Minister, Esmaeil Kahtib in another air strike.

Currently the United States has over 50,000 troops in the Middle East region and has just sent another 2,500 marines.  It has sent fighter bombers and assault ships to the region. In the first 6 days, it spent $11 billion on the war and continues to spend over a billion dollars a day on it.  Trump has also spoken of sending U.S. ground forces into Iran.

Israel has started bombing Lebanon again and is sending ground troops there. It continues its genocidal war on Palestinians in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

Iran has retaliated by shooting missiles and drones at U.S. bases and military facilities in the region.  Its Israeli targets were initially military targets.  Now Iran is outfitting its ballistic missile with cluster munitions to bomb  Tel Aviv homes, parks, businesses and roads.  Iran has also targeted Gulf region oil facilities, oil tankers, hotels, airports and desalination plants. It has blocked the strait of Hormuz and has begun laying mines in it. It has appointed Mujtaba Khamenei, the son of Ali Khamenei, as the new “Supreme Religious Leader.”  Since January 2026, the Iranian government has cut off internet access for the public.

Over 2,000 civilians have been killed in the region so far.  More than 1,200 are Iranians.  Other civilian casualties are mostly in Lebanon.  In the Gulf states, the casualties have been mostly among migrant workers.

Over 3.2 million people have been displaced in Iran and over a million displaced in Lebanon.

The costs of this war so far have been not only economic, with a 35% rise in the price of oil and the blockage of transit of other needed goods such as food and fertilizer. The cost has also been humanitarian. Tremendous and even irreversible damage has been done to water and air especially in Iran where air pollution and water shortage were already severe. We have also seen damage done to world heritage sites such as the Golestan palace in Tehran.

Apocalyptic language based on Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Jewish fundamentalism is being used to motivate and recruit people to fight.

Artificial intelligence is being used in various ways, whether for bombing, shooting missiles or for generating fake videos to promote disinformation.

Globally, the Russian government has gained from this war because the price of oil has increased, and the Trump administration has lifted sanctions on Russia’s sale of oil. Russia has also gained because the anti-missile systems that Ukraine and Europe were buying from the U.S. to help defend Ukraine against Russia’s brutal imperialist invasion of that country are now going to the Middle East. Russia is also helping the Iranian government by sharing secret information about U.S. targets.

The Chinese government has also gained from this war, because the U.S. government will pay less attention to the Pacific Region and might even allow China to proceed with its plans to take over Taiwan.

II.  Some Context on Iran 1979-Today, U.S./Israel and Global Shifts

Since its founding following the popular 1979 Iranian revolution against a brutal and authoritarian monarchy, the Islamic Republic has defined its reason for being as opposition to Israel and the United States.  It has been a religious fundamentalist Shi’a and Persian nationalist entity which has also built strongly on misogyny and patriarchy. Anti-imperialist, and even anti-capitalist and revolutionary slogans have been used to promote authoritarianism and to destroy any progressive opposition.

Thus, in March 1979, shortly after the revolution overthrew the brutal monarchy of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers began the suppression of International Women’s Day protests against the newly imposed compulsory hijab. During that month, a popular referendum declared Iran an Islamic Republic.  The new government also began brutally crushing an uprising of the Kurds for autonomy in the North.  Much of the Left continued to defend the Islamic Republic as anti-imperialist in the first two years after the revolution.  The Islamic Republic, however, cracked down on the Left and killed and executed thousands of them starting in 1981.  It also killed thousands more leftist political prisoners after the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. It continued to crack down on any progressive opposition and created a police state.

Since 2009, Iran has had five popular protest waves, each of which was brutally crushed. The first in 2009 after a fraudulent election, sought the reform of the system. The others in 2017, 2019, 2022, and the latest in 2026 sought the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.   The 2022 uprising known as “the Woman, Life, Freedom” movement gained the most attention from the world because it was led by women burning their headscarves and had a strong emancipatory content. It involved labor and youth activists, national minorities such as Kurds, Baluchis and Arabs. The latest wave of popular protests in 2026 involved over a million people throughout the country and was crushed in the most brutal way. In the course of three days, in January 2026, the government killed at least 7,000 people and possibly 20,000 or more.

Iran has the highest execution rate in the world after China and has many political prisoners.

The Iranian regime has also used its talk of anti-U.S. imperialism and anti-Israel to crush progressive opposition in the countries in which it exerts influence.

Iran’s regional imperialist project began in the early 1980s with its role in the founding of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and later its interventions in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. In the case of Syria, it backed the brutal Bashar Assad regime for 13 years by sending ground troops and crushing the Syrian uprising with the help of Russia. It has spent billions on funding Hezbollah and Hamas and Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Its support for Palestinians is only limited to promoting its own regional ambitions and does not include democracy or human rights for the Palestinian people. In the past few years, it has been selling drones and missiles to Russia for Russia’s imperialist war on Ukraine. It has also been supporting one faction of the Sudanese army in the Sudanese civil war.  It is currently supporting the Taliban while promoting hatred against Afghan refugees inside Iran.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was founded by Ayatollah Khamenei as an army outside the regular army. After the eight-year bloody and destructive 1980 to 1988 Iran-Iraq War in which over a million were killed or injured, the IRGC expanded itself and became Iran’s largest capital owner/investor and the embodiment of the unity of the party, the army, and the state.  It has 180,000 guards and is part of the larger Iranian army and police force of 1.5 million. Iran has the 8th largest army in the world.

The IRGC has spent an unknown amount on Iran’s nuclear program.  In June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran had enough uranium enriched to 60% that could fuel ten bombs.  After the June 2025 destructive and illegal U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, this nuclear capacity was severely weakened.

As far as the U.S. and Israel are concerned, there is no doubt that they are pursuing their brutal imperialist ambitions in the region. The Netanyahu government wants to crush the Palestinian struggle for independence and has been massacring the Palestinian people. The Netanyahu government is also against any Israeli Jews who believe in the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Palestinians based on equality.

Washington has its history of backing Iran’s previous monarchical regime. The United States is also responsible for later invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the region, which led to the deaths and injuries of millions.

Both the United States and Israel have turned toward the direction of fascism.  In the U.S. with the second Trump administration, we have a fascist government which controls the presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.  When I speak of fascism, I refer to Robert Paxton’s definition in the Anatomy of Fascism. Fascist rule’s distinct features are the mass rejection of reason and logic, the mass embrace of Social Darwinism or the belief in the superiority of one’s nation or race and the so-called “Survival of the Fittest.”  Fascist rule also needs complicity on the part of the elites who bow to it.  Fascist extreme nationalism and racism is expressed in a process of internal “purification” by demonizing, dehumanizing, imprisoning and killing members of a group/groups as “Other” or “the enemy within.”  This process goes hand in hand with external imperialist expansion/war, misogyny, disinformation, erasure of history, and rule by a strongman.  Judging by these standards, in Israel too, the Netanyahu administration is run by fascists.

Both the U.S. and Israel want to collaborate with the Gulf states and Turkey to reshape the Middle East as a fully authoritarian capitalist entity without even paying lip service to democracy or human rights.

The Trump administration had thought that it would bomb Iran for a few days and make a deal with part of the IRGC in order to have an obedient regime in Iran. The IRGC however, has been planning retaliatory attacks for many years and bets on weakening the U.S. and Israel by lengthening the war. It also relies on a multipolar world with Russia and China increasing their imperialist power.

For Russia, which is a fascist and imperialist state, Iran has been an ally state to which it sells nuclear plants, arms, and from which it gets missiles, drones and services in promoting disinformation and terror around the world.

For Chinese capitalist imperialism, Iran is a source of cheap oil, petrochemicals, minerals, and an authoritarian ally.  China and Iran signed a 25-year agreement in 2021 according to which China gets $400 billion worth of Iranian oil at a highly reduced price in exchange for building oil and gas facilities and other infrastructure for Iran.

Based on the Trump administration’s Strategic Doctrine, its open alliance with Putin in Russia’s war on Ukraine, and its current lack of concern about a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, it seems that these three superpowers have for now come to an agreement about their spheres of influence. This does not mean that the spheres of influence are eternal. Capitalism is not a stable system. It is about poles of capital competing with each other for the extraction and accumulation of monetary value from humans and nature, and entering more and more destructive wars in the process.

An ongoing war in the Middle East sucking in U.S. military and other resources and weakening it, is also very much in the interest of Russia and China as they concentrate on their own imperialist projects and capitalist exploitation of their subjects.

Faced with this reality, it is essential to have an understanding of the achievements, limitations, and possibilities of progressive forces in Iran.

III.  Achievements, Limitations & Possibilities of Progressive Forces Inside Iran

The most important achievement has been the 2022 Woman, Life Freedom Movement which raised explicit emancipatory demands involving women, labor, education and the rights of oppressed minorities. That movement was brutally crushed with 20,000 arrests and the murder of over 500 participants.

Over the past twenty years, we have seen the growth of independent labor organizing in Iran among oil and petrochemical workers with temporary contracts, sugar cane workers, bus workers, teachers, and nurses.

Women have constituted 60% of college graduates and speak out forcefully for their rights despite living under an authoritarian, religious fundamentalist government and having only a 16% share in the official economy.

Political prisoners have been organizing inside prisons and writing letters and manifestos.

Iranian intellectuals have produced various translations of key works on philosophy and critique of political economy such as Marx’s 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and Capital in a new translation, as well as some important works on feminism.  Other important works on Iranian history, sociology, politics, gender relations, and the rights of minorities have been written by various intellectuals, especially outside the country where they have had more resources and more freedom.

Some key limitations within Iranian progressives have been the following:

Persian nationalism opposes any effort to offer a plan for recognizing and codifying the rights of national minorities to the use of their language and natural resources.

Patriarchy and misogyny still lead to high rates of femicide, gender-based violence, and abuse.

The Iranian Left mostly reduces the concept of socialism to state control of property without any effort to address the alienation of the capitalist mode of production itself. Hence it stays at the level of simply advocating the replacement of private property with state property.

Many on the Left still reduce imperialism to Western imperialism only, and refuse to pay equal attention to Russian and Chinese imperialism as well as the Iranian government’s own regional imperialist interventions in the past four decades.

Given these limitations, various retrogressive entities have appealed to the Iranian masses especially through the use of disinformation on social media and satellite television stations. Thus in the January 2026 uprising, when over 7,000 were confirmed killed by the regime, many people even among the working class were chanting monarchist slogans and calling on Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed king, to come back to Iran and bring them prosperity.  Some prominent progressive intellectuals including feminists have also declared their alliance with Reza Pahlavi.  Reza Pahlavi in the meantime has not only supported U.S. and Israeli military invasion.  He has also been appealing to the IRGC for a number of years to join him in exchange for a full pardon and full participation in the new regime.

Five Kurdish parties have recently created a coalition to prepare themselves for the fall of the regime. While it is not clear whether or not they plan to fight on behalf of U.S. and Israeli forces, it is clear that they are deeply disillusioned with the prevalence of Persian nationalism in Iranian society.

Iran has some courageous and committed intellectuals that we have not heard from recently because they are either in prison or under house arrest or on furlough or parole. Most notable is Nasrin Sotoudeh, a feminist human rights attorney who has been a political prisoner for many years and is currently on parole. Iranian Kurdish women’s rights activists Pakhshan Azizi continues to face the death penalty and speaks out against the regime and U.S. military intervention.  Narges Mohammadi, 2023 Nobel Peace Prize laureate is another feminist activist who has been silenced in prison for now.

Given the current brutal and expanding war and these real problems within Iranian society and the region, what can international progressives do now?

IV.  What Can International Progressives Do Now?

First:  Do anything you can to stop this war. Educate, speak out, protest, put pressure on your government representatives and independent intellectuals. In the case of the United States, public opinion is currently 60% against this war.  Most people don’t want to send their children to fight in the Middle East. Half the adult population is opposed to the Trump administration’s attacks on and detention/deportation of innocent immigrants.  There is also a great deal of anger about the ways in which mostly wealthy men including Trump, other politicians and even academics have collaborated with and benefited from  the late Jeffrey Epstein’s network for trafficking of  women and girls for rape and sexual abuse.  All of these questions need to be addressed in articulating an anti-war message.

Second:  Reach out to progressives in the Middle East or Middle Eastern progressives abroad. Do not limit yourself to talking only about one struggle or one country in the Middle East.

Third:  Oppose campism, take a clear stand against all global and regional capitalist-imperialist powers and defend the rights and humanity of the peoples that these powers are oppressing.

Fourth:  Address key issues that are holding back our struggles:  racial and ethnic discrimination, patriarchy, capitalist exploitation, and capitalist alienation.


Contact Information, blogs and works by Frieda Afary

Fafarysecond @yahoo.com

https://iranianprogressives.org

Lectures on Humanist Alternatives to Capitalism, Racism, Sexism


References:

Afary, Janet. 2009. Sexual Politics in Modern Iran.  Cambridge University Press.

BBC Persian. 2025. Pakhshan Azizi’s Letter from Prison.  October 4. https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cqlzx25vzzwo

Kaufman, Jeff and Marcia Ross. 2020. Nasrin.  https://www.nasrinfilm.com/

Keddie, Nikki R. 2003. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Updated ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

MacFarquhar, Neil. 2026. “Revolutionary Guards Corps: Spine of a Militarized State.” New York Times. March 9.

Northeast Los Angeles Alliance for Democracy. 2025. “What Is Fascism and How to Oppose It?”  https://www.nelafordemocracy.org/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rZu2ZglUA-8djuCih4dKkHHMkL7-wMyJ/view

Paxton, Robert. 2005.  Anatomy of Fascism.  Vintage

Sanger, David. 2025. “The Missing Chapter in Trump’s Security Strategy:  Superpower Competition.”  New York Times, December 8.

Ukraine Solidarity Network (U.S.). 2026. “Solidarity with the Iranian Uprising.” February 9.  https://www.ukrainesolidaritynetwork.us/solidarity-with-the-iranian-uprising/Email

Frieda Afary is an Iranian American librarian, translator and author of Socialist Feminism: A New Approach (Pluto Press, 2022, Audible, 2025). She produces Iranian Progressives in Translation and Socialistfeminism.org


Trump’s War Will Harm Iranian Women Most

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Just days after the United States and Israel launched their first strikes on Iran, Iran’s women’s football team walked onto the pitch for their opening match at the Asian Cup and stood in silence as the national anthem played. Within hours, a state-aligned commentator branded the players “wartime traitors.” By the next match, officials were standing beside them as they sang.

Several players initially accepted humanitarian visas in Australia – only for most to withdraw their asylum claims amid reports their families had been threatened. Most of the team has now returned to Iran.Their dilemma offers a glimpse of what war and political upheaval may mean for Iran’s 45 million women.

The first days of the war have already shown its human cost. One of the earliest attacks reportedly hit a girls’ elementary school in the southern city of Minab, killing at least 168 people, most of them children aged seven to twelve. Investigations into this strike are still ongoing, but the devastation is clear: classrooms destroyed and families mourning daughters who never came home. 

These tragedies point to a deeper danger: when ideological regimes face violent upheaval, women’s rights are often among the first casualties. Successors seeking to demonstrate ideological purity frequently tighten control over women’s lives.

This has happened before.

Across Africa, extremist movements have repeatedly used violence against women to consolidate power. In Nigeria, Boko Haram’s brutality intensified following the killing of its founder, Mohammed Yusuf, in 2009. Rather than collapsing, the movement radicalized. Under the leadership of Abubakar Shekau, kidnappings, forced marriages, and the abduction of schoolgirls escalated dramatically. Women were coerced into suicide bombings or used as instruments of propaganda and terror. What initially appeared to be a counter-terrorism success rapidly became a humanitarian catastrophe. 

Here in South Africa, we have seen how political crises reshape women’s lives. As the apartheid state grew more desperate to maintain control, it responded with escalating repression. Women activists were detained without trial, subjected to surveillance and harassment, and frequently targeted alongside their children in efforts to crush dissent. The struggle for political freedom was inseparable from the struggle for women’s dignity and autonomy. Femicide rates remain six times higher than the global average.

Afghanistan offers an even starker warning. After two decades of international intervention ended and the Taliban returned to power in 2021, women’s rights collapsed almost overnight. Today, according to the United Nations, nearly eight in ten young Afghan women are excluded from education, employment or training. Entire generations have been pushed out of public life into the shadows.

Iran could follow this same pattern.

Under the new ayatollah, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has taken over from his slain father, women could face harsher dress codes, expanded surveillance, and stronger enforcement by morality police. The fragile gains Iranian women have fought for could quickly be reversed.

This would be particularly tragic because Iranian women have been among the most courageous opponents of authoritarian rule in the country.

In 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of Iran’s morality police sparked nationwide protests. Amini had been detained for allegedly wearing her hijab “improperly.” Her death ignited the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, in which women publicly removed their headscarves, cut their hair in protest, and confronted security forces in the streets. The demonstrations spread across the country and inspired solidarity movements around the world.

For a moment, it seemed as though Iranian women might be forcing a historic shift in their country’s political trajectory. But wars have a way of silencing precisely the voices that challenge repression. 

Ultimately, any crackdown on women’s rights could leave Iran more isolated than ever. Influential leaders from across the Muslim world have already made clear that they will make it harder to cloak repression in religious legitimacy. 

Only last year, the world’s largest Islamic NGO, the Muslim World League, convened the International Conference on Girls’ Education in Muslim Communities, bringing together senior Islamic scholars, political leaders and civil society groups. Led by the League’s Secretary-General, Dr. Mohammad Al-Issa, scholars representing a wide range of Islamic traditions — including conservative Deobandi and Hanafi schools — joined Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai to affirm that educating girls is fully consistent with Islamic teaching.

The conference produced the Islamabad Declaration, which states clearly that there is no basis in Islam for denying girls access to education or excluding women from public life. By rooting the case for girls’ education in theological teaching, the initiative directly challenged extremist ideologies like the Taliban’s and even exposed rare internal tensions within the movement.

That shift matters now. If Iran’s new leadership seeks to justify harsher restrictions on women in the name of religion, it will not be able to claim uncontested religious authority. But this moral argument must be backed by global resolve. 

If the international community truly wants justice for the people of Iran, it must look beyond battlefield narratives. It must protect activists, amplify Iranian women’s voices and refuse to treat their rights as collateral damage in geopolitical struggles.

Donald Trump called Khamenei’s death “justice for the people of Iran.” But justice cannot be measured by the fall of a single man. It must be judged by whether ordinary people – especially women – emerge safer and freer afterward.

Because history offers a sobering lesson: when wars reshape ideological regimes, women’s freedoms are often the first casualties – and the hardest victories to reclaim.

Aaliyah Vayez is a South African political and security risk analyst specializing in African geopolitics, foreign policy, and global governance. She has advised governments, international institutions, and multinational firms on geopolitical risk and regulatory intelligence across Africa and emerging markets, including work on BRICS expansion and G20 dynamics. Her commentary has appeared in BBC Africa, TRT Global, The Guardian, and more. 


In 57 Languages, Meatpackers Strike for the First Time in 40 Years

Source: Labor Notes

In less than a quarter-mile stretch of sidewalk, chatter in 57 languages overlaps with the sound of dancehall, bachata, Thai pop, Haitian kompa, and Micronesian hip-hop. At sunset, dozens gather for iftar, breaking their Ramadan fast; the music, pulsing from boomboxes and cell phones held up to megaphones, swells into one shared hum.

In this sliver of land across from the sprawling JBS beef processing plant—among the largest in the country—workers from around the world have united in the largest U.S. meatpacking strike in 40 years.

The 3,800 workers at the JBS beef processing plant in Greeley, Colorado, walked off the job on Monday, March 16, launching a two-week unfair labor practice strike.

This is the company’s flagship beef plant in the U.S. Its previous contract with Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 expired last July.

Strikers say JBS has been increasing the speed of the production line while cutting work hours from 40 a week to 35, squeezing out more work for less money. A thousand Haitian workers at the Greeley plant have filed a class action lawsuit against JBS for discriminatory practices that push them to work at dangerously fast line speeds.

Line speed is a major issue in the meatpacking industry. The UFCW International recently spoke out against a new proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove federal limits on line speeds entirely.

“We’re demanding our rights, both in terms of wages and working conditions, because before the strike, they really took advantage of us,” said a worker in the brisket trim department, who spoke in Spanish and asked to remain anonymous. “They want the same output, but fewer hours and fewer people.”

After 18 years working at JBS, he said, “everything is so expensive. Everything has gone up, except our wages.”

‘ONE WRONG MOVE CAN TAKE YOUR LIFE’

Workers are also demanding that the company stop charging them out-of-pocket costs for personal protective equipment like mesh vests and arm guards—essential because they work with knives, saws, and other sharp, dangerous equipment.

JBS garnishes workers’ wages when equipment needs to be replaced due to daily wear and tear, damage, or theft. This gear can cost workers up to $1,100, taken directly from their paychecks without their consent.

“I have never experienced anything harder than this in my life,” said Teshale Dadi, who works on the chuck line. JBS was his first job after moving to the U.S. from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. “One wrong move can take your life away.”

The various jobs mentioned in this article are all similar: cow carcasses are moving along on a conveyor belt, and workers are very quickly cutting them into smaller pieces and trimming off fat with knives.

“Access to the equipment is essential for us,” said Brett Tanner, who moved here from Arkansas and has worked as a ribber at JBS since 2024. “Personally, I love my job. I really do. We feed America. But it’s stressful sometimes, the hours we work and the physical toll the job does take on your body.”

Meatpacking jobs are among the most dangerous in the country. Workers on the picket line showed cuts, deep callouses, and chemical burns on their hands from years at the plant. Repetitive motion injuries are also common. Slips, falls, and machinery crushes can even be fatal; in 2021, a worker at the Greeley plant died after falling into a vat of chemicals.

“Our hard work makes JBS a profitable company, the biggest [meatpacking] company [in the world],” Dadi said. “Doing this hard work, everyone deserves the highest respect. Our pay is generally good, relative to [the rest of] the country, but for this specific job, I don’t think it’s even close to what we deserve.”

“It feels empowering that we have so many people standing together to send a message that we want better pay, we want more access to equipment,” Tanner said.

FACING DOWN A CORPORATE GIANT

Organizing across many languages and cultures has been a historical constant in the meatpacking sector. Union drives in the 1930s brought together Black, Mexican, and Eastern European immigrant workers to build some of the earliest meatpacking unions in the U.S.

This is the first strike ever at the Greeley plant, and the first major U.S. meatpacking strike since the 1985-6 strike at the Hormel plant in Austin, Minnesota. (There were wildcat walkouts at Smithfield Foods in Tarheel, North Carolina, in 2006 and 2007.) At Hormel, 1,500 members of UFCW Local P-9 struck for 13 months, refusing concessions that their international union was pressing them to accept. The Hormel strike galvanized grassroots support from around the country, though ultimately the workers were defeated by the powerful forces arrayed against them.

Over the last few years, UFCW Local 7 has built up a fighting reputation, with some of the largest strikes in the union. Last year 10,000 Kroger grocery workers in Local 7 went on strike for two weeks in February, followed by another 7,000 grocery workers at Safeway in June.

But meatpacking workers face a steep uphill battle as they fight for better conditions. Union density in the industry has fallen precipitously. Up to 90 percent of meatpacking workers belonged to unions in the postwar era, but only 15 percent did by 2019, as the industry consolidated and shuttered unionized plants, only to restart production in non-union plants.

The meatpacking industry is now so concentrated that the “Big Four” companies—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef— control 85 percent of beef processing in the U.S. JBS acquired the Greeley plant when it bought Swift & Co. in 2007, one of many acquisitions and mergers on its road to becoming the world’s largest meatpacker.

Meatpacking companies have been reaping record profits since the Covid pandemic (notwithstanding fines for price fixing), even as communities suffer from plant closures and beef prices soar for consumers.

JBS, a multinational based in Brazil, is the U.S.’s largest beef processor, and also owns the second-largest chicken processor, Pilgrim’s Pride. It provides meat products for fast food chains like McDonald’s and Burger King, as well as wholesalers and grocers like Costco and Kroger.

Even in an industry known for greed and lawbreaking, JBS has a notorious reputation. The company paid a $4 million fine last year after the Department of Labor found that cleaning contractors at the Greeley plant were using child labor. It also paid $55 million in a $200 million meatpacking industry settlement over collusion to repress wages.

For a long time, the company’s effort to get listed on the New York Stock Exchange was held up by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission due to extensive corruption scandals and the company’s role in deforesting the Amazon rainforest.

In January 2025, Pilgrim’s Pride made the single largest donation to Trump’s inauguration committee, $5 million, leading to allegations of a quid pro quo. A few months later, the SEC approved the stock exchange listing.

NATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

The Greeley plant is one of dozens of JBS plants represented by the UFCW. Fourteen of these plants, including 26,000 workers in 12 locals, are now covered by a national contract that was settled for the first time last May. Local 7, which opted out of national negotiations, is pushing beyond this agreement, citing higher costs of living in Colorado.

The national contract included wins on regulating line speeds, including steward training and provisions for walking stewards (who are empowered to move around the plant to proactively enforce the contract, and who are paid by the company rather than the union), and improvements to wages and sick leave.

A particular triumph was the establishment of a new Taft-Hartley pension plan. Pensions used to be standard within meatpacking; the UFCW touted this one as the first to be offered by a meatpacking employer since 1986. (At least one news report speculated that JBS agreed to a pension as an optics move to get its stock listing approved by the SEC.)

That said, the national JBS pension plan is relatively modest, starting at contributions of 10 cents per hour worked in the first year of the contract, and increasing by 10 cents per hour each additional year. Local 663 and Local 1846 negotiated separate language to give individual members the choice whether to continue with their previous 401k or opt into the pension.

Nearly a dozen UFCW locals have been showing up in solidarity at the picket lines in Local 7, including Local 663 from Minnesota and Local 431 from Iowa, which were part of national negotiations.

Local 7 announced at the outset that this would be a limited-duration, two-week strike. It could be shorter, the local has stated, if JBS agrees to come back to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith.

“I hope that we get justice, and that other meat processing plants stand up and get justice too,” said the anonymous worker, who is originally from Mexico, “for the good of the Latino community, and for the workers above all.”

Caitlyn Clark is a national organizer at Essential Workers for Democracy, an organization dedicated to rank-and-file member education and empowerment for workers in grocery, meatpacking, and retail. Lisa Xu is a staff writer and organizer at Labor Notes.

Canada

Out of the Impasse? The Avi Lewis NDP Leadership Campaign and Left Strategy

Sunday 22 March 2026, 





With the near collapse of Canada’s federal New Democratic Party (NDP) in the 2025 federal election, the Canadian electoral terrain is today dominated by a tug of war between two forces: a centre-right technocratic and authoritarian pole around Mark Carney’s Liberals, and a MAGA-adjacent hard right around Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. This sometimes substantive, sometimes theatrical clash opens up space for far-right forces who draw inspiration from the advance of racist and fascist elements in the United States and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the American president continues to threaten to subjugate and even annex Canada – threats we shouldn’t understate.

This is also a time of opportunity. To see that potential, one need only look to the global movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people, and to Zohran Mamdani’s successful mayoral campaign in New York City, a political breakthrough for the left. It’s in this context that, in the Canadian state, journalist and activist Avi Lewis’s campaign for the leadership of the NDP has attracted much attention, dedication, and debate.

Lewis has won the support of many left organizers in part because he’s taken bold and promising policy positions on important questions. For example, he has argued for steps towards public ownership and democratic control in vital areas of the economy such as housing, food, telecoms, and banking. He has also laid out an ambitious vision for transforming our economy through a green transition that includes employment guarantees for workers exiting the destructive oil and gas industry. He has made the fight for Indigenous rights a central theme of his campaign – as well as the struggle for a free Palestine – and has been vocal about confronting the far right wherever it rears its head.

Yet the deeper value of Lewis’s campaign, beyond its policy statements, is its drive to transform the NDP and the way we conduct left-wing politics in this country. Lewis has been clear that his campaign’s core project is to build a powerful united movement to defeat the threats we face: to organize solidarity with grassroots protests and strikes, as well as to unite and mobilize support for left candidates at election time. His campaign has also been helpful insofar as it has provided an opportunity for serious debate about left strategy and organization – discussions that have not taken place in Canada on anything approaching a mass, country-wide scale in a very long time.

Policy and strategy

Small, independent organizations of the activist left in Canada have served as an important training ground for activists and thinkers. Some of today’s trade union and social movement leaders have emerged from those spaces. So have a range of campaigners, commentators, and intellectuals.

Yet the independent organizations in Canada to the left of the NDP have been at a strategic impasse for many years. This impasse stems, in part, from a rigid organizational culture and outlook within many of these groups, which may tend to overestimate the political possibilities of a given historical period. These groups are also sometimes unable to root themselves in actually existing struggles without losing their core commitment to developing revolutionary thinking and strategy. Some of these groups race to recruit new members, while others slip into a kind of political quietism, cultivating a self-image as guardians of left orthodoxy while waiting for a popular mass upsurge that never comes – or that appears for a moment, only to bypass these organizations completely before eventually dissipating.

There is an important place for Marxists and revolutionary socialists in the current political landscape in Canada, to be sure. But functioning as a loose network of like-minded activists is an inadequate response to the dangers and opportunities of the present moment. The Lewis campaign seems to us to be an opening in which we might break, or at least shake up, this impasse: a moment when the country’s small revolutionary left may connect with far bigger and broader forces.

The NDP has never been a neutral strategic terrain. If Avi Lewis wins the NDP leadership, he will find himself at the helm of a party reshaped by major internal reforms made during the era of previous leader Jack Layton, which aimed to “professionalize” the party and weaken its links to organized labour. The result has been greater powers concentrated in the hands of the party leader and their immediate circle, further marginalizing the role of riding associations, active members, labour organizers, and other layers. This has exacerbated the party’s tendency to focus on parliamentary manoeuvering at the expense of other political priorities such as building and maintaining its grassroots base.

The NDP’s mix of full-time staffers and consultants have decades of experience with manipulating party procedures to exclude radical resolutions at conventions, and to prevent individuals with political positions they find undesirable from obtaining nominations at election time. The Ontario NDP drove out former Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama for her Palestine solidarity, while the British Columbia NDP disqualified climate justice activist Anjali Appadurai’s leadership candidacy. The NDP’s history is littered with the cadavers of initiatives that sought to orient the party towards a more left-wing path, from the Waffle of the 1970s to the New Politics Initiative of the early 2000s, to the Leap Manifesto of the 2010s.

Clearly the NDP is not an instrument that can be wielded with ease by Lewis or any left-wing project. Yet there is nothing metaphysical about the party’s tendency to disappoint or its success in crushing left-wing insurgencies within its ranks. Like any political party, the NDP is an institution riven by power struggles and beset by contradictions – a strategic terrain where opposing interests struggle for dominance, whether those interests find expression in provincial sections of the party, particular riding associations, or elements of the federal party bureaucracy. Some opponents of Lewis’s project might prefer to break up the party, and even join the Liberals, rather than cede ground. It is thus up to Lewis and allied forces to develop a strategy and a coalition capable of taking advantage of those contradictions.

Contrary to the received wisdom one often encounters on the left, the marginalization of the left in the NDP is not entirely due to the party’s bureaucratic machinations. While those dynamics were, for example, certainly involved in delivering a severe blow to the socialist Waffle project at the federal party’s 1971 convention, the Waffle’s initiatives were defeated on the convention floor by votes cast by rank-and-file members. Backers of left-wing initiatives within the NDP cannot be satisfied with denouncing the party’s undemocratic practices, as these will inevitably arise. We must be able to anticipate and counter them.

April’s devastating federal election result for the NDP dealt a severe blow to the consultants, pollsters, and strategists who have held the party’s reins for more than two decades. Not only did the near-complete collapse of the NDP’s vote undermine the legitimacy of the internal methods in place since Jack Layton was leader, but the resulting loss of official party status meant the leader’s office and the party’s research bureau also lost their funding. This situation has been compounded by the fact that the party is heavily indebted. Destabilized and in crisis, the federal NDP may today be more open to a socialist and democratic reorientation than it has been at any point in the last few decades, even if conservative forces within the party will certainly put up a fight.

Towards a strategy of engagement with the NDP

In public forums and private conversations with organizers, Lewis has acknowledged all these realities. He appears to be alert to how his political project faces serious countervailing forces both within the NDP and beyond it, which will entice the project towards compromise and betrayal of the social movements with which it claims to stand. Accordingly, Lewis has mused about turning the NDP’s riding associations into activist hubs, with the aim of building the kind of popular mass networks that can both support his project and pressure it to stick to its declared agenda. He has speculated, alternatively, that building independent or quasi-independent organizations that operate both within and outside the NDP, like the Democratic Socialists of America in the US or Momentum in the UK, may be needed to create such networks and pressure. Lewis is well-versed in socialist political culture and likely keenly aware of the failures of past socialist initiatives in Canada and abroad: the lessons of the Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn campaigns, as well as the experience of the left-wing Syriza government in Greece or the so-called Pink Tide left governments in Latin America.

At the same time, although the Lewis campaign has spoken frequently about the desirability of building these hubs and independent organizations, laying the groundwork for them has not been a campaign priority so far. Not unreasonably, the campaign has focused on signing up new members and rallying current ones – focused, that is, on winning the NDP leadership contest. While loose local campaign chapters have sprung up across the country, they don’t appear to have been centrally involved in shaping campaign strategy. The campaign recently published a high-level position on party renewal that expresses an intention to transform riding associations into activist hubs, but it remains to be seen whether Lewis will prioritize such an initiative if elected leader.

Time will tell whether this has been the most appropriate organizing model for winning the leadership race. It’s hard to say whether a more participatory approach would have gained traction, given the sporadic and uneven state of left politics in the country today. It’s also difficult to predict the Lewis campaign team’s plans for navigating the choppy waters that lie ahead, whatever the outcome of the leadership race, and how the call to build activist hubs across the country will be received if Lewis wins. At a public meeting we recently helped host. about building a relationship between the activist left and a potential Lewis-led NDP, the conversation’s tenor was generally positive, suggesting Lewis and his campaign may have opened the door to a more constructive relationship between the grassroots left in Canada and the NDP. Still, we came away from that meeting with a renewed sense of the enormous work, imagination, and goodwill needed to build the mechanisms that would allow those left forces to both support and hold to account a Lewis NDP.

At the same time, it can be simplistic to assume there exists a neat dichotomy between more radical social movements and more moderate entities such as political parties. This dichotomy is well-worn: past initiatives to move the NDP to the left, such as the 2001 New Politics Initiative, assumed the renewal of the NDP necessitated bringing the party to the country’s social movements – a fetishization of social movements as a reservoir of radical politics and grassroots democracy that remains strong today. In reality, “social movements” in Canada are largely composed of trade unions, student unions, environmental and other issue-based campaigns, NGOs, and other organizations that are aligned with NDP priorities and operating within the same institutional networks, with personnel whose individual career trajectories often span multiple corners of that ecosystem. This can sometimes even place these movements and their leaderships politically to the right of the NDP, especially when it is not in government. We should acknowledge that social movements, especially where organized labour is involved in them, are beset by internal contradictions, including debates over their strategic and ideological orientations.

The NDP and social movements should be seen as intersecting terrains on which different strategies compete, each presenting both challenges and opportunities. Defeating the centrist forces that operate there won’t be accomplished by staying on the sidelines. The goal should instead be to coordinate an alternative left political project within and across both arenas – a coordination that would necessarily involve those who hold elected office as representatives of the NDP.

Some provisional principles for engagement with the NDP

Left debate is full of binaries such as electoral politics versus social movements and labour bureaucracy versus rank and file, where one of the coordinates is assumed to be more radical or more authentically socialist than the other. Yet these debates too often remain abstract. The radical potential of any political force needs to be tested in the realm of real politics and struggle, not labelled in a way that decides its nature and potential in advance.

Two guiding principles could help. The first is to avoid investing any one individual or organization with the responsibility of being the standard-bearer for a left political project of transformation. No one individual or organization – not even a federal political party – would independently have the leverage to sustain such a project in the face of reactionary headwinds. Nor would any single individual or organization alone be able to resolve the profound contradictions that beset Canada as a multinational settler-colonial state. There must always be room for autonomous Indigenous and Québécois initiatives that may advocate for distinct projects of self-determination.

A second guiding principle is that we shouldn’t be afraid of, and should even seek to encourage, generative tensions in our political projects. Such tensions include the need to hold left-wing office-holders to account and also buttress them with support when needed. That dynamic could help those office-holders resist the opposing forces that will inevitably seek to neutralize any left political project. More broadly, it would allow for the development of a left ecology in which the NDP, social movements, and labour work out our contradictions in the course of real struggle, with the goal of building the left’s power.

Struggling to reshape the NDP would require taking over existing institutional mechanisms or creating new ones – transforming riding associations into activist hubs, for example. It could entail building or growing grassroots organizations that intervene within the NDP while remaining autonomous from it. We are agnostic about whether a Lewis-led NDP would be the main driving force in this network of intersecting initiatives, each with its own structure and activities.

Ultimately, the left in Canada must ask itself whether it can afford to wait for a better opportunity to come along to meet our moment’s escalating crises. Is there capacity and will in this country to build a left-wing alternative to the NDP that can operate on the scale needed to meet those challenges in a timely manner? And can the left afford to leave the electoral field to the pollsters and strategists that have dominated the NDP for the last few decades – or worse, to the eternal, suffocating showdown between the center-right Liberals and the hard-right Conservatives?

In the short to medium term, it seems as though there is no popular basis in Canada for a mass left-wing, country-wide force entirely outside the NDP. The longstanding impasse and small-group character of organizations to the left of the NDP in this country illustrates this clearly. Engaging with the NDP through the Avi Lewis leadership campaign, in part to seed activist hubs and other fresh organizations, could be read as an attempt at a shortcut – a gamble that imperfect means can help us leap beyond the left’s impasse. But we believe the gamble is worthwhile, because of how much all our struggles, movements, and organizations stand to benefit from such a leap.

Midnight Sun

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.