Kshama Sawant’s ‘no vote for genocide’ campaign calls for a decisive break from the American Left’s historical dependency on the Democratic Party. Workers Strike Back, her organization, has resurrected a visionary movement against imperialist wars and unbridled capitalism
By Narendra Pachkede
“We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims.”
— Daniel Berrigan, in various speeches and writings, on peace and social justice.
In 2013, Kshama Sawant emerged as a beacon of change in American politics. In 2015, she was
called the most dangerous woman in America. Born in Mumbai and armed with a PhD in economics,
she ran a daring campaign for Seattle City Council as a militant socialist, advocating for a $15
minimum wage—more than double the national standard.
Defying a 16-year incumbent entrenched in the Democratic establishment, Sawant’s victory in 2014
catalyzed a transformative shift in Seattle’s political landscape, championing economic and social
justice. Her triumph reignited a national dialogue on municipal socialism, resonating as a rallying cry
for those seeking viable alternatives to capitalism, and inspiring a generation hungry for change.
However, early last year, the Seattle Times ran a header on her: a good tale but the story fizzled out.
Today, Sawant, Seattle’s socialist city council member, has launched a powerful campaign urging
voters to deny support to candidates complicit in or supportive of genocide. This bold stance is rooted
in her broader political philosophy, which ties local issues of social justice to global anti-war efforts.
By calling for “no votes for genocide” Sawant is demanding moral accountability in politics,
advocating for an electorate that holds its leaders responsible, not just for domestic policies, but for
their positions on human rights and global conflicts.
Sawant’s call comes at a time when geopolitical crises are drawing scrutiny to the actions of policy-
makers in the US and abroad, particularly concerning conflicts like those in Israel-Palestine. Her
campaign pushes voters to see these international issues as intertwined with local governance,
challenging the idea that social justice and foreign policy can be treated separately.
For her, complicit candidates are part of a larger system that prioritizes corporate and militaristic
interests over ethical considerations. Through this campaign, she emphasizes the interconnected nature
of oppression, linking militarism abroad to economic and social injustice at home.
As an Indian immigrant, economist and committed socialist, her political journey has always centered
around anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist principles. Her dedication to issues such as affordable
housing, workers’ rights, and racial justice reflects her commitment to an equitable society.
This recent campaign extends her advocacy by connecting local policies with the global implications of
US imperialism. For Sawant, capitalism and militarism are fundamentally linked; thus, challenging US
foreign policy is part of the same struggle, as addressing wealth inequality in Seattle.
Sawant’s anti-war stance also involves opposing the military-industrial complex and redirecting
resources from defense spending to critical social programmes. Her efforts in Seattle’s city council
have included pushing for the city to divest from companies involved in exploitative projects like
the Dakota Access Pipeline, which had led to widespread protests in America. In her view, the struggle
against militarization is not abstract, but intrinsically tied to the real, lived experiences of Seattle’s
working-class communities.
Despite criticism from those who believe she should focus solely on local issues, her response
highlights her conviction that ethical governance must encompass global awareness. Her critics argue
that her rhetoric could alienate potential allies or oversimplify complex issues, but she maintains that
her commitment to anti-war and anti-genocide principles is inseparable from her local political role.
Her campaign is part of a broader effort to redefine what it means to be a progressive leader in the US.
She encourages a moral vision of governance that goes beyond traditional partisan boundaries, urging
voters to consider the ethical implications of their choices. Ultimately, her “no votes for genocide”
campaign is an invitation for Americans to demand from their leaders, that they have to prioritize
peace, justice and human rights over political convenience and profit—a call for a transformed
electorate and, potentially, a more just American democracy.
In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, a schism has emerged in the American Left over how to engage
with an electoral system dominated by two parties that many view as equally committed to capitalist
and pro-war policies. Former Seattle City Council member, Sawant, stands at the forefront of a call for
political independence from both the Democratic and Republican parties, advocating for a “no vote
for genocide” campaign.
This strategy, as she explained in an interview with journalist Chris Hedges, urges progressives and
anti-war advocates to abandon support for candidates like Kamala Harris, whom Sawant views as
complicit in policies that sustain violence and perpetuate economic inequality. Instead, she champions
third-party candidates such as Jill Stein, arguing that without a strong, independent base, the Left will
remain weak and ineffectual.
Through her organization, Workers Strike Back, Sawant aims to build a new movement that refuses to
compromise on its core values, one that seeks to challenge US foreign and domestic policies by
organizing workers, building community solidarity, and directly confronting capitalist interests.
This essay explores Sawant’s vision, her criticisms of mainstream politics, and her strategy to build a
robust anti-war movement that, she contends, can only thrive by breaking free of the constraints of the
two-party system.
The Foundation of Kshama Sawant’s Strategy
At the core of her campaign lies a powerful rejection of “lesser evilism” — the idea that the
Democratic Party, though flawed, is preferable to the Republican Party, and thus should be supported
by default. Sawant argues that this strategy has hamstrung the Left for decades, rendering it complicit
in a foreign policy that she contends is indistinguishable from that of the Republicans on critical issues,
particularly US support for Israel.
She explains that both parties are fundamentally aligned in their support for Israeli policies, which
many see as violent and oppressive toward Palestinians. Sawant’s call for “no votes for genocide”
urges voters to take a stand against this policy alignment by withholding support from any candidate
who enables or ignores such injustices.
Her argument resonates in communities like Dearborn, Michigan, home to one of the largest Arab-
American populations in the United States. Here, residents have family ties to Gaza, the West Bank,
and Lebanon, regions deeply impacted by US foreign policy and military aid to Israel.
For these communities, her uncompromising message reflects a moral stance that rejects complicity in
policies that lead to violence and suffering abroad. By directing votes toward independent candidates
like Stein, she seeks to hold the Democratic Party accountable, using the power of the anti-war vote to
send a clear message: support for oppressive policies will no longer be tolerated.
The Power of a Protest Vote
Sawant’s approach echoes the strategy of Ralph Nader, whose 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns
aimed to shift the Democratic Party by drawing away disillusioned voters. As Hedges explained, Nader
understood that the Democratic Party’s alignment with corporate and pro-Israel interests had alienated
many progressives, and he believed that withdrawing support from the party was the only way to force
change.
Sawant shares Nader’s perspective, seeing her endorsement of Stein not as a path to victory, but as a
means to exert pressure on the Democratic Party by demonstrating that a significant faction of the Left
is willing to turn away from it.
Recent attacks by the Democratic Party on Stein’s campaign further validates Sawant’s approach. By
targeting Stein in swing states like Michigan, the Democrats reveal their reliance on progressive voters
and their fear of losing them.
This backlash, which includes attacks on Stein in media platforms like The Breakfast Club, has often
backfired, drawing new attention to her campaign and attracting voters who might otherwise not have
considered a third-party option. For Sawant, this response underscores the effectiveness of a combative
strategy that directly confronts the Democratic establishment, rather than attempting to work within it.
A Critique of the Green Party and the Socialist Left
Despite her support for Stein, Sawant remains critical of aspects of the Green Party’s strategy,
particularly its reluctance to adopt a clear stance against the Democratic Party. She argues that by
failing to unequivocally call for the defeat of Harris, the Green Party compromises its potential to
challenge the status quo.
Sawant’s approach, by contrast, is clear-cut: building a genuinely independent, anti-war movement
requires an unambiguous rejection of both major parties, each of which, in her view, upholds the
interests of capitalism and imperialism.
Her critique extends to her former organisation, Socialist Alternative, with which she split after 15
years over what she saw as a fundamental difference in strategy. Socialist Alternative’s hesitancy to
fully support Stein’s campaign and its endorsement of Democratic-aligned labour leaders, Sawant
argues, reflects a “lesser evil” mindset that undermines the broader goals of socialism and anti-
imperialism. By refusing to criticize leaders who align with the Democratic Party, Socialist Alternative
betrays its own principles, Sawant contends, and limits its potential to mobilize a genuinely
revolutionary movement.
Her new organization, Workers Strike Back, was born from this frustration and represents a more
militant approach to organizing the working class and building a movement that rejects both parties.
The Struggle between Class Struggle Unionism and Business Unionism
In response to Hedges’ question about why the American Left remains so anaemic, Sawant traces the
problem back to a long history of attacks on the labour movement, especially during the neo-liberal era
that began in the late 1970s. She describes how, even before the fall of the Soviet Union and the so-
called “end of history,” the capitalist establishment was systematically dismantling the power of labour.
Reagan’s decisive action against the air traffic controllers’ strike (PATCO) in the 1980s set a tone for
the next several decades, illustrating the lengths to which the US government would go to break unions
and prevent worker solidarity.
She argues that the failure of the labour movement to develop an independent strategy contributed
significantly to the weakening of the Left. She describes two competing models within the movement:
class struggle unionism, which recognizes the inherent opposition between workers and bosses, and
seeks to challenge capitalist interests directly, and business unionism, which aims to maintain a
cooperative relationship between labour and capital. The latter, Sawant contends, is fundamentally
flawed because it assumes a false compatibility between worker and employer interests.
The rise of business unionism, Sawant explains, has largely tied the labour movement to the
Democratic Party, fostering a dependency that has weakened the workers’ bargaining power and eroded
the influence of unions. In her view, many modern labour leaders have become complicit in this cycle
by endorsing Democratic candidates, despite the party’s failure to support meaningful reforms.
This dependency on the Democratic Party, Sawant asserts, has not only weakened labour’s power, but
has also contributed to the overall decline of the American Left. She argues that a resurgence of the
Left requires a return to class struggle unionism and a decisive break from both major parties.
Sawant’s approach is informed by her experience as a Seattle City Council member, where she
successfully led campaigns for a $15 minimum wage, an “Amazon tax” on large corporations, and
robust renter protections. Her victories, she explains, were achieved through a militant stance against
the city’s Democratic establishment, which she describes as beholden to corporate interests.
Her council office did not shy away from criticizing Democrats, often positioning her as an outsider
even within the progressive stronghold of Seattle. By directly confronting corporate power and
prioritizing the needs of workers, she and her colleagues demonstrated the potential of an
uncompromising approach to labour and social justice.
This experience, she argues, proves the efficacy of a fighting strategy over incrementalism. In her view,
an offensive approach that challenges both corporate and political interests directly, is essential for
achieving meaningful victories for the working class.
She believes that the ‘Seattle Model’ can serve as a blueprint for Workers Strike Back as it organizes in
other parts of the country, building coalitions that directly challenge capitalist interests without being
limited by allegiance to either major party.
Confronting the Establishment
The Democratic Party’s response to Stein’s campaign has included negative ads and media attacks,
especially in critical swing states. Sawant sees these attacks as a sign that the party is genuinely
concerned about losing progressive support.
Attacks on Stein in platforms like The Breakfast Club, where commentators have criticized her
candidacy, have sometimes backfired, drawing attention to her campaign among new voters. Sawant
describes this backlash as evidence of the strength of an independent, anti-war and labour campaign,
and as an indicator that the Democratic establishment is nervous about losing ground.
She argues that the Democratic Party’s attacks on Stein, rather than dissuading voters, often galvanize
support by revealing the party’s alignment with corporate interests. She believes that by standing firm
in her support for Stein and refusing to compromise, she can mobilize a faction of the Left that is
increasingly disillusioned with the Democrats. For her, the fact that the Democratic Party is willing to
attack Stein shows the potential of a robust, independent movement to disrupt the status-quoist political
establishment.
Organized Labour and the Anti-War Movement
Sawant views organized labour as central to the anti-war movement, arguing that without the support of
a militant labour force, the movement lacks the strength to challenge US imperialism effectively. She is
critical of labour leaders who endorse Democratic candidates despite the party’s alignment with
corporate and pro-war policies, arguing that this dependency weakens the bargaining power of the
working class and prevents it from building an independent political identity.
She calls for rank-and-file union members to challenge their leaders’ loyalty to the Democratic Party,
advocating for a model of labour organization that prioritizes workers’ rights and anti-war principles
over party affiliation.
Sawant’s approach to organized labour is rooted in her belief that unions have historically been the
backbone of Leftist movements. She emphasizes that the labour movement must break free from the
Democratic Party and adopt an independent, anti-war stance that aligns with the needs of working
people. By fostering a militant, class struggle-oriented unionism, she hopes to build a labour movement
that can resist the pressures of corporate power and support the broader goals of the anti-war
movement.
For her, supporting Stein and opposing Harris are only part of a broader, long-term project to build a
sustainable anti-war and working class movement. Workers Strike Back is organizing a national
conference to convene activists and strategists from across the country. This gathering will allow
activists to plan for future struggles beyond the 2024 election, emphasizing the importance of sustained
grassroots organizations, rather than cyclical election-based activism.
Sawant envisions Workers Strike Back as a lasting political infrastructure that can continue to apply
pressure on the political establishment, regardless of election outcomes. By maintaining this
momentum, her organization seeks to build a movement that remains active year-round, supporting
workers and anti-war activists and expanding its reach beyond traditional election cycles. This model
of political engagement, she argues, is essential for building a strong Left that can withstand the
pressures of the two-party system.
Toward a Stronger, Independent Anti-War Movement
As voters confront a stark choice between a Right-wing racist Republican and a corporate Democrat,
the lessons from the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton presidencies loom large. History shows that even
amid regressive leadership, grassroots movements can thrive, delivering tangible victories for working
people.
The late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the rise of the anti-Vietnam War movement, alongside labour
and civil rights activism, which forced a reluctant Nixon to confront social change. This period yielded
monumental advances like Roe vs Wade (now overturned), and the establishment of the Environmental
Protection Agency, all while US soldiers refused to fight a losing battle overseas.
In contrast, the 1990s under Clinton, marked by capitalist triumphalism, stifled working class activism
and allowed corporate interests to flourish — unchecked. The takeaway is clear: regardless of who
occupies the White House, the path to fundamental change lies in the streets, workplaces and
communities, fueled by socialist principles and the unyielding spirit of the working class.
In a time when the traditional parties reveal themselves as increasingly out of touch, the call for an
international working-class revolution becomes not just relevant but imperative.
Sawant’s “no vote for genocide” campaign calls for a decisive break from the American Left’s
historical dependency on the Democratic Party. Her strategy, built on lessons from her work in Seattle
and informed by a long history of labour struggles, represents a bold re-imagining of the anti-war and
labour movements as independent forces, unencumbered by allegiance to any political party. By
supporting Stein and calling for the defeat of Harris, Sawant aims to set a new standard for
accountability, insisting that the anti-war and labour movements must prioritize their principles over
party loyalty.
Her vision, if realized, could transform the American Left, creating a movement that is not beholden to
traditional party politics, but, instead, holds itself accountable to a new set of ethical and political
standards. For her, the path forward requires a commitment to principles that do not compromise in the
face of political convenience. By calling for a rejection of both major parties, Sawant challenges the
American Left to rethink its approach to power, advocating for a movement that is as unyielding in its
opposition to war as it is committed to economic justice.
In the end, Kshama Sawant’s campaign serves as a powerful reminder that real change comes not from
loyalty to established powers, but from the courage to build an alternative. By refusing to compromise,
she hopes to inspire a new generation of activists and dissenters to join her in a movement that
prioritizes peace, justice, and solidarity, over short-term political gains, setting a new course for the
American Left.
Narendra Pachkhédé is a critic, essayist and writer, and a member of Reporters without Borders. He
who splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva.
This article was first published in The Naked Punch (nakedpunch.com)