Kimberlé Crenshaw discusses black women, militancy, and weapons: do guns have a place in liberation struggles? Abby Norman asks how to make doctors believe in women's pain, and Josh Mound asks how to win Medicare for All.  Lee Stanfield, for his part, argues against a state-by-state approach and in favor of an all-out national strategy.

Eric Blanc provides a rundown of the issues facing Oklahoma teachers while Sarah Jaffe gives a history of the Wages for Housework movement.

For this week's historical read, check out Martin Glaberman on the idea of leading from below.

NYC-DSA’s response to the housing crisis has been to focus on rent stabilized tenants and the renewal of rent laws by the state legislature; building tenant power by organizing tenant unions is an important part of that campaign. I support that program. Without question, we have to build tenant power if we are going shift political power from landlords to tenants. But our long term goal is to remove or lessen the market’s role in determining housing outcomes in the same way that in healthcare our goal is to improve outcomes through a non-market Medicare for All system.

One demand should be to return to a broad rent control system that is more limiting of rent increases than the stabilization program. Within the rent stabilization program, we should focus on the way income determinations are calculated.

Affordable housing programs today are largely 80/20 plans, in which developers set aside 20% of the units in a developments for low income housing in exchange for tax rebates. In some cases, all of the units are designated as below market apartments for low and moderate income tenants. Some activists focus on increasing the percentage for low income housing. But over time the income limits undermine the original intent.

Three years ago, I was lucky to win one of those affordable housing lotteries. At the time the minimum qualifying income in the low-income component of the development was $18,000. Since then that minimum has risen by 50% to $27,000. These income levels are set by the average median income in the area. As a result there are now empty low income affordable housing units in areas where eligible applicants are extremely difficult to find.

These tax abatement programs are extremely popular with elected officials of all stripes. They are able, with some justification, to say they are responding to the crisis without having to provide public funds for construction or maintenance. However, these programs don’t provide enough housing and they remain extremely vulnerable to market forces.

In NYC, public housing provides housing--outside of the market--to a quarter million tenants. It is not well regarded because of decades of mismanagement by politicians from all parties and widespread stereotyping of public housing tenants. In New York City, NYCHA housing hneeds $17 billion in capital investment. Mayor De Blasio’s decision to allocate $200 million for boiler repairs is a welcome, but limited step.

As socialists, we have a responsibility to re-introduce non-market housing solutions, especially public housing, to the political debate. To me, that means that we should include full funding for public housing authorities in our campaigns and reaching out directly to form alliances with NYCHA Tenant Associations in the city. Another important step would be to demand politicians support public housing solutions, including new construction, when seeking support from progressives and socialists.