The Alternatives to Policing

The problem is not police training, police diversity, or police methods. The problem is the dramatic and unprecedented expansion and intensity of policing in the last forty years, a fundamental shift in the role of police in society. The problem is policing itself.

Alex S. Vitale starts the book "The End of Policing" with this summary. In fact, it appears on the cover, not just inside the book!

The central thesis of Vitale's book is that policing itself has been a failure at dealing with societal problems. After an introductory chapter on the history of policing, which traces how the earliest police forces in the US were formed not to combat crime but to brutally break worker strikes and intimidate and capture black slaves and freedmen after the Civil War, the remaining chapters of the book address a number of "case studies," specific issues that have not been addressed by increased policing or harsher punishments.

The first police forces in the US, especially in the northern states, were used to break striking workers during the Gilded Age. Business developed close ties with government and elected officials, who hired police and deputized private security forces to effectively allow them to legally assault workers. The violence was blamed on the workers, and used as an excuse to arrest workers and break up strikes and unions. A lot of this occurred actually right here in western Pennsylvania and the region, since it was the site of early coal and steel strikes that resulted in more militant unions (and events like the Battle of Homestead in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, where unions clashed with the Pinkerton private detective agency). In fact, the first US state police force was the Pennsylvania State Police, and was modeled on military occupation forces in the Philippines after the US captured the territory from Spain, so right from the beginning police have been militarized and cultivated to look at themselves as occupiers more than anything else. It's an eye-opening read that shows that unfortunately this isn't just a recent trend, but a continuing theme among police forces.

A number of issues are brought up as social problems. The author looks at the problems, or at least the perceived problems by the elite, and discusses how "reform" has already been tried and largely failed for each of these issues, then proposes some alternatives to addressing the issues without the need for police or the court system.

• Schools -- Policing in schools has been a failure, only growing the "school-to-prison" pipeline by criminalizing student misbehavior that traditionally was settled outside of the courts. The growing placement of full time officers in schools contributes to schools feeling more like prisons than places of learning, and emphasizes punishment over teachable moments. Vitale suggests police should be removed from the schools, and the schools should receive more funding and resources to hire the needed counselors and support staff to work with students. A shift toward restorative justice for managing behavior issues needs to occur, one that emphases learning and contributing to the community, rather than the typical policing behaviors of control and punishment.
• Mental Health -- Individuals with various mental health disorders may act "disorderly" and even commit some crimes, but the police response has been disproportionate due to a lack of understanding of mental health. Too often these encounters end in the police severely injuring or killing the individual, and even when that doesn't happen, individuals become stuck in a court system that does not have the mental health resources necessary to help the individual. Vitale suggests that while police definitely need more training on de-escalation and mental health, that isn't enough. We need to massively overhaul our mental healthcare system to ensure more resources are devoted to helping people early on, before any "disorderly" conduct even occurs. We treat it as a health problem, not a criminal problem.
• Homelessness -- Many homeless people are actually mentally ill (so see above), but many others are the result of economic problems and the unaffordability of housing costs. Unfortunately, policing only puts homeless people into a court system and gives them criminal records that make it hard to ever find a job again, creating a cycle of poverty and homelessness. While some reforms tried to create "Homeless Courts" to help, these courts still criminalize poverty and do not have the appropriate resources to help people out of homelessness. Vitale suggests providing long-term housing (not just emergency shelters) and jobs (not just job training) to homeless in order to end the problem, not policing.
• Drugs -- The criminalization of drugs can largely be traced to institutionalized racism. Most drugs were legal until the early/mid 1900s. Opium (and derivative opiods) were first criminalized as a reaction to increased immigrants from China that set up opium shops in the US. Blacks were given cocaine regularly as slaves and servants to keep them working even when hungry, and so after slavery ended, cocaine was used as an excuse to harass and raid Black families. Similarly, cannabis (marijuana) was criminalized after an influx of immigrants from Mexico, as well as it becoming popular among Blacks in the jazz era, and many White leaders looked for a reason to keep the races from mixing. Cannabis was also used as an excuse to investigate anti-war activists during Vietnam. There is large evidence that criminalization has encouraged police to become drug dealers themselves. Instead, Vitale argues for the need for decriminalization and establishment of needle exchanges and clinics to help those that are addicted. In other words, we treat drugs largely as a health problem and not a criminal problem.
• Sex Work -- Sex work has been criminalized since a moral panic swept through the country in the early 1900s. The US has used its position to push for criminalization of prostitution worldwide ever since. The result has been a confusion between prostitution and human trafficking, which are not the same thing. Religious moral arguments always frame criminalization, and even more liberal attitudes like the "Nordic model", as a way to save women from "degrading" work, but that is a poor characterization when many sex workers are actual consensual and enjoy the work. For example, many women in Asian countries prefer sex work to the alternative "dignified" work under the capitalist model, which is long hours for low pay doing hard, tedious work at factories. Police arrest sex workers then push them into a court system that forces them to get "job training" and push them into capitalist work that they don't want to do. Vitale suggests that sex work should be decriminalized so that sex workers can form their own unions and companies that would provide healthcare, retirement, etc., without fear of police raids.
• Gangs -- Gang suppression became more common as a moral panic spread that the youth were involved in drugs and violence. Police developed violent suppression tactics and use of SWAT forces to combat gangs described as "hoodlums". However statistics show that most gang members join the gang for economic reasons; gangs provide a sense of security between jobs, and most members peacefully quit after a couple of years when a job opens up. Vitale suggests that the best way to eliminate gangs is not with police, but with greater economic opportunity in poor neighborhoods.
• Immigration -- Historically, the US was a near open border, only enforcing basic customs rules on international commerce and trading. A concern about policing immigration effectively started in the mid 1800s during a large wave of Chinese immigrants. Many of the border policing language referred to the "Mongolian hoarde" and was aimed at using immigration laws to prevent Chinese immigrants from being able to own property or become involved in government. The idea also spread to the Mexican border and targeted Mexican and Central/South American immigrants. So the beginnings of border security started with racist goals, then became about continuing the drug war (see above about drugs). New policing organizations like ICE were created and given authority over "constitution-free" zones near borders where all sorts of human rights violations occur. Vitale suggests that the proper way to handle immigration is by working with other nations to form not "free trade" but "fair trade" agreements that reduce economic inequality and violence, the main reasons for the influx of immigrants. Immigrants that wish to come should be put into a proper pathway to citizenship.
• Politics (protests) -- Many police forces, including the FBI, essentially started as forces to monitor political dissent. In particular, in the early days it started with surveillance of "anarchists", "socialists", and "communists" but evolved into environmentalists and social justice protesters in the modern era. Police still use surveillance to track protesters and even infiltrate political groups under the guise of "anti-terrorism". Police have evolved a focus on "controlling" protests by setting rules on when, where, and how people can protest, and the intimidating protesters into obeying the rules with riot gear and aggressive tactics. Vitale suggests that the rules for protests and permitting be taken away from police departments and put into local governments, where there will be transparency and opportunity for people to speak in favor or against proposed policy; while not perfect, it would protect 1st amendment rights much better than letting the police bureaucracy privately decide and police those rules. Vitale also suggests that any concern over protests would be minimized by creating a truly democratic system responsive to citizen concerns; most protests are driven into the streets by a government that does not listen and a distinct lack of choice on the ballot.

I've outlined the major arguments but the book is full of really great discussion as well as a lot of statistics and facts that back up all of these assertions.

I've always known we needed to change our criminal justice system, but I am now sold on the idea that in most cases, we don't even need policing in the first place. What we need is a fair and just economic system and real democracy, and most crime won't even exist.

Democracy at Work, and what we get wrong about socialism

What if I told you many of those that call themselves "socialist" are in fact arguing for capitalism -- state capitalism, as opposed to privately-owned capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless?

Richard Wolff's book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism is a short but very interesting and informative read that essentially argues just that. Wolff starts with a history of modern capitalism in the US and tracks the development of capitalist and Marxist thought through the 20th century. As Wolff looks at economic crises from the Great Depression up to the Great Recession of 2008, and even to other countries such as the collapse of the "socialist" government of Russia in the 1980s, Wolff points out how the common thread of them has been a failure of capitalism.

Classic Marxist thought puts an emphasis on who owns the property (or the modes of production) directly, which sets up a clash between capitalism as the private property system versus socialism/communism as the public property system. Typically in history, socialism's call for the end of private property has translated into a call for state ownership of the property. Wolff's central idea is that state ownership of property actually doesn't fix the problem, and simply replicates the capitalist hierarchical structure within government instead of a corporation. Instead of a CEO and board of directors, we now have a governor and committees, but the hierarchical, oppressive structure is the same. Countries like Russia or Venezuela that the media often describes as "socialist" or even "communist" are far from it, and actually mirror a capitalist structure more than anything else. And that is the same capitalist structure that is now eating the US economy right now.

Wolff instead revisits Marx to find a new definition of the capitalism versus socialism battle. Instead of ownership of property, Wolff defines the struggle as deciding who has ownership of the surplus; roughly speaking, who owns the profits of labor? Under private capitalism, it is clear that the capitalist class owns the profits of the workers, and can manage those profits in any way they see fit including giving themselves high salaries and bonuses; however, even with state-owned property, the profits are simply now owned and managed by the state, and still not the workers themselves. In both scenarios, some small group of elite -- whether business managers or government bureaucrats -- own and therefore direct the usage of the surplus. Therefore in this sense, most modern "socialist" countries are better described as "state capitalism".

The cure is therefore to democratize the surplus, and allow the workers themselves to directly and democratically decide what to do with any profits. True socialism is democracy in the workplace as well as politics, not a "socialist" government that controls and directs the economy.

Wolff goes on to describe how such a democratic worker self-directed enterprise (WSDE for short) would function. He makes several strong arguments that WSDEs would be able to provide workers with better jobs, better benefits, and be more resilient to economic and technological change. WSDEs would treat workers as equals, and rotate leadership positions in order to simultaneously promote leadership training for all members while also ensuring no single person or small group becomes "the leader" that "leads" them back into capitalism (it's that old adage that power corrupts, so we have to spread out the power as much as possible). He points out that WSDEs would be in a far stronger place to put environmental rights and human rights above profits, as the whole worker community would have a say in decisions. He also points out that WSDEs would generally do best rotating workers to different jobs, not only gaining everyone a little experience in many things, but also letting younger workers gain experience and decide what job path to take on their own within the WSDE. I think that's actually a fantastic idea, to let new workers try a few different things and pick their own path, it results in much happier and more productive workers. Of course, as technology changes and automation increases profits without labor, unlike corporations that might lay off employees to save on wages, WSDEs would be able to simply cut the amount of working hours -- say from 40 hours per week down to 35, or even lower! -- of everyone. In short, WSDEs due to their democratic nature will do a much better job at putting people first over profits than our current capitalist system.

I really like Wolff's characterization of socialism as ownership over the surplus (profits), and democratic decision making on what to do with said surplus. I think this emphasis on democratic decision making by the workers meshes well with the decentralized economy envisioned by the Green Party, and in fact, Wolff at the very end of the book makes a short plea for an independent political party focused on labor and making democracy in the workplace a thing. While this could be an entirely new Labor Party, I also think the Green Party is well established and already contains decentralized, grassroots democracy in both government and economics as part of its platform.

I believe Greens should read Wolff's book and really internalize it. Let's work to ensure the Green platform lives up to these concepts, and that we start a strong education campaign to let voters and workers know that Greens support their efforts at democratizing the workplace.

Communalism, Libertarian Municipalism, and Confederalism

Once you read books like Murray Bookchin's "The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy", you realize just how authoritarian and right wing nearly all of our political parties and movements are today. Bookchin is a well-known anarchist, an anarcho-socialist flavor similar to Kropotokin's work but with a much stronger emphasis on ecology and the need to create a sustainable economy, not just one that always grows.

Of course, as I discussed in my essay on Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread", the term "anarchy" can create a misunderstanding in modern audiences. It isn't the complete absence of rules, but rather the breakdown of hierarchical power in both government and business. In that context, terms like "libertarian socialist" might be a better fit for modern audiences, but even that can create confusion as the Libertarian Party is very different from the libertarianism Kropotkin or Bookchin advocate for. It is effectively an argument of right-wing libertarianism versus left-wing libertarianism.

In any case, Bookchin calls his philosophy of ecologically-focused anarchism "Communalism" to emphasize that it is distinct from typical calls for socialism or communism. Bookchin discusses the inadequacy of Marx's analysis to handle modern problems caused by capitaliss. Indeed, Marx was mostly focused on economic factors and envisioned economic strikes by workers at factories as generating the coming "socialist revolution". However, Bookchin points out this isn't realistic today as by far the large majority of today's workers are not technical workers in factories but rather workers in service jobs that are more easily replaceable. Bookchin also emphasizes that capitalism has hurt more than just our economic needs, but also contributes to racism, sexism, urban decay, and the destruction of the environment, all issues that Marx did not really address.

Bookchin's goal of communalism is to break down all authoritarian power in all spheres of life, not just economic. Hierarchical power structures are by their nature authoritarian since a small group (and sometimes a single individual) sits in a "position of power" over others, and this structure exists in both the private sector (executive board of directors and CEOs) as well as government (governors/president and legislature). Communalism instead calls for the elimination of these positions as positions of power and policy-making, and instead calls for citizen assemblies to make economic and government decisions as a direct democracy. The citizen assembly would debate and deliberate and directly vote on all issues affecting the community, and attempt to achieve consensus whenever possible.

Bookchin makes a distinction between local governments, which are direct democracy citizen assemblies that derive just power directly from the people, and nation-state governments (such as the state or federal government in the US) that can easily become authoritarian when allowed to make decisions on behalf of the people. Bookchin's solution is a combination of what he calls "libertarian municipalism" and "confederalism".

Libertarian municipalism is the concept that the local city government (or municipality, could be a neighborhood or small district within a mega city like New York City) is where all public decisions are deliberated and made. A municipal assembly makes decisions by consensus and direct democracy, the key factor being the municipality is small enough that the assembly can be held with face-to-face discussions. The municipal assembly would also debate economic policy, not just politics, and "own" public resources and industry. In the ideal, private ownership of business would be replaced by public ownership of the industry, democratically-run by the assembly made up of everyone in the community, not just the workers. After all, the effects of industry can impact the entire community, not just the workers themselves, as is the case of pollution and environmental damage.

These municipalities would band together into a confederal state, which is very different from today's state. Pennsylvania today elects representatives that make decisions -- that is, set public policy -- on behalf of citizens, and this often leads to authoritarian abuses of power and corruption. Instead, confederalism proposes that the municipalities vote on policy directly, and once the policy is approved, muncipalities elect representatives to carry out that policy. In effect, state representatives shift from policy-makers to becoming administrators that simply oversee implementation of the policy chosen by the people. These elected officials would be expected to follow the guidelines set by the municipal assembly, and if not followed, could immediately be removed from the role by the municipality. Should a municipality "go rogue" and harm human rights or the environment, the rest of the municipalities would be able to unite in a confederal assembly to take action against the rogue. The confederal assembly would effectively have a previously-agreed-on set of human and ecological rights, defined by popular assemblies and backed by the people. In some sense, it's a return to the original ideas of small government and democracy enshrined in the US's articles of confederation which would establish the basic human and ecological rights to be protected by the confederation.

Bookchin proposes that this set up remains the most democracy and decentralized while also respecting the need for interdependence. The idea that every community can be 100% self sufficient and never need anything from the outside is ridiculous. We definitely take strides to ensure our communities are very self-sufficient, particularly for basic necessities like food, but we also work within a confederal state of peers of set overall policy and share resources. Bookchin cautions against going to far with decentralized self-sufficiency, that it can be just as dangerous as being too centralized. Bookchin sees communalism as effectively the best balance of decentralization with the need to cooperate in larger structures.

Bookchin does however admit that the plan does have some risk. Decentralization to this disagree can easily turn bad if we do not have a majority of people on the same page with a goal of taking power back from hierarchy and using it toward humanitarian and ecological goals. Bookchin therefore emphasizes the need for education. Democracy on its own won't immediately bring out a moral, ecological society. He also criticizes political parties for being too centralized, saying most national parties including the Greens, Labour, and Socialist parties too often become hierarchical when focusing on nation-state politics. He points to the fact that the German Greens, for example, despite having won many parliamentary seats have not advocated for communities and cities with Green elected officials to have more democratic influence and autonomy. He instead advocates Greens to run for local office on a platform of making the local government more democratic, changing the institution and the minds of people to expect direct conversation with the mayor and community leaders and a direct vote in municipal affairs. He asks, rightly so I think -- how can one take down the capitalist system if one cannot reform one's own neighborhood to be more democratic? Rather than taking actions that prop up a capitalist and hierarchical government (in fact, efforts for affordable housing and parks without corresponding pushes for democracy might actually empower the hierarchy more by giving it a "friendly face" that can be used to justify that the system "works"), we need to keep the emphasis on democratic governments to preserve our planet and can build a movement around today's government and slowly overtake it. In fact, Bookchin speculates that this might be the only way for Leftist politics to win again in the face of a long-established hierarchical system that most people have grown used to.

Largely I find myself very strongly agreeing with Bookchin's call for communalism and a much more democratic system. While always wanting to support stronger action for a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare, and fights against imperialism and other issues, I find myself always drawn back to the idea that "if we had more democracy, this probably wouldn't be an issue..." Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't want more war. A majority want to raise the wages and ensure healthcare for all. If we had democracy, we would have voted for it, and it'd already be done. The reason we don't have it is precisely our lack of democracy. Our representative government is much more authoritarian and hierarchical than it sounds like, and that concentration of power into legislatures makes it prone to corruption and the interests of the elite rather than the interests of the population as a whole.

It seems clear to me that a major effort of the Green Party and other organizations seeking change must be towards establishing greater democratic control of government and the economy. We must assert the will and power of the people as a whole to get the change we seek from bottom-up movement, not top-down decision making. I think Bookchin's proposals for libertarian municipalism and confederalism are the goals the Green Party needs to set for future elections. We need to run more local candidates set on making this a reality for Pittsburgh and other cities and communities.

We'll have to think a little more on exactly what this looks like -- for example, I suspect the confederal assemblies would be chosen by proportional representation within the municipalities, or ranked choice for specific tasks. But the key idea is to invert what we have today -- we are not subjects being "ruled" by our elected political elite, we hold the power and elect representatives to serve us. Just educating others on that message I think would make a huge difference on our national political conversation.

We Still Haven't Conquered Bread

Here we are more than 100 year's since Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread", and we still haven't conquered it.

Wait, what? What does "conquest of bread" mean? Glad you asked.

Kropotkin's main argument in his book "The Conquest of Bread" is that, paraphrased and in the words of Bill and Ted, we should "be excellent to each other" and make sure every person has bread (or whatever food type you prefer) so as not to starve. Kropotkin cites several failed revolutions, notably the French revolutions of the 1800s, and suggests that the major reason each failed was not because the initial uprising failed -- the uprisings actually worked rather well at getting rid of royalty -- but ultimately failed because the revolutionary leaders didn't know what to do after they had removed the royalty. Revolutionary leaders quickly installed themselves into government in the same positions vacated by the old royalty and government leaders, set up the same power structures and form of government, and quickly became a type of royalty or political elite themselves. More time was spent first fighting over more abstract concepts like political rights and how government would be structured instead of setting a priority of feeding the poor and getting them the bread they need. As such, the poor only tolerated the revolution for a short period of time before growing disillusioned. According to Kropotkin, the wealthy were each time able to take advantage of the situation: "What has your revolution brought? You are still hungry! If you go back to work for me, you can end this and start receiving wages and food again." The poor grumbled and went back to their jobs, and revolutionaries were executed as traitors as the wealthy came back into power. Any revolution quickly fails and returns back to the status quo by not putting the needs of the poorest citizens first.

Kropotkin therefore describes what he believes to be the successful formula to creating a sustained political and economic revolution. First, the revolution must ensure every citizen has food, shelter, and clothing. Kropotkin argued the revolution must be anarchist (or perhaps libertarian socialist is a better term in the modern era, as many misunderstand what anarchism means) in which the centralized state government is also abolished simultaneously with the capitalist ownership of private property. Citizen-led community organizations, democratically run by the citizens themselves, would essentially declare that the food belongs to the people and encourage communities to farm and grow food for themselves. They would next lead tallies to count the unused homes that lie vacant as banks and landlords sit on them, and simply declare that the homes are owned by the public now and move homeless people into them. Should the landlords attempt eviction, the community organizations would defend the new tenants and stop the eviction and refuse to acknowledge any "authority" outside of the democratic community organization. These community organizations would then declare that clothing factories belong to the people and ensure any person can have access to any clothing needed. In the end, food, shelter, and clothing are to be declared rights of all, available free of charge to all citizens in exchange for sharing in the manual labor of the community to maintain the farms and clothing factories.

Once the immediate needs are taken care of, Kropotkin spends a few chapters describing how important it is that the community sets up a self-sufficient economy consisting of decentralized, community-owned (not privately-owned) farms and industry. In his view, as long as the community relies on some other community or nation for its food and products, it will always be reliant on others and will be taken advantage of by capitalists, or even the centralized state. The community must become self-sufficient in order to remain free.

Kropotkin then makes a very human argument for why the decentralized, self-sufficient economy is necessary. He blasts not only capitalism but even Marxist forms of socialism for focusing too much on the "means of production" and worker wages when the economy is really based on consumption. He argues that workers are always exploited anytime they are paid wages -- even under a socialist system -- because wages by definition are sold labor that must be sold for less than it is worth, and so concludes wages in any form need to be completely abolished. He argues people's demands for a comfortable life are what really drive the economy, and when our basic needs are met, we can all spend more time enjoying our lives or working toward ways to create more comfortable and interesting lives. He particularly criticizes the idea of industrialized "specialization" that was brought about by capitalism (and in his view is still defended too readily by Marxist socialists), saying that our goal in life shouldn't be to maximize production of profit but instead to maximize our ability to enjoy leisure time. He foresees a socialist world of automation that would only require of workers perhaps 4 hours of work per day, allowing more free time to people to spend reading and learning, writing books, creating art, doing science, or whatever else makes sense, based on personal decision. He argues that the human psyche wasn't designed to do the same manual labor day in and day out for our whole lives. People aren't healthy unless doing a bit of both manual and intellectual labor and varying up daily tasks, and so he argues that a short necessary work schedule (assisted by automation) to take care of basic needs combined with free time to pursue intellectual hobbies produced the most healthy and normal life, and should be the ultimate goal of any revolution. Essentially, we must seek a balanced life of happiness.

I found Kropotkin's different vision of socialism and the revolution to be a very interesting read, since the narrative seems to always equate socialism with Marxism. Kropotkin's more decentralized vision is particularly appealing to me because of its strong emphasis on personal liberty but within a community, and I think it fits more neatly into the Green Party's platform and narrative that rejects both capitalism and centralized state socialism. 

What can we as Greens learn from Kropotkin's analysis? Are there lessons for Greens as we develop strategy for the next few years? I take three key points from Kropotkin.

First, we must not forget the struggles and needs of the poorest among us. Sometimes we have a tendency to open philosophical dialog and debate some of the finer points of ideas. This is very commendable and even necessary as we navigate the growing philosophical and ethical quandries facing us with a growing technological world in the 21st century -- but I think it is important to remember that isn't the first priority for many people in the country. Too many still worry how they will put food on the table tonight, and that needs to always be our first priority in public. We need Green activists and candidates to put a heavy emphasis on establishing and protecting human economic rights: a right to life, to food, to water, to shelter, to basic clothing, to healthcare. Healthy food and water and modern medicine quickly lead into questions of sustainability, pollution, and climate change, so we aren't taking away from environmental arguments by focusing on human rights, but in fact, enhancing them. These issues are inseparable. Greens need to be the modern evolution of these concepts that take into account such sustainability questions that older philosophers and economists like Marx and Kropotkin didn't fully consider or understand.

Second, once we get past these basic human rights and environmental action, we need activists and political candidates talking about a positive future for humanity. "Let's fix this... so we can work harder!" is not exactly a rallying cry. Humans are not robots: we have emotions, feelings, hopes, dreams, interests, hobbies, and it's time our political policy acknowledged that. At a minimum, this means establishing a right to education and public resources like libraries, so that we all can satisfy our intellectual curiosity. But I think it is more than this. Similar to Kropotkin, I think we must not be afraid of technology and automation, but embrace it. We need to talk a vision where we all labor for our basic needs significantly less, and instead can follow our dreams. Develop hobbies, interests. Do science experiments, or explore the world. In a nutshell: tell people it's ok to be human, it's ok to have time off of work, it's ok to enjoy your life. We don't need to all be working 24/7, we don't need to "keep ourselves busy", our goal need not be to maximize production or profits. Humanity's goal should be to maximize time, something we all have precious little of in life, to spend that time with friends, family, and on interesting hobbies and projects. It's not like technology will stop progressing -- some people will do it as a hobby, and in fact, before the modern era, a lot of science and technology was done as a hobby by the wealthy that had free time from work (for a modern example, one only need look at the "open source" movement of thousands of programmers that in most cases donate their time freely to write software for other people to use, just for the fun and challenge of it). I don't think we often enough talk about that side of being human -- probably in part because so many lack the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, but I think we need to articulate that positive vision of the future sooner rather than later in order to give hope to why we even bother fighting for basic needs. I sympathize with those that feel powerless: if you're going to be required to work a job you hate 8+ hours per day for the rest of your life no matter whether it is owned by a capitalist or socialists, what difference does it make to your life whether the capitalists or the socialists are "in charge"? Any political vision must include a better life for us all, one where we can look forward to reaping the benefits of community and technology. We can do it when we create a socialist society rather than allowing only the wealthy to benefit from automation, and that must be the message.

Third, we need to better articulate how decentralized government works. As it turns out, decentralization seems to be a very foreign concept to many Americans, even those that associate themselves with "small government" or socialism. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume changes come top-down, that a leader of some kind sets the vision and makes it happen. What we're fighting for is the opposite: opening up the process to everyone, letting everyone take their turn at being leader instead of waiting for change to happen from others. As I've said before in past essays, this is a point of contention between Greens and Democrats that we must highlight more often as I think many progressive-minded voters don't entirely understand the difference (myself being one of those people in the past!). Our goal isn't for Greens to simply "replace" Democrats within this same structure. Our goal is to be the "anti-party party" that breaks down the barriers to participating in democracy: makes it easier to vote, easier to participate, by taking the power out of political parties and corporations and returning it directly to the people. Democratic government shouldn't be funneled through a few "representatives" or "superdelegates" that have more powers than the people, we should do everything we can to get decision-making out of the halls of Harrisburg or Washington DC and into the hands of communities themselves. In a nutshell: it's time we very strongly challenged the misconception that "we're a republic, not a democracy!" that many repeat as if it is a good thing. The decentralized approach favors more democratic assemblies made up of people in the community whom the action will impact, giving everyone a voice. We strive to put decision making at the smallest level that makes sense. Some wide-reaching decisions, such as what to do about global warming, are probably best handled at the large nation-state or international levels where we can all agree on a single method that doesn't step on others' toes or even inhibit the plan, but most decisions can and should be handled directly at the community level as a discussion and vote by the local stakeholders. The idea of capitalist-owned private property is problematic precisely because it violates this rule -- a rich capitalist who has never set foot in the community can suddenly own large tracts of land and resources in that community. Why should someone who has never lived in or even visited the area be able to have so much sway over those that currently live there, some for generations? The decision must be made democratically by all those impacted, with all voters as equals, not by a small group of councilmembers, representatives, or CEOs and shareholders. Anything else is a power imbalance that favors wealth over the poor.

If we can integrate these three ideas into activism and campaigns, I think the Greens will make significant ground over the next few years. People are itching for a change, they recognize the problems, but don't have a full clear idea of where to go next. Greens must lead the way with the vision and empower others to build on that vision.

Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth Still Guides Us

With efforts to turn a bit more local, I have been looking for more ways to learn about Pittsburgh's history and present day. Recently I found a copy of the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, the steel "robber baron" based in Pittsburgh during the Gilded Age. While I haven't read the main text itself, it includes a reprint of Carnegie's short essay "The Gospel of Wealth" at the end.

I recommend everyone read it as a good way to "get inside the mind" of others. I found that Carnegie's words articulate many of the same objections and talking points that I hear today when I talk with others about progressive or Green causes. It seems likely that Carnegie, being such a big name in the city even to today, had a much larger influence on the political thought of the area than I at first realized.

Carnegie essentially makes an argument for capitalism, and why it is good that capitalism results in money concentrating in the hands of the wealthy. Carnegie was under no misconception of "trickle down economics" -- he specifically admitted that he knew this economy would fundamentally push more wealth to the wealthy. Carnegie's purpose was explaining why he thought that was the best idea.

In a nutshell, he argues that concentrating wealth is a good idea, and that the role of the wealthy in society is to give away most of the fortune to the greater civic good:

...thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.

What's interesting here is the implicit sense of superiority, that somehow the wealthy, just by virtue of having money, are smarter and could make better decisions than the poor. Carnegie even calls out Communism in his essay, with the typical attack of putting too much decision power into the poor that cannot handle it.

This is a refrain I've heard a lot recently, even from high school students that I spoke to -- that democracy, leaving decisions to the "common rabble", cannot be trusted. I see now this is an attitude Carnegie rubbed off on people, and honestly even Carnegie was likely influenced by earlier generations including the Founders that believed only the educated wealthy landowners should be able to vote. I don't know how people can argue against themselves having greater political power, but I have heard it with my own ears. I suppose this mindset convinces people they are special, and so many people experience no cognitive dissonance because they believe they are part of that special wealthy or at least middle class that makes the decisions, despite evidence being to the contrary. We obviously need to make a better case for expanded democratic rule as a way of equalizing political power. Convincing people to stop working against themselves and stop supporting this type of philosophy that puts more power into the hands of the few is part of our struggle.

Carnegie also argues against public spending for the poor in what can easily be described as social darwinism. After acknowledging the downsides of the "law of competition" (capitalism and concentration of wealth), he says:

...while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department.

This is that typical callous, utilitarian business view of people -- you are only useful or "fit to survive" if you fit in with the business world to make profits. Anyone not generating profit is at a minimum lazy, and perhaps not even fit to survive. In his view, the poor get lazy under social programs, and only by requiring them to work harder will they get out of their situation. Specifically:

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves...

Carnegie then goes on to describe how giving charity to the poor that don't work hard enough and don't deserve it actually hurts them more than being poor. There's hints of the modern "they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" saying in his writing.

I found interesting his attack on alternative economic systems and distribution. For example, he makes an implicit argument that Native Americans are somehow less civilized because they didn't shower their leaders in wealth the way Europeans did, everyone was more equal:

The Indians are to-day where civilized man then was. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was just like the others in external appearance, and even within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves.

While trying to argue that concentration of wealth is natural and a foundation of our society as a whole, he criticizes Communists and others calling for different systems:

Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are not in order, because the condition of the race is better with these than it has been with any others which have been tried.

Firstly, this isn't a very sound argument since he assumed that capitalistic wealth distribution is an integral part of "civilized" society. But more simply, his argument is essentially "well, it's good enough, could be worse!" While it could indeed be worse, this sort of statement also lacks imagination -- is current day really the best we could ever hope for? Even if it is true that we are better than in the past, shouldn't we try to improve further? Well, Carnegie has an objection to us seeking better alternatives:

...even if it were good to change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable in our day or in our age. ... Our duty is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of good fruit under existing circumstances.

This strikes me as almost exactly word-for-word objections we hear from Democratic leaders on why we can't have things like single payer healthcare, free college tuition, and other social programs. "What a noble goal!" they say "It's just not practical." During Bernie's campaign, very commonly we heard "Why waste energy setting up single payer healthcare system when you can just protect the ACA and expand it?" Carnegie is saying exactly that here -- while more socialist economies might very well be more noble and efficient, why put energy into changing things when we can just make tweaks to what we have now? What we have now is practical. I wonder how many of the factories and technological advancements of Carnegie's era, much less today, would have been seen not as "practical" but "pie-in-the-sky" dreams a few hundred years ago. That's the flaw with these arguments, that somehow it's too difficult to advance when advancement has been exactly the story of humanity. Perhaps out of pride and conceit, we convince ourselves that we are today at the peak of human evolution, and nothing could ever possibly change at any point in the future. In reality, we will likely be the "cavemen" for some distant generation, much like we look at people during the Revolutionary War, the Middle Ages, or even further back.

Interestingly, Carnegie does support one fairly progressive reform: he argues that wealthy people sitting on money is not good for the economy, and that simply gifting that money to descendants is giving money to people that haven't earned it yet in the name of creating a dynasty. Carnegie actually argues for a high estate tax in order to encourage the wealthy to spend that money within their lifetimes rather than sit on it for inheritances, even going so far to say that he'd prefer to see that type of tax than most others. While this almost sounds like a good idea, Carnegie's point is that with a high tax rate, very little would get taxed and the government still wouldn't spend much -- instead, the wealthy themselves would act as "trustee" and spend that money on civic needs they deem worthy. Again, rather than democratic, public spending, he'd rather the wealthy act as oligarchs, deciding what the people need and don't need for them -- obviously, the wealthy are better than us and we should just trust them to make the best decisions on their own! Surprisingly, I've known poor people that defend this however; Republican family members of mine repeat talking points similar to this to explain why tax cuts for the wealthy are somehow good. They'll spend it on good things, obviously, and will definitely give good paying jobs and amenities to them in return.

Having heard these arguments from middle class and even working class people around Pittsburgh, seeing how much the arguments are intertwined with the city's history through Carnegie gives me new perspective on cultural inertia. While easy to imagine today's Republicans preaching the Gospel of Wealth, many of these statements sound a lot like Democratic leaders too, further emphasizing the fact that our two-party system has evolved to be an effectively one-party pro-corporate pro-capitalist system. While there is certainly difference and disagreement between the parties on some issues, they both have a fundamentally neoliberal outlook on society and economics.

We need more alternative visions and arguments, we need more diversity of thought, and we need to be prepared with counters to these arguments as we grow and get our message out to the public. Today's generations now live 100+ years after Carnegie's heyday; his influence, as well as the influence of many other capitalists, has long had a grip over our country's economic system. It will take a very sustained effort to get people to open up to alternatives, but knowing how they think by reading things like Carnegie's essay helps us understand the filter through which they see the world, and helps us devise new ways of presenting our argument.

A Break for Work

Social media is a very powerful force, allowing people from various geographic locations and cultural backgrounds to find each other and communicate. We can learn so much from each other. I truly think it is moving us toward a more peaceful and just world, as we learn more about each other and that we have much more in common -- even across continents and cultures -- than we do differences.

However, social media is a double-edged sword and can also be used to reinforce "bubbles". Rather than seeking out new ideas, people can block anyone different from themselves, and create an "echo chamber" of thought. By following only people you agree with, you get exposed only to reinforcement, never disagreement, and it's easy to begin to think you are correct and that "everyone" agrees with you.

Social media also has the effect of sapping time away. While a powerful force for quick organizing, mobilization, and information sharing, it also becomes a black hole quickly, into which energy is spent just hitting "refresh" so you have up-to-date news. Sharing posts and quick thoughts on the news become more of a task than actually doing things that make the news in the first place. Having previously criticized others for exactly that problem, I feel myself slipping a bit into that addictive cycle. I'm not a reporter or journalist, and if I'm not going to be those things, what do I accomplish other than taking up my time and filling others' feeds?

Therefore, I have decided to -- at least, temporarily -- suspend the Progressive Pittsburgh twitter and this blog. However, I am not stepping away from politics, but rather, gearing up for the next phase of involvement.

I have more directly joined my local Green Party and am actively working toward growing the party. I encourage any followers I have to instead follow the Green Party of Allegheny County on twitter and facebook (@AlleghenyGreens) to keep up to date with party announcements. That will be a much better source of progressive news in Pittsburgh than I am alone, and you'll be learning how to get more directly involved in bringing the Green New Deal to Pittsburgh.

Recent experiences have shown me the strong need for Pittsburgh and the surrounding region to get some new, progressive leadership and for many reasons I don't expect the Democratic party to be a leader. The Democratic establishment continues to focus on fundraising more than people's needs, and still challenge progressives every chance they get -- even going so far as to back an independent candidate in the District 8 special election because their hand-chosen person didn't get the Democratic nomination!

But I don't want Greens to be "leaders" handing down dictates either. I am a Green because I want communities to decide for themselves. We've had enough top-down decision making; it's time for bottom-up. It's time to empower communities and give them the tools and resources to make their own destinies. It's time to break up "good ol' boys" organizations and parties that feel entitled to make decisions on their own on your behalf while simultaneous ignoring your opinions or even becoming downright hostile to outsiders (often with excuses like: "I've lived in this neighborhood longer than you, I know better", or "That's how we've always done it, you just don't know," or the ever-popular "Do you even own property here? Because I do" that implies you don't matter if you don't own a house).

In lieu of social media, I will be focusing my attention on taking this message to others and building the party. Look for Green blog posts, pamphlets, events, and more, over the coming months; there will be a good chance that I wrote or contributed to some of it! I hope you will join me in the Green movement.

Petra Kelly and Lessons from the German Greens

Recently I read a short book titled "Thinking Green!", a collection of essays written by Petra K. Kelly, one of the founders of German Green Party and the European Greens. She was a recommendation to me by a fellow Green to learn more about what exactly Green values and philosophy consists of, and it was an enjoyable read that helped affirm those values.

Petra shares an interesting take on the Berlin Wall and fall of USSR and East Germany that I hadn't heard anywhere else. As a long-time activist, Petra describes making routine visits to East Germany for humanitarian aid and to help grow local activist groups in East Germany. She describes a growing group in East Berlin that favored Green values and ideals -- democracy, peace, social justice -- and a general trend toward decentralized democratic socialism against the statist form of "communism" pushed by Russia.

As the wall came down, the East German activists rose to take positions within the government vacated by the old Soviet-backed politicians that left when they saw what was coming. For a short time, Petra describes parades and marches in the street as the East German socialists, with the backing of the West German Greens, begin cleaning and rebuilding East Berlin.

However, Petra describes how that changed very rapidly as the American-backed West German government came in a few weeks later. The West Germans forced closing of all community banks in areas, and forced businesses to switch to West German currency for transactions. This had the effect of forcing East Germans to go to West German banks to get money, where the exchange rate was poor and fees were charged. For-profit private banks quickly moved into the neighborhoods, and with West German backing, used their financial power to put pressure on the socialist community organizations in favor of capitalism from American-backed West German businesses that suddenly flooded the city. Those same businesses and West German politicians began backing the unification narrative and used the nationalist (read: Neo-Nazi) element in East Germany as a way to oppose the Green-backed socialist organizations that were pushing for an independent state. With the sudden influx of money and power, the capitalist side won the struggle with the help of the nationalist organizations, and as Petra describes, the socialist marches and parades were quickly replaced with nationalist parades focused on pride in being unified German citizens, complete with huge German flags everywhere. Petra was one of the early members of the unified German parliament -- since elections in Germany use proportional representation, Greens have a good amount of seats and influence in Germany -- and describes seeing politicians in the parliament repeating German nationalist ideas and speeches that echoed some of Hitler's speeches. The West Germans were using that deep nationalist rhetoric to win votes and oppress the resistance as they profited from the switch to capitalism. I bet this doesn't sound familiar at all.

This story of American-backed capitalists forcing unification and stopping an independent socialist state from forming is obviously a part of the story I had never heard before. It was a very interesting read. By itself that story is worth a read, but there were other great essays.

Other essays included non-violence and "non-violent social resistance" as a way of fighting oppression and power without the need for violent war, and how the German Greens were influenced by Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi's work. She talks the need to respect the environment and put global warming (climate change) at the forefront of all issues. She also writes about the need to elevate more women into leadership roles, and how Greens must always support social justice and human rights. She seems direct participatory democracy as a requirement to address human rights and the environment.

One interesting aspect was that the essays also somewhat criticized the German Greens. On several issues, one strong example in particular being the Chinese violence against the Tibetan people, the German Greens had stayed relatively silent as a whole, and Petra was not happy. She criticized the German Greens for losing their identity and values as they tried to become too mainstream and too much like the other parties in German. Some German Greens were worried coming out too strongly against China or for Tibet, for fear of causing waves and potentially losing votes in the upcoming elections. In other words, as is often the case, the influence of money and power had corrupted even some of the German Greens. She cautions other Green parties around the world from the same fate, and to ensure that as we grow our activism and political influence that we always keep our eye toward our goal: decentralized democracy and power so that we can further human rights and protect the environment.

Keep in mind this book was written in the 1990s, so I'm not sure how much of the criticism of the German Greens at the time still applies today. However, it is still a powerful lesson.

Our goal as Greens is not take power for ourselves or become the next "major party" that simply replaces the Democrats. Our goal is to remake our political and economic system to be more free, fair, and just, to all people. If you want to learn more about Green values and what we can do to stay true to them as we fight the good political fight, Petra Kelly's book is a great one.

Progressives within the Democratic Party are about to be called "spoilers"

I've seen variation of an argument recently on social media that came out today as this NBC article: "Democrats are having a banner recruiting year -- and it could cost them". The article essentially makes the case that, because there are in some districts a large number of people running as Democrats, that it could "cost" the party. They specifically cite California and it's "top two" laws, that basically requires the top two candidates to go into a run-off even if they are the same party. The article argues that the large number of Democrats will split the vote in the primaries and allow the top two candidates in the general to be Republican candidates.

In fact, the article says:

But crowded primaries can also waste money, sow internal divisions, push candidates to the ideological extremes, and tarnish whoever emerges from the melee.

It goes on to say:

Republicans are counting on overcrowded Democratic races to help bail them out of what is shaping up to be a very bad year. 

"We look forward to facing whoever limps out of the Democrats' battle royale: black and blue, and broke," said National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Steve Stivers. 

One GOP super PAC is even considering meddling in Democratic races to sow chaos and promote weaker opponents. "It'd be too much not to," said Cory Bliss, the executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund. 

It cites the example from California again, that the state party has thrown its weight behind the candidate from last election, Doug Applegate, and is calling on challengers to drop out and support him, even though Applegate has been accused of scandal is not necessarily looking like a strong candidate. Regardless, the fact that the candidate and party are trying to pressure challengers out of the primaries -- the elections that are supposed to choose the candidate for the party, rather than allowing party elite to decide! -- shows that Democrats have not learned a thing since 2016.

This is exactly the arguments we saw as the Clinton wing of the Democratic party put pressure on Bernie Sanders and his supporters to drop out and fall in line behind Clinton. The "split the vote" argument is also exactly the reason they give for why voting for the Greens is a "waste".

Mark my words: the Democratic party is about to launch a campaign against progressive/socialist challengers, calling them "spoilers" and "weaker candidates propped up by GOP". This is all scare tactics to try to get people to fall back in line with the corporate "centrist" Democrats whom they will claim are "stronger" candidates that can "reach out to republican voters with bipartisanship".

The Democratic party could be working to fix this. Since the primaries are completely party-controlled, the DNC could do a simple vote and switch to ranked choice voting and make the "spoiler" argument completely obsolete. They could use ranked choice to find the candidate that is actually the most preferred by the most voters (open primaries would be even better at this!), rather than the establishment-backed flawed winning candidate of a plurality vote. And yet, they don't. I haven't heard a peep about ranked choice, and in fact, establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle are fighting ranked choice implementation in Maine after voters chose last year to switch to ranked choice. This might have something to do with how a number of Democratic state representatives in Maine have broken off and become Greens, and the Green Party is rapidly growing there. People are sick of establishment politics.

Democrats don't want ranked choice -- in the general election or even the primaries -- because they can use plurality voting and the "spoiler" argument and the "weaker candidate" argument as a stick to beat back opposition. They prey on the politics of fear, counting on you to ultimately side with their establishment pick out of fear that a worse candidate from the Republicans could ultimately win. They make this argument every election, and despite their corporate candidates typically winning primaries, they still go on to lose the general election. But instead of asking how their strategy can change to win over more voters, they still blame progressives and Greens for those losses. Despite the huge losses to the GOP and Trump in 2016, Democrats are continuing with their same policies, because why not, it has worked in the past. They are anticipating riding an anti-Trump wave to victory and have no need to appeal to progressives. They will use 2018 as an opportunity to try to crush the progressive "rebellion".

We need to move beyond the two-party narrative about how we vote. They use our voting methods to bash not only third party movements like the Greens, but even progressive challengers within the party.

Our energy is not well directed at "invading" the Democratic party, however. The primaries are not "official" elections, in the sense that they are party nomination procedures. Parties, as private organizations, can nominate however they want. Look at how much the Unity Reform Commission is struggling to get support to pass their small reforms that are much less than what progressives were originally asking for. There is huge momentum within the party to fight change. So to get the change you seek, you must take over nearly all local and state parties, with the end result being you get to maybe set some internal policy. None of that work is helping making fairer elections for our fellow Americans in the Republican, Green, Libertarian parties, or independent voters. (Remember that Trump won a lot of the early primaries with only something like 20% or 30% of the vote -- a landslide of Republicans did NOT want him and voted for someone else, yet he won -- ranked choice in the Republican primaries could have stopped Trump, and yet no one talks about that). Even if the Democratic party becomes more "progressive", we're still operating within a two party system that shuts out voices and opposition. We need to do better than this.

What we can do is change our laws for the general election. We can fight for a more fair system for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, and make it easier for everyone to vote. While this is also an uphill battle, this is a battle for what's right, for making our system more democratic and fair to all, not just taking over a single party in a flawed two-party system. When we win this, we're not simply propping up a private organization with control over our elections process, we win and spread democratic reform for all Americans. This is what Greens stand for. We want proportional representation and ranked choice, we want voting holidays, we want equal access to debates and the airwaves, we want automatic voter registration and open primaries, we want verifiable voting methods instead of electronic machines we can't trust. These are things that are good for every voter and every party, and yet the two major parties never talk about any of this. And it's very clear why: they want to retain the control over our elections process, rather than opening it up to everyone with methods like proportional representation. Private organizations should NOT control our elections.

If you're sick of Democrats using the "spoiler" stick every election, please consider joining the Greens and helping us grow a new major party and change our election system.

Why The Left Must Stop Playing Defense On Ideas

A recent Jacobin article articulated a point that has been kicking around in my head a lot lately: that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to pretend that people with different ideological goals are good allies. For a bit of a sports metaphor, we too often "play defense" and not enough "offense". We too often use the appearance of compromise and agreement to defend our thoughts and actions, which sets us up for long range failure as we imply that we generally agree with their worldview.

The article is effectively a caution against being too closely associated with capitalists and business owners that have come out in favor of some form of single payer healthcare. The initial reaction is to do much like Bernie Sanders did in his recent townhall: highlight "See, it's good for business!" as a major reason we should adopt a single payer healthcare system. It appears like a moment of non-partisanship, of agreement between two different people that shows hey, we can compromise and make good ideas happen. On the surface, that seems like a winning move at swaying opinion, and perhaps it is... for this particular idea. The problem is that we may be setting back the larger movement in doing so.

The key word here is compromise. By pulling in these capitalist leaders as endorsements for single payer, we are implicitly saying yes, we agree with these people that business comes first. It just so happens that single payer is great for business (at least, everyone except the health insurance companies themselves that will be cut out of the loop!) and there's a lot of economic reasons why it saves a lot of money for both business and government.

However, by highlighting the fact that single payer makes economic sense, we are implicitly agreeing with that worldview. We suggest to all those listening that yes, making economic sense for business is a key factor in any policy we decide. It sets the precedent that good policy requires the agreement of business leaders, that good policy must be good for business... or maybe, just maybe, it's not a good policy if capitalists and business leaders don't endorse the plan.

This is a huge risk for the movement, by tying us to the exact system we are trying to combat. Single payer for me is primarily a moral argument. Yes, there's fantastic economic arguments, and we tend to get much better healthcare results for treatment under a single payer system, and those facts should definitely be included in any discussion, but the major focus and argument is a moral one: that our society does not let anyone die in vain. We never turn our backs on someone in need. We do everything we can to help anyone, because it is the right thing to do and the right way to live our lives. That we become a cold, callous civilization in decay every time we shrug and look away when we see suffering, particularly suffering we know how to treat and cure with our modern technology. Every person suffering is someone's parent, child, sibling. How civilized of a society can we be if we are willing to turn our backs on our community's family and sneer Well, they should have had a better job to pay for it, not my problem? (As if jobs fall out of the sky and people can completely control what happens, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Can we save everyone? No. Can we immediately fix all problems with a single law? Of course not. But we can declare that our goal is progress, that our eternal quest is to improve the human condition. We will never be satisfied until we can help everyone, and if we can't do it yet, we keep working toward it. Every time we encounter a failure, we at least step back and mourn, we don't pass around blame, but simply ask ourselves "What can we do to be better, to prevent this in the future?"

By relying solely on the business and economic argument, we are ceding the moral argument. We are preemptively deciding that people don't matter unless someone can make a profit first, and setting that viewpoint into law with things like Affordable Care Act (which relies on private for-profit insurance to provide "coverage" -- you can only get healthcare after insurance takes its cut for their profits!). On some level, we are complicit unless we call out such moral injustice, otherwise we are capitalists ourselves putting corporate profits over -- or at least with equal standing to -- real people. In fact, it's almost a more sinister form of capitalism that has realized it can exploit more profits by going after the very social systems that protect us. This isn't just ripping people off on big screen TVs, it is ransoming people for their health and their very lives. Is that really the attitude we want to acquiesce to?

We can no longer play defense in a game with rules made by the capitalists themselves. By defending ourselves with "well, capitalists support it!", we're actually giving them the credibility to later down the line take other actions that harm us: further tax cuts, further government budget cuts, etc.

We cannot endorse and welcome this behavior, we have to take a firm stand and go on the offense. We need to start changing the conversation toward our vision, not just the corporate vision. It means when they talk tax cuts, we talk tax increases to address rising inequality. It means when they talk private sector growth and the government deficit, we talk about the need for a government jobs program that ensures everyone is fed and everyone has a job contributing to renewing the country in some way -- infrastructure, education, etc. It means when they talk about freedoms and the rights of business, we talk about freedoms and human rights of individuals over business. When they talk about the need for ever-increasing growth for their insatiable demand for profits, we talk about the need for a society founded on conservation of resources and sustainability. When they talk about the need for centralized power, whether in business or government, we respond with a demand for more democracy and decentralization.

Do not misconstrue this argument for saying we can never compromise. Rather, it is a caution about what sorts of compromises should be made. We must obviously welcome everyone that wants to put human rights and dignity first. If you agree the economy needs to become more focused on sustainability and harmony with nature, I definitely want to talk to you. There's a lot of room for ideas: how do we become sustainable? What is the best, fastest path to get there? How can we create better democratic systems, especially in the economy? There is a lot of detail to work out, and we should absolutely be willing to discuss and negotiate and even compromise on those details. We'll probably sometimes have very heated disagreement about the best path forward, but as long as we remember we all have the same goal, we can defuse the situation and arrive at agreement. We are true allies, and the debate helps us sort out the big questions and find the best solution.

Where we cannot compromise is in our values. Plans and details change, but our values cannot. We must always stand for human rights and freedom first. We must stand for democracy, not dictatorship or oligarchy. We must stand for a sustainable economy and a healthy planet we can pass down to our descendants, not exploit resources and people mindlessly until we drive ourselves extinct. We must stand for a life focused on finding meaning in family, community, education, and personal and community achievement, so that we may all have the opportunity to pursue happiness, not argue for a life of economic slavery for the benefit of only the wealthy few. These fights are too important. We cannot compromise on those values.

Be careful that your "allies" actually share your values and are not simply temporarily cooperating on a single goal. Otherwise, you may find the long-term fight compromised. But by the same token, be open to working with others you merely disagree with on details, but share the same values and overall vision, for only together can we win.

I think this is the message the Green Party needs to share more often. Lately I have heard many say "Well, many progressive Democrats agree on many of the same policy positions -- universal healthcare, debt-free college, etc. -- so why be Green? Why not just fight with progressive Democrats?" The argument irks me, but it does have a kernel of truth, though not in the way the questioners usually mean it.

Nancy Pelosi in a somewhat recent CNN townhall told constituents that "We're capitalists, and that's just the way it is." Ultimately, she sums up the difference between Democrats and Greens in this one sentence.

Democrats are capitalists, pro-business and generally right-wing in the sense of their neoliberal push that the "free market knows best". We saw this in action with the ACA, with the assumption that "competition" between health insurance providers would give us the best healthcare system, or at least better than a government-backed program could. While the GOP is often more extreme, to the point that Democrats seem "moderate", the truth is both parties have a tendency to put business rights and needs over individual rights and needs.

When Democrats say "we want universal healthcare", they mean they want everyone to have access to a market to purchase healthcare from for-profit business. Perhaps the feel slightly bad for poorer people and are willing to throw in some small subsidies or help, but overall it is a very right wing "free market" stance. When they say they want "debt-free college", they mean they're open to the idea of helping out really poor people in special circumstances, but they generally feel everyone should purchase education -- often from private colleges, or at least public colleges that "partner" with the private sector -- from a "free market" of colleges.

Notice the underlying concept in their message -- "We're capitalists", as Pelosi said. Democrats' policies do not help people near as much as many believe, because even when they do some small amount of good, their world view is that it was necessary to keep the "free market" and "competition" working. We give some small aid only to the poorest of people to try to the grease the gears of the "free market", then we let business do its thing and let people fight for their share of the profits. That's the world view, that's the mindset.

The Green world view is different. We want universal healthcare -- in the form of a single payer system -- because it is the right thing to do and we have the technology to do it, so why not? We believe health and life are human rights. Similarly, we want not just debt-free college, but tuition-free publicly-run colleges that are operated to benefit people -- not just for jobs, but for life. We value education because education is important to democracy. Again, education is a human right in a free society. Notice the huge difference in viewpoint - we want to do these things because they are human rights that improve the lives of everyone and society as a whole, not just because we want to keep the "free market" going for profit.

While we have similar goals on these particular issues, our values are vastly differently. This is why it is so important to resist not just the Republicans but the Democrats too, because even when small policy victories occur, the mindset of economy and profits over people and planet is advancing further to victory. This is the reason to be a Green rather a Democrat. (Although that said, while there is some policy overlap, Green policy tackles significantly many more issues than the Democrats, including student debt relief/bailouts, fighting climate change, recognizing indigenous peoples' rights, etc., which is all in keeping with our values and why Democrats have never adopted those policies into their own platform.)

Now I'm not saying all Democrats are "free market" capitalists. A good chunk of them, including Bernie Sanders, are much more rooted in the Green world view than the capitalist Democratic view. The question is always: is it enough of them -- and in positions of power -- to remake the Democratic party into one that fits our Green values? My suspicion is that the answer at this time is "No", as evident by the fact that most party leaders seem to agree with Pelosi's take time and time again, and we continue to see party leaders like Perez purging progressives from leadership roles and fighting reform at every turn. Sanders, despite doing a lot of good by raising good issues and points, is trapped playing "defense" within the party, and it often hurts his arguments and therefore sometimes the movement as a whole. We saw this in the healthcare townhall where he made the argument that single payer is good for business, likely to counter a point Clinton and Democrats hammered during the 2016 primaries: "How are you going to pay for that?". By allowing the conversation to be pulled toward profits and taxes rather than morals, the Democrats' capitalist values are winning the debate, and it makes Bernie look inconsistent to voters that have generally not studied leftist ideology as extensively as many of us have.

We must stop playing defense from within the Democratic party, which is what we are doing every time we try to influence policy without confronting the warped capitalist "values" and ideology. I call on all like-minded individuals to stop supporting the Democratic party, and work to change the debate. I personally believe the Green party has the right values and the right platform to win, and it's the largest leftist party in the country, and so invite you to join us. But even if you feel your home is better with DSA, Socialist Alternative, The People's Party (Draft Bernie), the Progressive Independent Party, or other organizations, that's fine too. As long as we recognize we are related by our values, even if we disagree a bit on policy, and the important thing is that we oppose the capitalist values within the Republican and Democratic parties together as a unified coalition. Republicans and Democrats generally don't share our values, and can never be true allies. We must stop pretending that they can be allies if we want to make real progress. We must reach out directly to citizens -- around party leadership and the system they have built -- and win them with our values. I think it will take a third major party to rally the people and break the current system and replace it with better values.

Race Matters and the Neoliberal Dilemma

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, I was interested in reading more about racism and race relations in America. Recently Dr. Cornel West's book "Race Matters" was re-issued as a 25th anniversary edition with a new introduction, so it seemed an appropriate book to read for the occasion. I had heard of Cornel West in the past but only became more familiar with him as he campaigned for Bernie Sanders and then Jill Stein in the 2016 elections. I was impressed that, despite his affection for Bernie, West decided to back the Greens and Jill Stein rather than assist Bernie in campaigning for Clinton and the Democratic Party in order to keep with his values and resist neoliberal policy that enabled someone like Trump to be a serious competitor. I've been looking forward to reading more about his thoughts and finally did so with "Race Matters."

"Race Matters" is a short book at about 100 pages long, but it is a well-written and interesting read. It is divided into a few sections on different topics that need to be addressed to lift the Black American out of poverty: the spreading of nihilism, racial reasoning that covers up real problems with identity politics, and the lack of Black leadership and general support of neoliberal policies that lead to a Black conservative counter-culture instead of more progressive policy that would address the problems.

While the entire book was interesting, the first few chapters on nihilism really resonated with me. Nihilism is the philosophy that life is essentially meaningless and without hope, that all actions are pointless in the grand scheme of things. West describes a Black culture that in recent years has been attacked by a capitalist mentality of consumption and pleasure, that the most important thing in life is making money. This has caused the Black community to begin to abandon its sense of community and seek out a more "rugged individualism" that is glamorized by the corporate media and neoliberal politics. Rather than working together to build communities to help each other through tough times, we have fallen apart into individuals working alone against an unfair and unjust racist system, further pushing individuals into depression and nihilism.

West points out the flaws of those on both the left and the right at tackling the problem of nihilism. The left, he says, is too quick to say social programs like welfare and education will fix everything, whereas the right is too quick to dismiss the need for social programs and call on the Black community to simply "work harder" toward a better goal. Both sides are fundamentally focused on the economic status of the Black community, and while there is a kernel of truth to both sides in order to defeat nihilism, a missing component is the psychological and emotional. West argues we don't do enough to remind ourselves that we are humans, that we need love, companionship, encouragement, and a sense of purpose in our communities beyond simply climbing the corporate ladder and making money.

This has been an idea I've been playing around with for a while in my head, but West really made the idea clear. Those of us in the political arena sometimes become too "wonkish", focused on "crunching the numbers" to find solutions. That in itself is a focus on "the numbers" -- really, money -- that is exactly what West is commenting on. Not all of our problems can be solved just with money, although that is an important aspect; we also need a change in our cultural attitudes to what it means to live and work. Again, we've lost a sense of purpose in our lives, lost a sense of meaning and pride, which has been replaced by the capitalist corporate work ethic of "if you're not always working and making money, you are a loser". Government and politics can play a strong role in setting the cultural tone and the priorities of our society, but today's politics is focused on neoliberalism and putting businesses' needs and profits before anything else. Rather than defending our need to have strong communities based on principles like peace and love, our political leaders continually harp on the need for the "free market" to fix all problems.

Throughout my life I have struggled with exactly this problem, becoming very unsatisfied with my "career path" as one that doesn't feel intrinsically rewarding. I often feel like the work isn't useful to anyone, it's just what management expects to be done to make a buck, and in that sense I get angry that my precious time on Earth is wasted all in the name of management getting a bonus. While West was speaking about the Black community specifically, I think this sense of nihilism has spread to all Americans, because it is an effect of the capitalist mindset as a whole. Most people I know are dissatisfied with their careers and lives; they're not lazy, they want to work and do more, but feel defeated in this profit-seeking-above-all-else culture. West calls for more community, for us to love each other and help each other more to break the effects of nihilism and depression that prevent us from rising up to achieve more. Specifically, he calls for the Black community to embrace its own culture, love its own culture and history, and stop trying to fit into the White mold.

Aside from nihilism, West also calls out the lack of leadership among the Black community. Specifically, he laments the lack of leaders since the powerhouses of the 1960s (Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X among many others). While MLK and Malcolm X were passionate about the plight of their brothers and sisters, West points out that today's leaders are very quick to endorse and support the establishment and act as the "spokesperson" for the entire Black community. In other words, the emphasis is more on the "leaders" themselves and self-interest than pushing for a movement to grow. As such, West expresses disappointment as the "leaders" basically sell-out the Black community to the neoliberal establishment, support policies that hurt the community or at least downplaying the impacts. West also describes how their support for these policies has caused frustration, anger, and the nihilism he mentions earlier by convincing the Black community that corruption cannot be beaten. The few that rise up against the Democratic establishment therefore do so to counteract neoliberal policy, and unfortunately often end up in the right-wing conservative camp (perhaps because of our two-party system that makes learning about other options more difficult?), arguing against the very social programs and progressive reform necessary to reverse the neoliberal policy. As West says, a desperate population will sometimes accept ideologies that do not make sense because they have nowhere else to turn. He therefore cautions greatly against teaming up with neoliberal policy as it will only push more people toward "extreme" values; we instead need to raise the progressive cause and give people hope. In fact, the new anniversary introduction discusses the 2016 election and how Obama's continued neoliberal policies and Clinton's domination of the political machine were huge contributions to Trump's win, and the Black "leaders" let down the community by rallying to Clinton early in the process rather than considering Bernie Sanders' ideas that were much more in tune with the needs of the Black community. The emphasis was on cozying up to the Democratic establishment to ask for favors, rather than speaking truthfully about the Democratic party's failures to address issues important to the Black community, and that backfired drastically in the election of Trump. Given this, it makes sense why he decided to campaign for Jill Stein in 2016, and I hope he continues to speak about the need for a Green Party and third-party movement in general.

West ends with a short epilogue on democracy. He states that democracies in history tend to fail for two reasons, poverty and paranoia. Poverty leads to despair and nihilism, while paranoia generates mistrust that prevents cooperation required in a democracy. When much of the population is too depressed or overworked to be involved in the system, and those that are active mistrust each other to the point of considering each other mortal enemies, we are set up for a collapse of our government system. West says we need to quickly move toward fighting against racial hierarchies and wealth inequality to restore hope to those in poverty, and regain trust between sides that are deeply paranoid of an economic and political system that doesn't listen to them.

Altogether it's a great read and very short so I encourage you to read it if you'd like to see another take on how racism, poverty, and militarism are all inter-linked problems that must be solved together.

Nonviolent Resistance in the Neoliberal Era

In my previous post, I discussed Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s (MLK's) writings and how he identified racism, poverty, and militarism as deeply intertwined problems that needed to be resolved together. I also discussed how most of these ideas are reflected in today's Green Party platform, whereas the major parties conveniently ignore most of MLK's legacy on poverty and militarism.

Now that we know MLK's complaints and proposed solutions, the final piece of the puzzle is to ask how we fight for them. This is where's MLK's nonviolent resistance movement comes in, as a way of exerting power and influence on society to force it toward his proposed reforms. MLK in his youth was actually much closer to a violent revolutionary but was inspired by Gandhi's nonviolent resistance movement in India. A few chance encounters with activists such as A. Phillip Randolph set him on the path to learning about Gandhi and full adopting the nonviolent method as the best path forward, which sometimes put him at odds with other "black power" activists that took a much more aggressive stance.

The key to nonviolent resistance is in the combination of the two words.

Nonviolent refers to our need to unite and create a new system, rather than call for violent destruction. Violence sets back the movement by creating enemies of people affected by that destruction. We need to make allies, not enemies, and we make allies with peace and understanding, not violence and anger. Furthermore, as MLK points out, destroying the factory you want to get a job at or destroying the school you want your children to attend during a riot is counterproductive. We don't want to destroy, we want to create -- we want to create opportunity for all.

Resistance means that you resist the system fully in all ways you can, rather than simply accepting it or becoming apathetic. One does not wait around and hope for better circumstances, but actively works toward a better system by trying to jam the current unjust system. We want to become a nonviolent nuisance to the system, we want to aggravate the system until it has no choice but to respond to us. If we are not the gadfly, then we are at least partially accepting the current system and allowing it to continue.

For the most part, MLK says economic power and political power are the tools of nonviolent resistance. The current unjust system is in some sense perpetuated by us when we are complicit. Businesses have no one to sell to and make those extreme profits if we exercise our economic power, and corrupt politicians have no volunteers or voters to win election if we exercise our political power. If we recognize how much power actually exists within the people as a whole, we can accomplish a lot. The powerful are only powerful when we allow them to be so and prop them up on our backs.

So what do these two forms of nonviolent resistance look like?

MLK describes in the early chapters of the book "Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community" several nonviolent resistance actions that were taken to exercise both economic and political power. Marches were a common way of showing solidarity and educating people in the community, since corporate media shut their voices out from radio, newspapers, etc. As more people were educated on the issues and joined the movement, power grew, and once it was enough, further action could be taken.

Economic power was exercised in strikes and boycotts, often planned with the assistance of sympathetic unions. MLK worked with movement and union leaders to send representatives to companies and demand better pay and equality for workers; if the business refused, the movement would boycott the products and workers would go on strike, hurting the company's bottom line until they gave in to the demands. This was a successful tactic on a number of occasions. Boycotts were also aimed at government services that did not support equality; in fact, MLK and his allies used boycotts of bus services to draw attention to racial inequality on the buses. A lesser known fact was that Rosa Parks did not act alone randomly when she famously refused to give up her seat on the bus; rather, Parks was approached by leaders of MLK's movement to perform this action as a way of generating attention and press for the bus boycott. Black people refused to ride the buses, carpooling and even walking to work for weeks until government incomes were hurt enough that leaders had to react and integrate the buses.

Political power often came in the form of opposing unjust police action and the criminal justice system itself. Court cases were filed against unjust policing and inequality in government services, sometimes winning, but always being used to draw more public attention to their demands. Police were often used to break up marches and protests as a way of silencing the movement. To combat the silence, MLK and leaders would purposely become jailed and try to remain in jail even when friendlies would attempt bail in order to keep pressure on the police and government; in fact, they would call on others to join them in jail. A constantly growing stream of peaceful protesters would overwhelm the jails (which didn't enough room or manpower to process and house the large groups) and start grabbing headlines and attention, to the point that the police would actually beg them to leave jail (even attempting to coerce them to leave!) in order to stop the headlines.

Even when the KKK or Nazis would form counter-marches against MLK and his movement, civil rights leaders would sit outside and laugh and joke and wave to the marchers, treating it as a fun parade (despite being afraid on the inside, they would not show it) as a way of disarming the hostility. Often, the racist marches would be so embarrassed by the lack of fear that the march would break up without major incident.

MLK also exercised political power by backing political candidates that promised to back government programs to tackle inequality and poverty. MLK and leaders often talked with high level officials, including the President, to push their agenda. Threats of marches on Washington or backing of political rivals was often enough to force their hand. Many of MLK's mentors were active in the 1940s, and used similar tactics to get President FDR to sign executive orders that required integration in the military and other places, for example. While some progress was made, many movement leaders often felt betrayed by political candidates that would turn on the movement once becoming elected, with MLK specifically describing in his books how Democratic politicians would often let him down. This experience lead him to start calling for support for independent and third party candidates to challenge those disappointing politicians where possible.

In summary, MLK and his movement would exercise peaceful power by countering whatever issue was at hand. If business wouldn't pay fair wages in order to keep more profits, they would ruin their profits by refusing to buy the products. They would refuse to pay for government services like buses that did not treat them equally. If KKK wanted fear, they'd give them laughter. If police wanted to jail them to silence them, they'd rush the jails to bring more attention. If today's politicians won't support us or go back on their word, we support candidates that will. The idea was always that one couldn't simply ask nicely, one must force their hand with nonviolent action.

So what does nonviolent resistance look like today? The situations are not the same as the 1960s, so simply relying on all of the old methods I think won't be successful on its own, but it is certainly instructive to look at what they did for inspiration and so we know what will not work to prevent wasted effort.

Unfortunately, the nonviolent resistance movement today appears much more fragmented than it was, as it appears that even the word "resistance" has been co-opted by the establishment. The "hashtag resistance" (#resistance) for example is a great illustration of the establishment's use of the term. Despite all of the talk about resistance, Democrats have been largely complicit with many of Trump's actions. Last year at about this time were a number of marches and actions to "resist" Trump: the Women's March, the March for Science, and more. All of those events left me very unimpressed for the lack of true action and resistance. The marches all followed about the same format in Pittsburgh: the march was perhaps an hour long at most, in the rich part of town (Oakland, which is the university town and a very expensive gentrified area), a few speakers talked about how terrible Trump is an abstract way (very little discussion of actual policy), we marched a few blocks around the Cathedral of Learning with police escort, and then everyone left. Where was the call to bigger action? To hold sit-ins in elected officials offices? To boycott the corporations funding America's ongoing wars? Where was the call for average Americans to run for office? There was none of this type of resistance.

It is no wonder elected officials ignore the "protests" and carry on with their neoliberal policies when there is no "teeth" in such actions. I think many of these actions are more "for show" than for real policy change. The events are meant to keep everyone occupied and busy with ineffective action to prevent us from uniting and mobilizing into real action. In other words, I believe many of these events are meant to be more public relations for the Democratic party than to actually achieve any policy objectives. MLK expressed much disappointment in the 1960s for the Democratic party doing exactly this (claiming to support reform and resistance, and yet rarely doing anything substantial), and so it is clear the party has not changed much in the last 50 years. My understanding is the marches are coming back for 2018, and so we will know how serious any of these marches are this year. If they talk about larger action and running for office, terrific, but my guess is it will be more of the same non-action.

So where do we go if our political parties are failing us and we cannot find real action to participate in?

Perhaps the most important lesson of MLK is that we all hold the power ourselves. MLK's nonviolent resistance was all about showing the power of the people in economics and politics, and we can do that again if we form new organizations to replace those that have failed us. As I previously said, MLK specifically called for support of independent and third party candidates if the major parties do not take us seriously, and for a long time we have needed that new voice. It is clear we need to grow the Green Party into a force to be reckoned with, both in the economic activism space as well as the electoral politics space. The Green Party was actually originally formed as a combination activist and electoral politics organization, so we already have this in our heritage; our major difficulty until today has always been a lack of volunteers and candidates. Activists and political candidates today have often been drawn into attempting to work from within, by joining corporate-backed "activism" organizations and being talked into supporting the Democratic Party, rather than forming organizations outside of the system. They mean well, but corporate talking points and propaganda have convinced them working from within is the only way to get what they want, when usually it is actually the place "where ideas go to die". Greens need to reassess how to reach out to these activists and organizations, talk about their concerns, and work to building the party and a new movement. We need outreach and education to build a movement that will adopt these nonviolent resistance techniques from outside of the current electoral system.

As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Power will not concede anything until it has to, and voting Green tells the establishment exactly what our demand is. We want the Green New Deal, with renewable energy, an end to wars, and an economic bill of rights, and we *WILL* elect Greens to take your jobs if you do not give it to us. There *WILL* be fair elections because if there is any hint of electoral shenanigans against Greens, we will take further actions including boycotts and strikes that will hurt your bottom line. Establishment politicians and their corporate donors will feel the financial sting one way or another unless they come to the table to discuss our demands as equals. THAT is nonviolent resistance and why I believe it is so important to build the Green Party into a strong political force at all levels of government.

We cannot play their games, or participate in their rules for the economy and the two-party political system, for every time that we do we are reinforcing our subservient attitude toward them. Every time an activist says "Well, Greens can't win", they are betraying their fears that the establishment has already won. Every time we say "You have to run as a Democrat to have a chance", we are only admitting that the establishment holds the power instead of us. Of course they make it easy to run as a Democrat, because either you will support them in the long run with persuasion or they can use the party structure to control you and stop your message, or quickly rollback changes if necessary (look how quickly the GOP rolled back many policies this year). That is not what MLK stood for. MLK stood for the people rising together and demanding change, and taking action until we received it, no matter how difficult or hard it became in the process.

We are not slaves to the economic and political system; it is the system that must answer to the will of the people. We must build a new political party -- and more generally, a new political system -- that calls for a radically different approach to politics and how we think about power in a democracy. We must build a movement that utilizes our economic power to confront inequality and injustice in our capitalist economic system and call for a completely new democratic approach to an economy, one that works for all of us. The more we get caught up in trying to work within the current systems, the more we get bogged down, and that's on purpose: bureaucracy is antithetical to true democracy, because it puts more power in the process and structure than into the people.

Winning takes struggle. Power won't concede easily. Power is not afraid of people marching in an orderly fashion once a year for an hour. It MUST be backed by real action. We can take economic action with boycotts or strikes, or we can take political action by forming political organizations and parties like the Green Party that support candidates against the status quo, but those are our only real options in the struggle. Any other action can be co-opted by power, or easily reversed. We must build a completely new alternative to be a true threat to the current power structure. I don't think there is any easier way to do so if we want long-term reform, and we delude ourselves if we think we can walk into today's power structures and win without a fight (again, today's propaganda makes it sound like the fight is "winning elections" as a Democrat, but that only covers up the real fight with the internal party structure once you win; we must develop a whole new structure if we want to both win and retain those victories long into the future).

We therefore need a strong Green Party as an umbrella for this combined nonviolent resistance from outside of the system. We need new organizational motion on economic action outside of today's "non-profit industry" that simply makes money on protests by selling t-shirts and hyping people up (but not enough to do real action), and we need a new political party that stands for a bold platform centered on establishing grassroots democracy, ecology, peace, and social justice over corporate profits. Activists or political candidates that want to see real change need to support growing the Green Party, and it is our jobs as Greens to reach out to those people and organizations and build coalitions around nonviolent resistance. It is our only way to break today's power structures and achieve significant reform.

If you are one of those activists or a member of an activist organization, please reach out to me and how we can collaborate and build a coalition. We need to work outside of the system and set our own rules. Please come join us in the Green Party and help build a new future.