Anarchism and Social Revolution

My recent readings from Bookchin and Kropotkin had me interested to learn more about anarchism. I was recently at the Big Idea co-op bookstore in Pittsburgh, and while browsing came across a series of books. The first is "What is Anarchism?" by Alexander Berkman, which is actually two of his essays combined into a book. It seemed like a perfect introduction and so I bought it (as well as a few others that I'll hopefully write about soon -- stay tuned!).

What is Anarchism? is a fantastic read to get a "lay of the land" on anarchist philosophy. The book is written in an almost conversational tone with a natural flow from one chapter to the next, sort of meant to be an on-going conversation where the author anticipates and answers your questions as they come up at the end of each small chapter. In this way it is similar to Kropotkin's books; not sure if that's a trend of anarchists or just lucky, but either way I have greatly appreciated the "down-to-earth" writing style that isn't too heavy in jargon. I find a lot of socialist material is weighed down by Marxist economic terminology, and while I can (mostly) follow it, I always think about how inaccessible such writings can be to the general public. If our goal is to grow the movement, then we need better educational materials. Berkman's writing is clear and informative and I think would be interesting to any worker that has started on the path to questioning capitalism.

A short summary of, What is Anarchism? is that Berkman essentially makes an argument that the only realistic way to bring about change -- what he calls the social revolution, to distinguish from political or violent revolution -- to end the entrenched capitalist system is by organizing for a general strike. A general strike would mean as many as possible -- ideally everyone! -- would go on strike simultaneously, and not just those from a particular industry or business. Berkman argues that only a complete shutdown of our economy and politics would be enough to force concessions and ultimately win an anarchist socialist society. It's a pretty convincing argument, citing other authors as well as Berkman's own experience following the Russian revolution and its successes and failures.

But why is it needed in the first place? The goal of social revolution is "the abolition of government and of economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution". In particular, social revolution is not about fighting and destruction but instead about construction -- about constructing a new system. We don't destroy farms and factories, but we take ownership of them for the workers. We "reorganize conditions for the public welfare", as Berkman says. He argues that much of the poverty and inequality that we see today is a result of capitalism, and is upheld largely by coercive forces of government authoritarianism in the form of "private property" laws, meant to keep wealth and power in the hands of a few rather than the collective benefit.

Therefore, we must at once abolition capitalism and government and replace it with a new system that ends inequality and creates democracy, and his view is that a general strike is the most likely method to be successful. Berkman calls for a social revolution because he deems that a political revolution is not possible because political parties are designed to protect capitalism and cannot be infiltrated within or via independent politics. He also deems a violent revolution undesirable and likely to fail because a citizen army cannot resist the full might of the state's police and military forces; plus, as he points out, our goal must be construction and not destruction. So to Berkman, a general strike creating a social revolution is the only way to win victory, for politics and the military machine cannot function if all of the workers throw down the tools and refuse to work for them or uphold the system any longer.

Of course, organizing up to that point will take a lot of work and convincing, and so Berkman talks about the need to educate and organize now until the movement is strong enough. A "weak" strike too early that does not include all workers can fail and hurt the workers more as capitalism retaliates. Berkman therefore argues that until the social revolution, we must spend our time organizing, educating, and building unions that treat all workers as equals and are focused on attacking capitalism and establishing grassroots democracy as a whole rather than only demanding smaller changes like higher wages. He cautions against organizing only around manual labor unions, as he cites intellectual labor like engineering will also be necessary to construct a new world. Even within manual labor, agricultural work is at least as important as industrial work. Thus a united general strike in solidarity between all manual and intellectual labor must be well organized.

The real fight isn't even so much the strike itself, but constructing a new system that can last and not fall right back into the traps of authoritarianism and capitalism. Berkman reminds us, similarly to Kropotkin's call in The Conquest of Bread, that the revolution will fail unless its first priority is getting food and basic needs to all. So a high priority of the social revolution must be unionizing farms, and creating community gardens for self-sufficiency prior to a full strike and action. Once action is under way, Berkman argues citizen committees would form to ensure everyone gets needed housing and supplies, again a call back to Kropotkin's plan. As communities become self-sufficient and needs are met, the interest in returning to the old system and economy will wane and be replaced with an anarchist society that respects the rights of individuals and encourages mutual aid and cooperation without the use of force that capitalism and authoritarian government require.

In short, it's a great read if you'd like to learn about what it means to be an anarchist and that anarchist vision for change. Like many references, a little light on details of organizing -- what exactly does it mean to organize? How do you remain united and organized prior to the general strike? How do you win enough small victories to keep workers united toward the end goal? These are difficult questions for sure, but ones I think worth visiting. While I am definitely confident a non-violent social revolution largely based on strikes and mutual aid would  be successful, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that electoral politics is worthless. Expecting to reform an entire system from within is probably a little much, but I think municipal elections can be won and used to create more democratic communities. I also think independent politics at the state and even national level can be valuable as educational tools, but as we see with the Greens can also backfire if we aren't careful how we present ourselves and our vision for change. Overall, Berkman's arguments are intriguing and I will definitely be thinking about them more as I learn and organize.

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.

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.

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.

The Cult-like Behavior of Corporate Jobs

Following a conversation I recently had with my spouse, we started wondering if corporations actually require cult-like behavior. That is, do workers trapped in a capitalist corporate job act like members of a cult?

We stumbled on this idea after discussing the many ways the corporations expect you to fall in-line for a job. You must dress in a suit or dress - expensive! - for interviews, and come with a resume in a certain format. You're expected to work the same hours as everyone else (for white-collar office work, typically 8am-5pm). You're expected to never take a day off except if you're lucky enough to have paid leave, and even then there is immense pressure to return to work as soon as possible, even if feeling sick.

There's many rules on the employees, but unless you have a union backing you, it's very hard to put such stipulations on the employer. And despite the huge amount of rules that make me feel sub-human, many other employees I've met at least avoid criticizing it, if not outright claim to enjoy it!

Are they lying? Are they in denial? Does the work environment indoctrinate you into some weird workaholic cult?

I found an interesting article on cults and how to avoid "unhealthy groups". The author essentially outlines a top ten list of signs that you are involved with a cult. Let's review those signs, and see if the work environment fits. I don't claim to represent every job below -- every workplace and boss is different -- but I am speaking from personal experience and experiences of my spouse, and friends and family.

1. The leader and group are always correct and anything the leader does can be justified.

This is pretty clearly true, as one's manager (or particularly the CEO) can do no wrong. Businessmen are just smart like that and know what's best. (I'm not even making that comment up, I've heard many people claim someone was smart solely because they were a manager or owned a business. In fact, my old university had promoted a businessman to run the university despite the fact that this particular guy had previously run six different failed businesses. Despite evidence to the contrary, he was still considered a very smart person until he messed up the university budget so badly that he was finally ousted, but not until after damage was done. There was a cult that insisted "running it like a business" was the best way to tackle the university's problems.)

2. Questions, suggestions, or critical inquiry are forbidden.

Again, questioning your boss is a great way to get yourself fired in most environments. But even if you make simple suggestions, often the answer I heard in the corporate environment was "Well it costs money to change so just do it the way we've always done it". There's a huge collective inertia to never question, never change direction, and simply keep working as we've always done it, regardless whether it makes sense or not anymore.

3. Members incessantly scramble with cramped schedules and activities full of largely meaningless work based on the leader’s agenda.

This one is amazingly true. From my experience, many jobs in the corporate world are "paper-pusher" type jobs -- people filing paperwork that is general meaningless other than to have a paper trail that makes the CEO or lawyers or whatever happy. While I understand some paperwork is necessary to comply with laws and be transparent to the public, firstly, much paperwork I saw was internally required and not due to any law, and, second, being required by law doesn't make it automatically meaningful either.

Life in a corporate job starts to quickly feel like such a long slog, every day you wake up and follow the same cramped, boring schedule. It psychologically drains you, making you more prone to just accepting it to get through it (questions will slow you down and cause trouble!).

It makes complete sense why cults tend to encourage non-stop work to prevent you from thinking too deeply. If you are always too busy or too exhausted, you're less likely to have the energy to challenge the system. We see this in politics pretty often, which is partly why I advocate for building a new system with the Greens rather than trying to keep up with every minutae of the major parties. They are purposely trying to exhaust grassroots movements, don't let them. Similarly, we need to be aware of our jobs doing this to us, and refuse as much pointless work as possible to focus on work that actually improves our lives.

4. Followers are meant to believe that they are never good enough.

Typically speaking, corporate jobs have a good way of putting into you that you are "trash". Between the big set of rules that control your work life (and sometimes your home life, depending on your job!), lack of raises, bonuses, or any other encouragement, it's easy to start thinking of yourself as just a lame cog in the wheel. Toss in that society immediately labels you a "bum" if you ask for anything outside of the typical checklist (such as requesting different work hours, or time off, or even a raise), and you find yourself feeling very down about yourself just for wanting a normal human life.

Again, that "business owners are superheroes" mentality seeps in here. You're not good enough because you don't own your own business, and you never will, is basically the attitude management tends to exude. It is a very much a feudal class-based hierarchy where some low-level workers are practically "untouchables".

5. Required dependency upon the leader and group for even the most basic problem-solving.

Fairly often have I run into simple "problems" where everyone in the office starts throwing their hands up, saying "Oh I don't know, I have to ask my manager". Not everything requires a manager, sometimes you just make a quick decision and it's over because it was not a serious problem and doesn't really matter, but many jobs drill into you that you should never think or ask questions and instead wait for a directive from management. When thinking and deciding might get you fired, most decide to wait, which of course holds up the work and meaningful progress while everyone waits for a decision.

6. Reporting on members for disobedient actions or thoughts is mandated and rewarded.

I don't know how often workers are rewarded, but certainly disobedience is to be reported. I once worked a teaching job where I was technically required to wear a tie. I HATE ties (it feels like it is choking me, it is a pointless expensive piece of clothing, sets up a class hierarchy in the classroom, etc.), and so I stopped wearing it. A few days later, my boss called me into a meeting to say that someone had seen me without a tie and told Human Resources that I wasn't wearing a tie. HR then contacted my boss and was told to talk to me about it.

I'm not sure why whoever that person was reported me. Perhaps a twinge of jealousy that he was suffering with a tie, when I wasn't? The corporate workplace focuses on punishing those that do no obey, and unfortunately many would rather punish than ask "Well, maybe NO ONE needs to wear a tie?". My students told me privately that they enjoyed the fact that I was more "down to earth", treated them as peers with respect and didn't dress fancy, and they wished other instructors did the same. Naturally my boss was not interested in that viewpoint when I tried to bring it up, only that HR required ties and I was in trouble.

Needless to say, I quit that job shortly afterward once I was able to secure other work. I knew I wasn't going to last long in that work environment. I know that many do not have luxury and are stuck in the job, however.

7. Monetary, sexual, or servile labor is expected to gain promotion.

All of these are possibilities. The typical person "worthy" of a promotion is painted as someone that works very hard, works overtime on weekends, and brings in more money to the company. Plus, higher positions typically require more expensive clothing -- rarely have I seen management not in a suit! -- and so spending money is also often a requirement of gaining promotion just as much as working hard and making money for the company.

While illegal, no doubt some management also settle for sexual favors. Not even for the sex itself, but for the feeling of power and control that goes with it.

8. The ‘outside’ world — often including family and friends — is presented as rife with impending catastrophe, evil, and temptations.

While stretching a little bit, I think this one can and does exist.

Firstly is the fear that the outside world is tough. I've heard managers that basically threaten that people will never find another job out in the world, the job market is too scary (especially right after the 2008 crash!), so might as well put up with this job despite being terrible. Some industries are smaller and more tight-knit (i.e., management of the companies all know each other and go golfing together), so I know of people that were threatened to be "black-balled" so they would never find a job in that industry again.

Secondly, family and friends can sometimes be labeled temptations. Think how often you are guilted or ordered to stay in the office on nights or weekends; saying you want to go home at a regular time (heaven forbid requesting time off to go home early!) to see your family is seen as "weak".

I once interviewed for a job that would have required me to travel regularly -- a few weeks a month! -- and for not even a very great salary. When I said I wanted to stay home and see my family, the men on the interview panel made faces and laughed, with one of them saying something to the effect of "Well I never see my daughter, but that's just how work is", sort of implying that it wasn't a good excuse, and that I was lazy for not accepting it too. Needless to say I was not offered the position, but I wasn't going to take it even if they did offer.

9. Recruitment of new members is designed to be purposefully upbeat and vague about the actual operations of the leader and group.

Getting Human Resources to tell you anything about the job before the interview or even on your first day of the job is often like pulling teeth. Lots of talk about it being a great company and great people and great benefits, but very little talk about what you'll actually be doing once you start working. Job ads these days are so vague as to be nearly worthless.

Plus, the interview might send you to lunch with the team, or some other nice event, as if the company will everyday pay for you and the team to get pizza for two hours. Nope, upbeat to lure you in, then it's the daily grind. I think this one does often apply to corporate positions.

10. Former members are shunned and perceived as hostile.

It depends a bit on your industry and manager, but people that leave jobs (especially if they leave to go to a competitor) are often treated as traitors and "black-balled" in the industry, making it difficult to find jobs ever again, as I mentioned earlier. This has happened to family members of mine in smaller specialized industries.

Conclusion

Having answered all of the questions, I think at least 8 or 9 strongly apply, and honestly, all 10 sound like they apply in at least some manner. So I'm going to call it that your typical white-collar office job very strongly resembles a cult trying to indoctrinate you. Which makes sense: the typical corporate job, to be able to turn maximum profit on you, has to ensure you will never leave the system and continue generating money for them even though it is a losing proposition for you. Almost by definition, the capitalist cannot make money without exploiting someone, without paying someone less than they are worth to generate a profit, and guess who that is? You. A cult mentality is required to get workers to accept the exploitation.

Keep that in mind next time you apply for a job. I don't want to join a cult, I want to do meaningful work for the community while retaining a personal identity and life. The Green philosophy is exactly that: people and planet over profits. We can create a better world. It is important that we reach out to our brothers and sisters stuck in this capitalist cult, educate and support them as much as possible. I believe part of the Green Party's role is to do that education and provide that vision for a better world.