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.

The Evils of Racism, Poverty, and Militarism

Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) was always an important historical figure when I was in grade school. We certainly talked about him and the history of the civil rights movement, and I began to get this mental image of a great community leader that lead marches for civil rights, for the fair and equal treatment of black people. The famous "I have a dream" speech was emphasized, with his vision of black children living with white children in an integrated world.

However, when you start listening to the full speeches and not simply the snippets they play in school and documentaries, you catch glimpses of a wider philosophy. Sure, equality was a huge part of MLK's dream, he was indeed fighting for racial equality and a just system. However, MLK himself admitted that racial inequality was not the whole story; there was also a huge economic inequality component. He spoke of the need to address poverty before we could really tackle racial inequality. He also spoke of the need to establish democracy with real representation to address inequality, and how militarism and colonialism around the world was both a threat to democracy and allowed the cycle of poverty to continue. Those were dimensions of the argument that I was not as familiar with.

After seeing references to this on social media, it became clear I needed to go to the source and learn as much as I could about what MLK actually stood for, and not simply the media-friendly narrative. I picked up a copy of "Where Do We Go From Here?: Chaos or Community", which was published in 1968 as the last book written by MLK before his assassination. It's not a very long read (about 200 pages), but really shows just how eloquent MLK was and how much he believed in nonviolent resistance as a way to influence society.

While MLK's first goal is obviously to end racial inequality, he quickly moves into the need to address economic inequality. He saw economic inequality and militarism as a root cause of racism, that the three were inseparably related and so must be tackled together by coalitions of both blacks and whites in order to effect real long-lasting change.

He spent a significant amount of time in the early chapters outlining how the economic system and the government works against black people. He described how more blacks were deployed to war in Vietnam than whites, how blacks were denied access to higher education because it wasn't affordable, how blacks paid higher rent for subpar housing compared to whites, how most blacks held "menial" low-paying jobs, the unemployment rate was nearly twice what it was for whites, and few elected officials were black. He felt that much of the racism was actually economic racism, that many whites had poor opinions of blacks because of a conception that blacks were poor and uneducated. He was convinced that tackling the sources of economic inequality would go a long way to elevating the status of blacks in society and countering such racial stereotypes, and that more blacks needed to be involved in the political system.

He described that blacks since the end of slavery faced economic disadvantage in the US. As he put it on page 84:

It was like freeing a man who had been unjustly imprisoned for years, and on discovering his innocence sending him out with no bus fare to get home, no suit to cover his body, no financial compensation to atone for his long years of incarceration and to help him get a sound footing in society; sending him out only with the assertion: "Now you are free". What greater injustice could society perpetrate?

He describes poverty as "white America's most urgent challenge today", and describes how we spend so much money on warfare and exploring space but cannot commit even a small fraction of it to eradicating poverty and blight in the poverty-stricken areas of cities. In fact, MLK is very explicit about what he wants on page 95:

The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in an Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have "his due". There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power.

What struck me as interesting about this excerpt and the surrounding text was how long MLK talked about the "white liberal". He specifically complained that many white liberals that considered themselves allies of the civil rights movement would support only gradual change for blacks (gradually increasing wages, gradually integrating the schools, gradually improving housing, etc.), and he was concerned that these white liberals did not truly understand the plight of black people. They cannot wait for things to be gradually phased in; asking for the poor to wait a bit longer to afford food or decent housing or an affordable education shows either a lack of understanding of how serious the problem is, or exposes the apathy at creating a truly just society. Either way, such "allies" were not true allies and in many cases were hindrances to the movement.

This argument reminds me a lot of today's Democratic party that on the surface says it is for all of these wonderful liberal progressive ideas, but then doesn't back them up. They support universal access to healthcare, except only as expensive employer-provided insurance (leaving out those between jobs, or not working full time, and having expensive premiums and copays and deductibles even if you do) and not as a national single payer system that establishes it as a right. They support a $15 minimum wage, but want to phase it in slowly in the year 2025 so as not to "hurt" business owners. You can vote and have democracy, but only if Democrats continue to have "super-delegates" that overrule your vote. They are afraid Trump will start war and yet overwhelming vote for increased military spending. MLK considered this type of "white liberal" to be his worst opponent, because they would smile and shake your hand as they stabbed you in the back; at least you knew that the conservatives didn't like you, whereas Democrats would work with you on developing policy only to back out last minute once elected and expected to follow through.

The cost of housing and basic needs like food were a particularly strong concern for MLK, and those costs provide a great example of how the economic system disadvantages blacks and keeps them in poverty. On page 123 he describes how the system works:

... my neighbors pay more rent in the substandard slums of Lawndale than the whites must pay for modern apartments in the suburbs. ... The situation is much the same for consumer goods, purchase prices on homes and a variety of other services. Consumer items range from five to twelve cents higher in the ghetto stores than in the suburban stores, both run by the same supermarket chains; and numerous stores in the ghetto have been the subject of community protests against the sale of spoiled meats and vegetables. This exploitation is possible because so many of the residents of the ghetto have no personal means of transportation. It is a vicious cycle. You can't get a job because you are poorly educated, and you must depend on public welfare to feed your children; but if you receive public aid in Chicago,  you cannot own property, not even an automobile, so you are condemned to the jobs and shops which are closest to your home. Once confined to this isolated community, one no longer participates in a free economy, but is subject to price-fixing and wholesale robbery by many of the merchants of the area.

I think this is a very insightful paragraph that illustrates how capitalism works against the poor. Essentially, the "free market" people like to go on about collapses in poor areas. If you cannot afford a car and there is no good public transportation system, you must find a job nearby and shop at stores nearby. When the owners realize you have no other choices, they can price gouge (that "12 cents higher" translates to around $1 more per item in 2017 dollars due to inflation; so imagine every item in the store being $1 more than they are now, it adds up! especially when you are on minimum wage and every dollar counts), leading to much larger prices in the poor areas than surrounding areas. If you cannot afford transportation, then you must rent or buy a house near your job, and again you will be price gouged and pay a higher rent or higher sale price than suburban whites that can "shop around". Add on top of it that banks often charge much higher interest rates on loans for poorer people with lower wages, and poor blacks end up paying much much higher rates than whites for much lower quality products. It is also true that welfare and other programs require you to own very little; I was briefly on Medicaid and was required to submit information about my bank accounts and value of any property including a car; if the total was above a certain small amount, you were denied assistance. If you save up at all when you don't have a good job, you stop qualifying for aid and fall right back into poverty, keeping up the cycle. For suburban whites that don't understand these problems, it is easy for these economic problems to develop into a racial stereotype and feed racism.

These economic problems only serve to create a cycle that keeps the poor in a state of poverty with little hope of getting out, which further feeds racism. MLK argued that a radical transformation of society was required for us to break this cycle. As he says in his book (page 142):

For the evils of racism, poverty and militarism to die, a new set of values must be born. Our economy must become more person-centered than property- or profit-centered. Our government must depend more on its moral power than on its military power. Let us, therefore, not think of our movement as one that that seeks to integrate the Negro into all the existing values of American society. Let us be those creative dissenters who will call our beloved nation to a higher destiny...

In other words, we shouldn't seek to be part of a morally corrupt system, but work to reform and overthrow such a system in favor of one that puts people first. He specifically calls for the development of economic power among the poor via nonviolent resistance in order to force the system to change. The Green Party's slogan of "people and planet over profits" is an echo of what MLK says here, and it is no coincidence that the Green Party's Green New Deal includes an economic bill of rights to tackle poverty while also including provisions to end militarism by cutting our bloated imperialistic military budget. Some of the early state Green Parties (before the national Green Party US was founded) were founded by veterans of the civil rights movement, and so in a real way I think the Green Party is a political successor to MLK's vision.

Is there evidence that MLK would support a Green Party, or some type of "third party" political solution? MLK points out there are several paths to currently-untapped economic power, and lists that workers' unions and community organizations including churches are important allies. However, he also points out that being involved in politics is another source of power in the community and that it is important for poverty activists to be involved in democracy and bringing attention to issues. On page 158, he specifically endorses independent parties:

We will have to learn to refuse crumbs from the big-city machines and steadfastly demand a fair share of the loaf. When the machine politicians demur, we must be prepared to act in unity and throw our support to such independent parties or reform wings of the major parties as are prepared to take our demands seriously and fight for them vigorously. This is political freedom; this is political maturity expressing our aroused and determined new spirit to be treated as equals in all aspects of life. The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines.

MLK was not only supportive but encouraged people to stand together unified behind new alliances to break the "decaying political machines". While some today might say the reform wings could work, we've seen in the 50 years since MLK that reform efforts in the major parties consistently fail (in fact, such reform efforts have been unable to even slow the rightward drift of both parties, much less pull them to the left on policy), and MLK himself even expresses disappointment at the number of Democratic politicians that attended the marches with him saying they supported civil rights that then later turned against political movements once elected and voted against putting civil rights into law. Based on his statements in this chapter, I believe MLK would warn us to be wary of establishment "machine" politicians pretending to be our friends, and encourage us to support "independent parties" like the Green Party to demand changes rather than continuing to support major party "machines" that resist reform.

So what does MLK's political vision look like? His goal is to end poverty, so what policies are best to support that vision? We see elements of more leftist ideology in his statements about an economy that puts people over profits. Right-wing ideology generally assumes that the profit motive is the most powerful engine of change and therefore puts trust in the "free market" as the goal. Everything is about small government, minimal regulations in order to "encourage competition" in the market, which is really just individuals competing for profits. MLK however sees a vision where we democratically control our economy and put taking care of people as our primary goal rather than obtaining profits. MLK quotes on page 172 from Henry George's 1879 book "Progress and Poverty" (a national bestseller at the time it was published that heavily influenced the later progressive and socialist movements in America, and a book on my todo list to read eventually):

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.

In other words, the creative work that improves our lives and improves civilization cannot be done by economic slaves struggling to have their basic needs met. We could all have much more fulfilling jobs and lives in general if we weren't under the constant stress of poverty. To illustrate the problem, he also quotes an Asian writer on page 182:

You call your thousand material devices "labor-saving machinery", yet you are forever "busy". With the multiplying of your machinery you grow increasingly fatigued, anxious, nervous, dissatisfied. Whatever you have, you want more; and wherever you are you want to go somewhere else... your devices are neither time-saving nor soul-saving machinery. They are so many sharp spurs which urge you to invent more machinery and to do more business.

If we want to work toward a better society, we must first end "want", or poverty, and begin to use science and technology to improve the human condition rather than improve profits. To this end, MLK describes a number of policies to combat poverty. Perhaps most surprisingly, after an analysis on how piecemeal social programs (housing programs, educational spending, etc.) have not been successful because of a lack of integration among the programs and a lack of government funding support, MLK makes the following statement on page 171:

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely-discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

The guaranteed income is today sometimes known by the term "universal basic income" (UBI), but the goal is the same. We guarantee every American, regardless social or economic status, a basic fixed income. The income can be given directly to Americans (either as a so-called "negative income tax" or via a check similar to social security), or it can come in the form of a "jobs program" that ensures full employment, but either way, we guarantee every American has enough income to end poverty. It isn't hard to imagine this with modern technology; money is a proxy for distributing goods we produce (such as food and clothing), and if technology allows us to produce more than enough for every American (which it certainly does! I have read estimates that 40% of the food grown in American is thrown away; we're producing more than enough food, it's just not making its way to all Americans due to inefficient capitalist pursuit of profits), the problem is more of distribution than production. MLK argues exactly this: we must fix our economic system to improve distribution of supplies to people, and that in itself will put more money into the system and grow the economy toward more and better jobs that are more fulfilling than today's poverty work. As he writes, "The curse of poverty has no justification in our age... The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty." On page 199, he reiterates: "There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum -- and livable -- income for every American family."

UBI has a complex history, but interestingly enough there was one point in time in the 1960s where it seemed almost inevitable. Even conservatives like Nixon initially supported a UBI as a way of "fixing" capitalism, and from what I understand was on the verge of supporting it in Congress. However, an adviser talked him out of it until more research was done, and Watergate was to follow shortly afterward, and so the issue was unfortunately never revisited. The fact that Nixon and many politicians were supportive (or at least entertained the idea of supporting) UBI shows how far right-ward both major parties have drifted. However, the movement for UBI does seem to be increasing in recent years.

The Green platform (Section IV.D) calls for universal basic income:

We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.

Note that Greens also support public works programs that would provide full employment. There is must to do in overhauling and updating our infrastructure: transitioning to renewable energy sources, rebuilding roads, water systems, etc., so there are plenty of jobs available. No one should be unable to find some type of useful work, and we can guarantee that with a public jobs program if the private sector cannot create such useful jobs.

Ultimately, MLK argues that since we now live in the "world house" (the global economy), we must recognize that the fate of all nations are now intertwined and we must also combat racism, poverty, and militarism abroad and not just at home. He argues we should spend some of our vast resources at raising other nations out of poverty, that we should withdraw our support and capital from nations and governments that continue to push racism (such as South Africa's apartheid system that existed at the time), and investigate how to use nonviolent methods at a global level to end warfare.

We have ancient habits to deal with, vast structures of power, indescribably complicated problems to solve. But unless we abdicate our humanity altogether and succumb to fear and impotence in the presence of the weapons we have ourselves created, it is as possible and as urgent to put an end to war and violence between nations as it is to put an end to poverty and racial injustice. ... We must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'. If we have the will and determination to mount such a peace offensive...

MLK sees the problems of racism, poverty, and warfare as all stemming from an attitude of military and economic colonialism. Colonialism - and really capitalism in general - sees the world in terms of classes, of groups of people that are somehow "better" or "superior" than others, whether it be because of race, religion, or some other reason. We cannot end racism and poverty fully without confronting the reasons for violence and warfare. They must all be solved together for a real solution.

One of the Green Party's "Four Pillars" is Peace. Greens support ending wars, ending weapons arms races, and working toward diplomatic solutions when at all possible. The Green New Deal calls for drastic reductions in military spending (particularly by closing military bases throughout the world, many of which exist in allied countries far from warzones that are unnecessary for defense and serve only to occupy countries as if they were colonies and prop up the military-industrial complex) in favor of spending the money at home on social programs and infrastructure.

MLK says on page 196-197:

We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing"-oriented society to a "person"-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

He is advocating for a new economic system that realizes the promise of democracy, and rejects more "classical" views of government, in particular, the struggle of capitalism versus communism. On page 197, he goes into more detail:

We must honestly admit capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that ... they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered. Equally, communism reduces men to a cog in the wheel of the state. The communist may object, saying that in Marxian theory the state is an "interim reality" that will "wither away" when the classless society emerges. True -- in theory; but it is also true that, while the state lasts, it is an end to itself. Man is a means to that end. He has no inalienable rights... [traditional capitalism and classical communism] Each represents a partial truth. Capitalism fails to see the truth in collectivism.  Communism fails to see the truth in individualism. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism or the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.

A true democracy that shares power equally among all its citizens is the most good and just society; any other form of government provides an unequal power distribution (either putting too much power into private business or the state government) and leads to the economic and racial inequality we see. It is more democracy that we should be advocating for, rather than being specifically anti-capitalist or anti-communist.

Compare this vision with the Green Party's economic vision from the 2016 Green platform:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices. 

Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system 'ecological socialism,' 'communalism,' or the 'cooperative commonwealth,' but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making. 

Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

The Green platform echoes MLK's visions for a more good and just society based on democracy in government and business, and I believe he would highly approve of it.

In order to switch to that democratic system that is more just, MLK describes the need to expand our rights as citizens to the economic domain, as history has shown political rights alone are insufficient to fight poverty due to inequality of power.

...the concept is emerging that beneficiaries of welfare measures are not beggars but citizens endowed with rights defined by law. ... From a variety of different directions, the strands are drawing together for a contemporary social and economic Bill of Rights to supplement the Constitution's political Bill of Rights.

The Green Party's Green New Deal actually calls it's first pillar an "Economic Bill of Rights", which includes a right to full employment for all that want a job (via a green jobs program), a living wage, affordable housing, democratically-run public utilities, single payer healthcare, tuition-free public education, and more, most of which MLK had cited at one point or another in the book as being important goals to end poverty. In particular, MLK wrote that affordable housing and education likely must be addressed first before poverty can end, and in fact on page 214 says:

Housing is too important to be left to private enterprise with only minor government effort to shape policy. We need the equivalent of a Medicare for housing. 

A "Medicare for housing" is an interesting phrase I've never heard before. He doesn't explain what is meant by this term in much detail, but since Medicare ensures the elderly all have access to healthcare, I assume he means an assurance that all poor have access to housing, either via vouchers (like Section 8 housing) or public housing projects.

Having read the book, I was surprised to see how much MLK talked about poverty and war since that wasn't emphasized in my classes growing up. I especially was not exposed to MLK's proposed solutions to the problems such as universal basic income and more spending on housing and education programs beyond simple racial integration. MLK was essentially a democratic socialist in philosophy, though I'm not sure he used that term directly. Given the legacy of the "Red Scare" and any discussion of socialism and communism, and an almost patriotic support of unfettered capitalism, it isn't entirely surprising to me that this aspect of MLK has been suppressed in our public discourse.

So I described a lot of MLK's philosophy on racism and poverty, and how much of what he says overlaps with Green Party values. But how do we put those ideas into action? MLK described the action as nonviolent resistance, and used it with great success in the 1960s. I'll look more at nonviolent resistance in my next blog post.

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.

Neoliberalism and why Republicans and Democrats are so similar

A world where profit is more important than people, where the rights of corporations trump the rights of individuals, where corporations use their influence on government to turn police forces into private security that focuses on protecting corporate assets. While I've long suspected these things were true, I didn't understand these are the results of neoliberalism until I read Noam Chomsky's "Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order".

When commentators refer to "neoliberalism" they are referring to the idea that corporations are the most important aspect of society. The word comes from "liberalism" (or more specifically "classical liberalism") which is the set of economic ideas perhaps best articulated by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", a book widely viewed as a classic on how free markets and capitalism work. Smith's work is where terms like "the invisible hand" come from; Smith argued that truly free markets were able to regulate themselves and would always bend toward correct actions. Smith however did acknowledge that monopolies and other economic conditions would prevent truly free markets and some limited government to protect against that was necessary, which most proponents conveniently leave off.

"Neoliberalism", with neo being a prefix that means "new", is literally the "new liberalism", a modern offshoot of those ideas. Government is seen as a necessary evil that must be kept minimal, taxes must all be kept minimal and never applied to capital, and the private sector and "invisible hand" of the market are the most powerful forces that must be trusted to work out in the long run. In other words, the role of government is to protect the rights of business in order to maintain a free market that is safe for capital to invest. The theory is that a free market full of competition will eventually stabilize and bring valuable goods at reasonable prices and pay reasonable wages, and this free market process is "automatic", meaning that government need not and should not ever intervene. Smith's work was in the late 1700s, a very different world before industrial automation when most of the world's population were farmers. Neoliberalism is effectively the attempt at carrying his ideas into the new industrialized (and now global) economy, and Chomsky's book does a great job at showing how this policy has been disastrous and counter to democratic ideals.

Neoliberalism has been on the upswing in the United States for decades, but probably most noticeably became public policy during the Reagan era. The Adam Smith Institute proudly provides both a good description of neoliberal policy and a boast that they have influenced such policy decisions since the 1970s, to give an example. Since then, Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses have pushed for free market "invisible hand" solutions to problems. The parties disagree slightly on implementation -- with Republicans tending to lean completely toward "market-based solutions" while Democrats acknowledge some small "safety nets" might be necessary -- but both overwhelmingly agree that private business and not government needs to fix problems. We see this as members of both political parties have de-regulated banks and businesses (they call it "red tape"), cut funding for social programs and benefits, and pushed to privatize many services including utilities like water and even social security. This idea that capital -- investing in privately-owned businesses that control resources and sell to others for profit -- is superior to any other economic model and will always automatically lead to solutions of public problems is exactly the definition of capitalism.

If you don't believe how similar the two major parties are on neoliberalism, try to ask most politicians on either side about the free market or capitalism. Both Republicans and Democrats loudly trumpet private for-profit insurances as the model for healthcare, and reject any sort of publicly-funded model like single payer medicare for all, or even simply a public option to compete with private insurance. (Their differences on healthcare really only come down to whether government can require by law people to buy insurance, otherwise their plans are effectively the same). Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House leader, loudly proclaimed "we're capitalists, and that's just the way it is" when asked at a recent town hall. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans on many reforms during the 1990s, including de-regulation of banks and capital as well as "reform" of social programs like welfare (that lead to those programs being ineffective, allowing politicians to later use that as "evidence" the programs don't work and scrap them all-together). Even today, Democrats' arguments the GOP tax reform plan are mostly about not following proper Senate procedure.. We have to make taxes lower for business and capital to let the free market, is what the GOP argues, and Democrats largely agree with them. Notice how much even Democrats scream "It will raise your taxes!" -- further promoting "tax phobia", teaching citizens to be afraid of taxes and treat them as "theft" -- rather than fighting for a program that raises taxes on the wealthy to ensure a fair and just economic system for all. They're not arguing for a fair system, they're arguing that Republican voters and donors are reaping the benefits instead of their own Democratic voters and donors. Either way, it is unjust since someone most "lose" in order for another to "win" and make profits in such a "free market" capitalist system.

The "invisible hand" of the market will fix everything and government should keep interference to a minimum, according to both major parties. They only disagree on the best way to encourage a free market, not the concept of a market-based solution itself. Contrast the Green Party's platform that explicitly says:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices.

When was the last time you saw a politician saying natural resources and industry should be democratically-controlled by communities rather than owned and operated by capitalists? Unless you've seen a Green Party candidate speaking recently (or maybe a DSA-backed candidate), you probably have never seen this from major party candidates. We don't have a real debate on economic policy in this country because leaders and most establishment candidates of both parties are largely in agreement on such issues. Neoliberalism has infiltrated most of our discussion to the point that many accept its tenants as "common sense" or "obvious" because they've never heard an alternative. They almost treat the "invisible hand" and "free market" as a religion, that "free market competition" doctrine cannot be wrong and any questioning of it is blasphemy.

So neoliberalism has as its base a very capitalist-focused, free market economy with minimal government and taxes. But that isn't all. This focus on capitalism and privately-held resources has led to the problems we see in our government and foreign policy.

In order to expand profits and capital, businesses must continue to expand claim more resources (buy more private property). Naturally, this leads to businesses buying other businesses to get their resources, and leads to monopolies. Of course, in today's world, it is easy to hop on a plane or set up an electronic bank account around the world, so monopolies are not restricted to their home country. It is now easy for big business to "invade" other countries and attempt to gain private control of the resources of that country as well as the home country. They can do so economically, but it's really easy if they can use another source of power: military.

Viewed through this lens, United States intervention in other countries since World War 2 makes much more sense. George W. Bush is famous for describing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as "bringing democracy" to the people, but that never entirely made sense as presidents for decades have been close allies with very authoritarian regimes. We fund and provide weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example, despite the country being a royal dictatorship with some of the worst civil rights violations in the world. Why?

"Democracy" is a euphemism for neoliberals. They don't mean to bring literal democracy -- as in people directly governing themselves through popular vote -- or freedom, but rather to import American-style neoliberal free markets. As Chomsky put it, we're not making the world safe for democracy but making the world safe for capital, much as Adam Smith argued in his book that capital needed to be safe for a free market to continue to function. In some sense, the fight was for freedom, but freedom of business capital, not individual freedoms. When you see that, it becomes clear why many "allies" of the United States are among the worst human rights offenders in the world while we demonize other countries. Our "allies" are ones willing to do business with us (like Saudi Arabia selling us our oil addiction), while our "enemies" are ones that are economic rivals (or simply more socialist states uninterested in cooperating with privately-controlled American corporations). Notice tensions are cooling with rival countries like Russia as they become more capitalist and open to American businesses and capital, incidentally. Of course, we utilize any economic rivals as a source of anxiety to push for more military and defense spending, which itself is typically handled by privately-owned military industrial "contractors that profit from further spending. The spending that generates military profits must come from somewhere, and so taxes are raised, wages are lowered, to ensure the nation keeps spending while the capitalists continue to profit.

"Free trade agreements" are all about securing favorable conditions for corporations and capital. Since agreements like NAFTA have been signed, we've seen a shrinking middle class with lower salaries and benefits, and a growing poverty class with no safety net, as corporate taxes are cut to help fund offshoring of those corporations to generate even larger capital and profits. Not only that, but in the process, we've granted corporation more and more "human rights", allowing corporations to sue governments for profit loss (arguing for example that social programs prevent them from making as much profit as they could have) and further weaken our social safety nets. We've also empowered the president to make such binding agreements without consulting Congress, further centralizing economic power in the hands of a few individuals rather than the people. De-regulation and trade agreements have effectively left corporations with more rights than individuals. Again, leaders of both parties have generally championed free trade agreements and their effects, with only a few such as Bernie Sanders speaking out against them.

To enforce trade agreements and business property rights, we see our police forces drift toward "police states" that become more concerned with protecting private property than actually defending citizens against injustice. A well-known recent event was the DAPL protests, in which peaceful protesters were violently attacked by police forces who considered themselves "defending" the property on behalf of the pipeline that supposedly owned the land (nevermind that the protesters were largely Native Americans that had rightful ownership of that land under treaties with the United States - again, our police and military make the world safe for business and capital, not individual human rights).

While Republicans are often detestable for socially-backwards views, we must remember that Democrats usually support the same neoliberal policies Republicans do. Such policies lead to massive wealth inequalities that elevate a select few into "rich" status at the expense of pushing large amounts of Americans down into poverty, all while reducing our individual freedoms, weakening our democracy, and transforming our country into a police state more interested in protecting capital than human civil rights. Unfortunately Republicans winning elections is often a backlash to such policies hurting the average American, much like how Democrats win after average Americans continue to suffer under the same neoliberal Republican policies. Both sides get to bash each other over the head with the negative effects every 4-8 years and win in landslides because people are angry and yet feel trapped in the two party system. In effect, both parties get to "have their cake and eat it too" as they implement neoliberal policies that profit themselves and simply wait for the next cycle to sweep them into power for even more profits.

The way to combat this is not to support either major party, but to fight the entire neoliberal establishment as a whole. I believe the best way to do so is build a new political party and movement that focuses on people and planet over profits, that values human and individual rights, that believes corporations are not entitled to make money no matter what. A party that acknowledges that natural resources are precious, and their extraction and use deeply impacts the entire community if not region or whole world, and so we need more bottom-up democratic structures managing those resources rather than top-down corporate dictatorships. The Green Party is exactly that party, and I invite you to join in building the party rather than propping up either of our current major neoliberal parties. And if you want to learn more about neoliberalism and how today's world was built by both major parties, Chomsky's book is an excellent introduction to the subject.

Anatomy of Democrats' Meaningless Statements

This recent piece of fluff written by current Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez perfectly sums up how the Democratic Party still resists change while pretending to stand up for progressive values. They've done a pretty good job at mastering doublespeak, on the one hand saying the words that make people feel comfortable while on the other doing so in a way that is so vague that it is meaningless. Certainly, continuing actions by the Democrats speak louder than words: the DNC has recently purged progressives from top leadership roles, Democratic leaders in Congress have supported Donald Trump's plans for increased war and military spending and were even urging Trump to change the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, all while resisting Bernie Sanders' calls for single payer medicare for all, tuition-free college, and other domestic programs.

The CNN article above continues the trend of saying words that sound nice on the surface but are not backed up by anything when you read into it. Let's go through and see exactly how weak and uninspiring this article really is.

...we must focus on ensuring that voters across the nation trust our party...

...rebuilding trust with those who share our progressive vision for America and by addressing concerns many have raised in recent years...

Notice not once in these opening paragraphs do they acknowledge what the complaints actually are. The accusations -- first released by Wikileaks more than a year ago and later confirmed by several sources, most recently Donna Brazile in her book -- were that the primary was rigged by allowing Hillary Clinton and her campaign to control the Democratic party and effectively lock out challengers. That arcane election laws made it difficult or impossible for voters to register in time to participate in closed primaries. That state party funding was siphoned to Clinton's campaign rather than supporting down-ballot candidates.

An "apology" is not an apology if you can't own up to what you did wrong. These words are meaningless.

Democrats can win big if we're united, and we know that can only happen by healing divisions that still linger from last year's bruising presidential nominating contest. 

...

Republicans are leading a coordinated, nationwide effort of voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering...

Also notice that jab about remaining "united" at the end there, followed by a quick segue into the bad things Republicans are doing. Again, rather than admitting wrongdoing, they're talking down to progressives and treating their legitimate grievances as overreaction. "You have complaints, but does that really matter when Republicans are also bad?". It's lesser-evil-ism all over again. Yes, Republicans are doing bad things, but what are YOU going to do to fix it? Trading one evil for another isn't much of a win.

We believe Democrats can win everywhere if we organize and lead with our values.

Again, no apology, more generic words about unity. They're more interested in winning elections to retain power rather than standing up for what's right, and implying if they don't win, it's because *YOU* didn't organize and work hard enough for them. They push any blame onto progressives rather than acting like leaders and owning up to problems.

We made historic investments in Virginia, New Jersey, and in mayoral and legislative races that helped pay big dividends with our major victories last month

What they leave out is that Democrats have continued for the past year to ignore progressive candidates and races. Some of those wins were due to DSA support, not the Democratic Party, but they are of course perfectly happy to take credit for the wins (this is one of many reasons I encourage DSA members to put that effort into building the Green Party, not giving Democrats a free ride!). Democrats still support establishment candidates and races. Of course they do. This isn't new and not unexpected. What's needed is evidence that they will support progressive candidates, which they're not providing.

We will not win the future by re-litigating the past. But we do have to learn from our past mistakes.

Up to this point they still have not owned up to any wrongdoing or given specifics. And "re-litigating the past" is another jab at progressives that have still not received answers for the problems with the 2016 elections. Of course they want to move on from the past and cover it up.

But maybe I'm being too harsh. Let's see if the second half of the article has more specifics, now that they want to talk about particular proposals.

No party officer should be allowed to support, endorse or favor any candidate in the primary process.

Good sentiment, but how do you ensure this? No specifics. If they can't even discipline the last DNC chair that was strongly biased -- in fact, they defended her as Clinton made her an honorary chair of her campaign once she resigned from DNC chair -- what evidence do we have that it will change? Also, while it sort of implies that past officers weren't neutral, it does not come out and say it or apologize. This is a sentence specifically constructed as a sort of a "dog whistle" politics, designed to get a message to progressives without admitting any problems for people that don't know the story. It's a way of covering up what happened from the general public without being too obvious.

The debate schedule is decided in advance, instead of negotiating it after all our candidates have entered the race.

The debates were mostly scheduled in advance in 2016 already, problem was Clinton's campaign was allowed to direct DNC decisions way back in 2015 and so Clinton was the one deciding the debate schedule in advance! So this proposal is completely worthless and doesn't fix anything.

Any and all joint fundraising agreements will be transparent and available to all official campaigns.

This is implicitly referring to the joint agreement with the Clinton campaign that allowed her campaign to secretly work with DNC and appoint her campaign staff to DNC leadership positions. Again, not admitting that or apologizing.

However, the deep root of the problem here isn't transparency -- though transparency is of course very important for any democratic organization -- but rather the content of those agreements. The DNC used this agreement to siphon money through state parties to Clinton's campaign, which made it easier for DNC to collect money around campaign finance laws. It broke the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. Nothing here admits to that or describes how they are against it. So I read it as "I guess we'd be OK with making agreements with ANY candidate willing to help skirt campaign finance laws".

Notice also they say the agreements are available to all "official campaigns". What is an "official" campaign? That's a weasel word there. DNC can define what they mean by "official", and they can make it so that Bernie's campaign doesn't count as "official" if they want to. But even if they don't directly exclude Bernie, it only says such agreements will be transparent and available to campaigns, not the general public.

If they really wanted transparency, they'd put all of this out in the public eye. But that's not what they want. My guess is that they'll set a rule that the DNC only recognizes a campaign as "official" if you sign non-disclosure agreements and what not, so they can use legal pressure to keep details of agreements secret in future. It's an attempt at strong-arming candidates and campaigns, not really about being transparent.

we must work with states to implement policies that make it easier to vote, including vote-by-mail laws, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, expanded access to the polls and more robust voter protection efforts

These are good steps mostly, but the elephant in the room is the closed primary process itself. Having a commitment to open primaries would be better. A commitment to ranked choice voting or proportional representation would be even better.

But it's also vague. What is "more robust voter protection efforts"? They don't have any specific ideas or stories to share?

it's critical that the Unity Reform Commission provide recommendations that acknowledge the grass-roots benefit of the caucus process while also finding ways for those who have been excluded on caucus nights to have their votes counted

What does this even mean? What do they propose to do to fix it? If they can't articulate a plan here, I very much doubt they have one. A statement just for show. Likely nothing will change.

The real solution is to establish voting holidays and ranked choice voting so everyone has a chance to vote and their vote actually matters in the process. This is what Greens support.

provide for a significant reduction in the number of unpledged delegates

So in other words, they'll reduce it a bit to seem like they're doing something, but they will ultimately retain superdelegates that are unbound to votes and can vote as they please. Without a strong commitment to grassroots democracy and complete elimination of superdelegates, this is a worthless gesture. It says they still want to retain top-down control over the party as much as possible.

Greens do not have superdelegates, we believe in participatory democracy, not top-down party leadership dictating views. Why is it so hard for Democrats to say that? We know why, which is why this action means nothing. They haven't change their opinion, just trying to hide it better.

If we want Democrats to win and stay in power, we have to reform our party in ways that rebuild it from the ground up. A unified Democratic Party is a party that understands that every ZIP code counts and there's no such thing as an off-year. We've already begun making new investments in our state parties and down-ballot races

Oh, is that all of their policy proposals already? That was pretty weak and non-specific. They're just back to repeating themselves on talking points now. Yet again, pushing "unified" without addressing the concerns is an insult to progressives. Also again, investing in state parties and down-ballot races is meaningless, of course they're going to do that for establishment candidates they back, what we want to see is reform that doesn't shut progressives out of the process.

we changed our rules in October to ban corporate donations from political action committees whose goals conflict with our platform

So they still accept super PAC money, just as long as it matches their platform. What's in the platform? Read it yourself. But I can tell you what's missing from the platform: most progressive requirements, such as single payer healthcare, tuition-free college and student debt relief, ending the wars and reducing defense spending. Even when they sort of adopt progressive principles like a living wage, they do what they're doing in Pittsburgh -- slowly phase in $15/hr over the next *7* years. Families can't wait 7 years for better wages, and by then, inflation will make $15 worth less and still be a poverty wage. Democrats platform puts rights of business and corporations over people. Only accepting money from people they agree with will only exacerbate that problem, not fix it.

Plus, from their very own platform: "Big money is drowning out the voices of everyday Americans, and we must have the necessary tools to fight back and safeguard our electoral and political integrity.... We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses."

I don't have a lot of hope they will even honor this rule when their platform says they want to eliminate big money and super PACs, and yet never talk about that. Their platform is just words to them, not a code of conduct to live by. Actions speaker louder than words. They're not even trying to work toward these goals within their own party, what evidence do we have they'd actually push for it in government?

Contrast with the Green Party, which already today requires that ALL of its candidates refuse all corporate and super PAC money. We walk the walk because we believe strongly in it.

The DNC has come a long way since the 2016 election, but we know we have much further to go to earn the trust of voters and bring more people into the electoral process. We have our values and the support of the vast majority of the American people by our side. And when we lead with those values, we win.

Actually nearly half of all Americans are registered independents. Independents make the majority of Americans. They're fed up with the two party system. If you really wanted to earn the trust of voters, you'd talk about why the Democratic party has lost millions of voters, why the independents are growing, and what you'd do to win them back. But not a peep.

But aside from that, what has the DNC done to earn the description of "come a long way"? They certainly didn't provide any specific policies or evidence in this article. They didn't even do a great job explaining their values, even though they supposedly "lead" with those values.

Hopefully this deconstruction of their statement has been helpful. Democrats continue to play this game, saying just enough to convince people to stay in the party but never producing real meaningful change. Democrats hate their progressive base, but sort of know they need them to win, so use this doublespeak to keep the party together. But they have no interest in becoming progressive, or letting progressives win. Their goal is to retain control of the Democratic party as a major political party, and control as much as government as possible to enrich their checkbooks.

The Green Party meanwhile has been a progressive party since its very inception. So why are you donating your money, time, and effort to a party that has done everything it can to lessen your voice while still demanding your vote? I invite you to put that energy toward building the Green Party instead. We win when we have candidates, we just need more to join the cause and run for office as a Green. I've spoken with many voters that are Democrats only because they don't feel they have an option yet, but spoke highly of Greens and said they'd switch in a heartbeat if Greens ran more candidates.

We have the support of many Americans behind us, we just need to continue to grow. Remember that statistics about nearly half of voters being independents: there are way more of us than corporate establishment Democrats. They control the party structure and can squelch progressive voices within their party organization easily and legally. But they cannot stop progressives coming together outside the system. They cannot stop a strong Green Party. A strong Green coalition could easily overtake the Democratic party in terms of size, because their membership is 22% of voters and falling. That's not an impossible climb to reach 10-15% of voters and challenge the size of Democrats if we keep spreading the message and stop falling for Democrats' tactics designed to "keep us in line" rather than reform. At that point, with a strong Green challenger, Democrats MUST reform or be replaced. Working outside the system rather than in it is, in my opinion, the best and only way forward.