Communalism, Libertarian Municipalism, and Confederalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Still Haven't Conquered Bread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth Still Guides Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Break for Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petra Kelly and Lessons from the German Greens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, the article says:

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

It goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Left Must Stop Playing Defense On Ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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