Some Words of Advice for our Comrades in the Streets

Throughout the United States, revolt against police violence and the state has broken out in response to the callous murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. To help contribute to this outbreak of militancy, we have published these words of advice on successful protest from Ahmed Nada, a veteran of the Egyptian protest movements in 2011, 2012, and 2013. 

Image credit: Horreya Press

Protests are chaotic: they often begin suddenly and with minimal prior organization with the embers of a spark few if any could’ve seen coming, an enraptured anger manifesting in people taking to the streets to vent their frustration. Occasionally, this can occur in the backdrop of a movement with a couple thousand followers on a social media platform with an event a few hundred promised to attend, of whom maybe tens did. None of that matters when the first fires are set, when the first rubber bullets are fired, or when the first police car plows through a protester: a protest becomes a war where the participants are naturally unequal, with organized police on one side, and the other only vaguely organized in the best of cases. I was involved in several protests, which ranged from completely unorganized, to planned months in advance – though in the heat of the moment, much of the organization becomes moot, forgotten, or miscommunicated. Such is the nature of attempting to create order where no hierarchy exists, between people who, by their existence within the protest, are not in the best position of their lives. The financially capable would not risk to protest unless their financial capabilities have been thoroughly eroded – protesters have very little left to lose, in most cases. These people, the forgotten, the downtrodden, the distraught, are confused, in some stage of shock, and enveloped in a cloud of tear gas. This exact moment, the moment where a protest’s reality crystallizes, where the romantic image of chanting in a manicured square flanked by boulevards lined with like-minded revolutionaries evaporates into a cloud of white gas best described as a liquid attempting to drown you where you stand, and gives way to the harsh reality of meaningful protest. This is the moment that will make or break a protest, because it is the moment when those who can’t bear it will leave, and those who can will rally behind the first person lucid enough to lead anyone to do anything, and they will often be the least prepared and most vocal.

I have lived this moment more times than I can remember, or care to remember. There is no romance in protest except for the people who never experience it, who have the fortune of reading about it later on, or who feel the misfortune of reading about its failure. My first real protest, the first where I saw someone die, I was twelve years old. I wouldn’t turn thirteen for another seven months, and I had no choice in the matter. I had no convictions, no revolutionary fervour, no ideals; I wasn’t swept up in the moment, a mud-faced child in a painting drawn by a Frenchman a hundred years later. I was in the streets because I was one of a handful of people in my building who weren’t retirees. I was given a broomhandle that was later upgraded to a machete and told to defend my area or risk being killed by the people who were firing bullets on the other side of town; whether they were ‘thugs’ or cops didn’t matter. I was twelve years old and it was fight or fight, because even if fighting meant death, flight meant death too. In a way, I was fortunate to have been that young; my later-diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder was treated earlier than most of the others, and I was able to internalize lessons more quickly, because I had no solid conception of how the world worked. This is what allowed me to begin to organize two years later, as one of the stewards of those more organized, less chaotic protests, aged two months away from fifteen. I have had the misfortune of witnessing protests from the perspective of a child swept up in them unwillingly, and the perspective of a teenage, bravado-filled organizer who believes everything is figured out until it isn’t. I write this not as an analysis, nor as a parable, but as an open letter to protesters, especially in America given the current circumstances. I stand in solidarity with the protesters in Minneapolis, Columbus, and any other cities who have had enough with constrained silence, and if anyone involved in those protests or future protests is reading this, I hope it can help you. My aim with this piece is that you come out of it with a better understanding of how protests work in the moment, lest you end up in one of them, or seek to organize one. If you remember nothing else, however, I hope you remember to send any children involved in the protest home. If you can’t attend a protest without bringing your child with you, then let staying home with your child be your praxis; children have no place in protests, for their sake.

It must be acknowledged that my experience is not fully applicable to Americans:  for one, Egypt’s urban planning is radically different. Furthermore, during the early 2010’s in a country held back technologically, protests, where the internet and all communications have been cut off, are a very different proposition to the interconnected – and easy to track – world of the present. With this, my first and foremost tip for you, the would-be protester, is to turn location services off on your phone prior to leaving your home, and turn your phone itself off before you set off toward the protest. You most likely don’t need to worry about being tracked; if your identity is known, the authorities have other ways of finding you. Turning off your phone is a benefit for your fellow protesters, because location services and WiFi connections, particularly municipal WiFi, are an excellent way of gauging how many protesters exist and where they exist. We got by without phones, we had to adapt, because the government shut down every communications network entirely, and one of the key methods of adaptation was using relays. A relay, in this case, is essentially a person tasked with maintaining a set – ballparked – distance from another relay. They can be organizers, ideally they are, but they can be anyone with a keen sense of where they are relative to others; tall people, rejoice, this is your praxis. A relay network allows organizers or torch-bearing leaders forged from the clouds of the scene I described to send and receive information, especially orders, without the need for any means of communication apart from a soon-to-be worn-out throat. For anyone wondering about social media or the like, forget that it exists during a protest. Social media is not the driver of nor the key to a revolution, it is at best useful for organizing beforehand and agreeing on a meeting point or coordinating with other organizers, but is of no use to you during a protest apart from as a distraction; that isn’t to discount the use of organizing with other protests, though that’s a bit down the line.

Organizers are your key source of communication, both with the other protesters – who throughout this process will be, at best, confused and anxious, and at worst rampaging with zeal – and with other organizers. If you see yourself as an organizer, or find yourself in a position of sudden power during a protest, your job is to watch for your protest’s problems from within and without: the police are not your only enemy. Your enemies are the police, anxiety, injuries, unstable troublemakers within your ranks, perverts who would rather grope other protesters, and hunger – I hope to address each of these. The easiest and most futile-feeling, time-consuming, and infuriating to deal with are the troublemakers. They will exist in every protest, even the most well-organized one, because opportunists are fostered by capitalism and indoctrinated from birth to seek their own benefit. They are unfortunate, but you need not humor them for the sake of numbers: kick them to the curb, leave them behind, and be alert for any more in your midst. Do so as early as possible, because time and stamina are not a luxury you can afford to squander. Harassers from within aren’t the only thorn in your side, however, because with the chaos of a protest will come injuries, whether inflicted by the cops, gravity, or the inertia of the horde. Ensure that anyone – anyone – with any – any – medical knowledge is designated as a medic and sent to anyone who needs medical attention. There are guides all over the internet for providing field aid, and their writers are more qualified than I will ever be, though I would caution against one tip they may give: avoid the temptation to clearly label medics. I have seen too many clearly-labeled medics get shot by snipers who have never existed, using rifles that were never obtained. Know your medics, make sure every organizer is aware of where medics are and where medics are needed, and if you have the fortune of a stable, secure central location to ferry the wounded to, ensure it is defended and secure. Non-medics who are strong enough to carry the wounded safely without inflicting further injuries should be made to do so; any help that isn’t counter-productive should be welcome. The main thing to remember if you are an organizer, relay, or medic is to avoid hesitation. I cannot stress this enough: things develop quickly during protests, and they will not be fun, nor will they be calm. Time is not a luxury you can waste.

Organizers’ most difficult job is the same as the riot police’s most difficult job: controlling the crowd. As a rule of thumb, if you can’t communicate it to a five year old through a game of telephone played in a warzone inside of an echoy aluminum barrel, you can’t communicate it to a crowd of protesters. Keep orders simple, sensible, and repetitive. When riot police haven’t arrived yet, have protesters fan out and space out your organizers. This allows you to claim more space and intimidate the police’s first responders. It can be tempting to maintain this shape, because it looks the most impressive on camera, but that is a reporter’s concern, not yours. When riot police arrive, tighten up. Every organizer should repeat this: tighten up, get closer, tighten up, get closer. Any stragglers will be enveloped by riot police as soon as they stray from the group. You must be keenly aware of how the police work, particularly riot police. There are several resources online as to how your local riot police operate, though they generally follow the same few tactics. You can listen to their scanners to get a read on what they’ll do, but note that they’re often aware that you can hear them. There are methods of listening to ‘secure’ channels on walkie-talkies that are as simple as hooking up a phone with a headphone jack to a pair of headphones and tuning AM and FM frequencies – usually the higher bands for AM, lower for FM – until you hear chatter. That said, some cops are aware of this too, and will call each other on phones instead. In that case, your only remaining methods would open you up to FBI interrogation, so I would suggest avoiding them entirely for the sake of your own safety.

Regardless of their statements of intent, most riot police begin by attempting to intimidate protesters. They will have their most heavily-armored officers at the front, and they will first stand in front of the protest in a line, portraying the same statement of intent that Roman Legionnaires would give to protesters two millennia ago: we are more organized than you, we have better equipment, and this isn’t our first rodeo. Some protesters will give in to the intimidation, whether by leaving the protest altogether – which will lead to their envelopment by the armored line to get arrested on the other side – or by charging at it head-first only to be enveloped by it and beaten. This is the second crucial moment of a protest: the arrival of the enemy. If you have the organization necessary to form into a line of protesters, do so. You have the numbers advantage, they don’t. By forming a line against theirs, by enveloping your wounded chargers into your own line to be treated, you send the police a statement of your own: we are organized, and where we lack in equipment, we make up for it in bodies. You don’t have to believe in this statement, yourself, nor do any of the other protesters; the cops will, and it will shake them. The officers at the front are often trained not to show when they’re shaken, but listen to the scanners and you’ll hear their will begin to break – they can’t leave by choice, and it’ll show if you press them hard enough. The staple weapons of riot police, the batons – electrified or otherwise – and the shields, are not the concern of most protesters; only the ones unfortunate enough to be at the edge will ever even see them. The weapon most protesters will feel, however, is tear gas. When the first canisters are fired, they will be aimed roughly into the middle of the crowd if the cops can see it, or downrange above the first line of protesters. When you see those silver canisters, throw them back at them if you can, or throw them as far away from the protest as you possibly can; instruct others to do the same if they can hear you. The easiest method I’m aware of to combat the effects of tear gas are to hold a rag up near – but not on – your face with a capful of Pepsi (not sponsored, I swear) poured onto it as evenly as possible. It should help you weather it; in the age of COVID, a surgical mask with a capful on it will also work, but make sure it doesn’t touch your face because it’s sticky and may restrict breathing.

The cops in armor may be the most intimidating, but they aren’t the most dangerous: the mounties are. Mounted cops have been a staple of riot control since the first revolution in recorded human history, and for good reason: they break through lines with the force of a several-tonne creature carrying an oft-padded, well-armed cop who can strike anyone who poses any semblance of a threat. They are the final boss of protests – until the army gets involved, that is – and they have the potential to derail any level of organization you’ve reached. The key to stopping them is not to attempt to stop them: make way for the cavalry, then surround them. The horse is confused, anxious, and erratic, and its rider can’t attack in every direction. Let the horse into the crowd, envelop it into the crowd, pull the mountie off the horse, and throw them back into the riot police’s face. Show the mounties mercy, because this will demoralize the police further, and will avoid radicalizing the cops into attacking more vigorously. The ‘mounties’ we faced in 2011 wielded swords and assault rifles, the ones you will face will have batons. You can and will survive them if you know how to mitigate their effects. When mounties appear, prepare the medics for the influx of injured. Replenish your lines, and as soon as you envelop the horse, strengthen your line against the riot police. As protesters, you must channel the Persian Immortals and use your numbers to portray invincibility, as cheesy as that sounds. The single most effective charge a mountie can perform is across a road median, because it is often elevated and grassy, where the horse has the inertia and landscape advantage against protesters. Roads with medians were originally conceived to prevent another Paris uprising, for just this reason. They are also more difficult to hold because they are wider. Wide boulevards are not the mark of a city built for opulence, they are the mark of a city prepared to face protesters with violence. You need to know your city and know your protest location(s).

Image credit: VetoGate

The most common tactic in a protest is to have one central protest in the heart of the city – a main square, a wide boulevard, a main avenue or thoroughfare – because that allows numbers to be portrayed in their most visible, most evident form. This is great for photo-ops, not so much for actual defensibility. The vast majority of American cities, especially ones built after Washington, DC, the first city where the United States Government consciously chose to build with protests in mind – wide boulevards, interconnected squares with huge empty greenspace, et cetera – are built to make a lasting protest as difficult as possible. Main roads, intersections, and squares have several wide roads leading toward them, few – if any – barriers already existing, and openings for police to pour in from on several sides. Police precincts will often be situated on main roads, both to ensure they are difficult to cut off, and to ensure they can reinforce police and rearm them easily. American cities, in fact most western cities, are built to be hostile to protests; the urban planning is inherently violent. Your worst nightmare in a protest is to end up where we ended up in 2011 at the beginning: surrounded on all sides. You have numbers, you will always have the numbers advantage, but numbers are meaningless when you’re surrounded, especially if you’re choked for supplies. The best and most difficult solution to this is to stage several protests, or fan your protests out to cover several squares/intersections, in order to project power over the streets in between. Cops are not dumb, they won’t risk getting surrounded themselves. If you control every square or intersection around a police precinct, that precinct has been, for all intents and purposes, neutralized. Maintaining several locations allows you to reinforce them and create a two-front battle if police attack from the side you already have protesters on elsewhere, and they are keenly aware of this, and will be denied that avenue of attack.

Minneapolis, credit: Google Maps

In order to maintain coordination between different protests, at least one organizer must risk being the point of communication. This is dangerous, though you need not deal with the same ferrying back and forth we had to do, because your communications are open – for now, at least. The organizers who communicate must stay in the know and up to date, but must stay far from the front line. Their identity must be protected at all costs, along with as many identities as you can protect. Don’t share photos that haven’t blurred identifying features – faces, clothing, et al – and don’t share names nor specific locations of organizers. As much as possible, limit communication with the outside world, especially for frivolous reasons. You can boast later, do not waste time. Time is not a resource you can afford to waste. It isn’t the only resource, however, and the next step once an area has been secured is to secure resources: food, water, medicine, contraceptives – yes, you’ll need those just in case – you will need all of the resources you can get. Don’t worry about being branded as ‘looters’, you will be branded as looting thugs either way. The main thing to remember is to avoid harming anyone in the process: the workers are on your side, and you are on theirs. We had the fortune of our comrades in a KFC right on Tahrir Square providing us with food, water, and Pepsi (not sponsored, it’s just more effective than Coke in my experience, sorry) for tear gas protection. We also had the fortune of pharmacists joining us. Should you not have these boons, stores aren’t that hard to raid for supplies. I would suggest avoiding causing too much damage, because corporate doesn’t have to fix it, some poor employee does; remember the human who has to deal with the fallout of your actions, and try to remind fellow protesters as much as you can. Once resources have been gathered, you need to construct barricades. SUVs, large, new-model pick-up trucks, these can be flipped onto their side with minimal effort from a half dozen people, and are very hard to move afterward. Vans can be used for heated sleeping spots, as can buses. Set up tents if you can, especially if you’re in an area with a nice enough climate. You will then deal with the next challenge: the first night.

The first night is the hardest. People will leave. People will have to stay up on nothing but caffeine (don’t drink all the Pepsi; not sponsored) to defend those who sleep. People will get horny, get fearful, or cry. It’s normal. Some people may play music, sing, or write. It will be incoherent, but the incoherence can be beautiful. The people who make it through the first night are easier to organize the next day. The night is also when you are most likely to get raided by the riot police. Organizers should sleep only in shifts, two or three hours at a time, and maintain relays as much as possible. If you have multiple protests going, coordinate to make sure no protest is fully asleep at any point. An integral part of the first night is to talk to the people who break down, because that may be their breaking point. If you are not yet fully surrounded and they can leave safely, they should be allowed to; a protest is not compulsory, and being allowed to leave is what personally radicalized me, among others. Do not forget your ideals for the sake of winning a battle; remind other organizers of that too. The first night will be ideologically challenging, because it is when you will first get to speak coherently to others, especially other organizers, and I guarantee you that you run the gamut of ideologies but share a common desperation and exasperation. I have fought alongside fellow communists, anarchists, liberals, conservatives – yes, they’re odd – and even Islamists. The alliance is tenuous, it has an expiration date, and it is uncomfortable for everyone involved, but you are better with them in the moment. Your protest is not a movement, even if it started as part of one. If your protest is successful, you will most likely be betrayed by one or all of the groups you have allied yourself to, willingly or otherwise. You will find yourself in the same ranks as people you despise, because you share a common desperation, or otherwise you wouldn’t be there. Break bread together and sleep under each other’s watch, because you are on the same side for now. You don’t need to make enemies, because you all have enemies outside the tent, van, or bus, and they won’t hesitate to break you.

Image credit: VetoGate

A major aspect to breaking you, especially long-term, or before you can ever hunker down, is the aforementioned urban planning. Highways were designed to encircle the city and enable the military to enter the city center as quickly as possible; destroying black communities was a bonus, and the tarmac, gas, and car companies were all too happy to fund it all. A highway is a death sentence. You can hold it for a time – focus on the ramps, they’re more manageable – but it will be your doom if left open, and if the army enters the fray. We were fortunate in 2011 and 2013, the army was on our side, but in 2012 it wasn’t, and that led to a rift within the army itself, but only after they plowed APCs through our lines and fired live rounds into us. You need the army, but if it’s not on your side, you have just met the final boss of a protest. Flee onto sidestreets, barricade them with tipped-over cars, use buildings to stage, sleep, and store supplies; barricade the doors and roof access, but keep an eye on rooftops – don’t stay on rooftops, they’re too open. You want to create scenarios where, as said before, you can encircle the police if they attempt to attack you from any side. Cities with grid plans were built to counteract this by providing no clear sidestreets, having several avenues of attack leading to the same areas, and having wide streets that are difficult to barricade. Cities like Minneapolis are especially problematic due to their pedestrian bridges, which provide easy alternate routes for police. The deck is stacked against you by the hostile planning of your city, more so than it was against us. Cairo is divided by a river, and bridges are choke points the police would rather not get stuck on, nor should you. The main streets leading into downtown Cairo have squares – roundabouts – where the narrow roads meet, which, if held, can protect Tahrir Square’s central location and force the police to attack from outside of the city center, in only a few manageable directions, particularly if the only highway leading into the heart of the city is controlled. If your city is not a grid, and you have characteristics similar to that, or better, then you only have everything else I’ve mentioned to worry about.

Cairo, credit: Google Maps

Apart from the logistics and chaos of protests, the hardest part is the purpose and impact of it all. While organizing beforehand is often a boon underestimated by the media and casual observers, you cannot organize the aftermath any more than you can organize the aftermath of a hurricane. Alliances will break whether you achieve your goal or the protest gets crushed, and each splinter of the alliance – and possibly within those once-allied factions – will face a different set of consequences and will have a different view of the events and their aftermath. There has never been and will never be a protest of more than a few thousand people with a consensus over the aftermath of it all because fundamentally, the only unifying factor you all had was being fed up and lacking much to lose. This is not to say that you can’t shape the aftermath, however, and this is where the real power of organization enters the fray: continual pressure. You will have failures, and you will have to learn from them. You will have successes snatched away from you by some of the groups you fought alongside; we had 2011 snatched away from us by the army, then by Islamists, both of whom sought to imprison us for our trouble. The key is not in dwelling on your failures, but using them to propel you forward. The single greatest weapon you have is frustration because a protest is the end result of a swelling mass of frustration. The worse it gets, the closer you get to a nationwide breaking point, but by the same token, the harder it gets to organize effectively. Our worst loss was not in 2011 when we had our revolution snatched from us, it was in 2012 when we organized a protest entirely from scratch, entirely made up of like-minded groups, only to have the army crush us in an instant. It was the worst loss because it had no lessons for us apart from one, which I will relay: you need armament on your side, and the greatest armament you can get is by splitting the army. This is easier said than done, but it is very worth it. Often, the army itself will begin to split when they’re forced to shoot their neighbors because they aren’t as drilled into murder as the police are; they aren’t built for suppression… usually.

The key to gaining support is not retweets, nor is it op-eds, nor is it sucking up to the media with peaceful protests that achieve nothing apart from spend the entire national surplus of frustration on futility: the key is continual pressure. We succeeded in 2011 and had it stolen from us, so we protested again in 2012 and got crushed, so we rode the momentum of the frustration to a protest involving one-third of the country’s population in 2013, and that cannot be ignored as easily as a couple million people crushed under an APC. You will have endless failure until you don’t, and that moment will be equal parts surreal and terrifying, because you have no control how any protest ends nor where it goes from there until you begin the next one, and that is true of your successes, more-so than your failures. Success breeds factions that seek to profit off of it, whether monetarily or through power dynamics, and you will have to contend with that. Build your ally base out of factions you know you can trust. Avoid allies of convenience outside of protests themselves, and maintain strong relationships with factions that can’t protest as easily as you can; the unions, the people working three jobs, the people on overtime graveyard shifts who can’t risk their credit rating falling any more than it has. These are your base, these are your allies when you succeed, and they are how you channel popular pressure into legitimate change, because you are a protester, you are illegitimate by your very nature, but you are the hammer of the legitimate. Protest until you succeed, counter-protest when – not if – your once-allies ride your successes for their own benefit, and above all, do not surrender for the sake of civility, legitimacy, nor platitudes of peace; your fallen comrades were given none of the leeway these concepts imply, and you should not grant your enemies this leeway either. Protesting is not an easy path, nor is it a bloodless one; the myth of the peaceful social media protest was created to give you false hope in pointless action. Remain steadfast in your opposition, maintain organizers who can harden with your failures and maintain stability with your successes, and don’t let up, for the sake of your human losses. Whether the protest fizzles out, is crushed, or achieves its goal, you are in a pantheon of a minority of humanity who risked everything for the sake of change, and that is the only romance you will ever need in a protest. Good luck, comrade.

Radio Free Seoul

In the second installment of the Internationalism series, Remi and Ahmed are joined by Bori, a South Korean student activist for a discussion of Korean history, the social dynamics underlying today’s political situation, the prospects for a left resurgence in RoK, and the elusive nature of South Korea’s much-maligned neighbor to the north and the unreality of reunification talks.

Toward the Mass Strike: Interview with Two Southern Organizers

Marisa Miale interviews Kali Akuno and Adam Ryan, labor organizers in the south, on class struggle in the era of COVID-19. Read more about Cooperation Jackson here and Target Workers Unite here

“Manifestación”, Antonio Berni (1934)

 The American South has long been a forbidden fruit for organized labor. Haunted by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and beaten down by anti-worker right-to-work laws1, Southern workers continue to face harsh conditions. With the deep concentration of poverty across the South, COVID-19 is poised to leave a trail of devastation in its wake, disproportionately impacting the South’s Black, immigrant, and working-class communities.

Since the failure of Operation Dixie in the late 1940s, when the Congress of Industrial Organizations poured resources into organizing Southern industry and saw little success, the increasingly stagnant and bureaucratized unions of the 20th century have, for the most part, either failed to make inroads below the Mason-Dixon line or given up on Southern workers altogether. The United Auto Workers have spent years trying to organize Volkswagen manufacturing workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee2, but Volkswagen’s sophisticated and relentless union-busting has continued to ward off the UAW leadership’s shallow, business-oriented approach to organizing. Though a rising tide of worker-led reform movements like Unite All Workers for Democracy3stand to change the labor movement for the better, the union bureaucracy remains incapable of breaking the Southern ruling class.

Like a light shining through the cracks, though, a different kind of organizing has emerged in the South. Often fighting without contracts or legal recognition, insurgent and unorthodox organizers like the Southern Workers Assembly, Cooperation Jackson, and Target Workers Unite have made waves among Southern workers, relying on militant, experimental tactics and rank-and-file democracy rather than slow-moving bureaucratic machinery and top-down leadership. In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, these organizers have stood on the front lines, charting the path toward mass action for workers across the world. In coalition with dozens of organizations across the country, they’re calling for working people everywhere to rise up on May 1st in their homes, workplaces, and communities to fight the program of austerity and mass death imposed by the state in the midst of the pandemic.

In anticipation of May Day, we’ve sat down to talk with two organizers from Cooperation Jackson, an organization building economic democracy and solidarity in Jackson, Mississippi, and Target Workers Unite, a militant retail worker organization fighting one of the largest corporations in the United States. The full interviews are below.

Marisa Miale: Hi Kali. Can you start by telling me a little bit about your background as an organizer and the work that Cooperation Jackson does?

Kali Akuno: Mm-hmm. I live in Jackson, Mississippi. I’m one of the co-founders of Cooperation Jackson. I was initially born in Los Angeles, California, and migrated here very explicitly for political work, work around the Jackson-Kush Plan4, which is a long term strategy, first and foremost centered around the self-determination of people of African descent. It’s part of a broader program of decolonization and socialist transformation.

M: What led you to Jackson specifically?

A: What led me to Jackson specifically was the organization I was in for a good chunk of my life, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. After September 11th, we assessed that the state and the forces of capital were going to use that to really press forward neoliberalism on a deeper level and in much more oppressive ways. Some of the work that we were particularly focused on at that time was around reparations. There was a huge reparations, global reparations movement, that we were playing a leading role in developing.

And then the other main campaign that we were focused on at that time was around political prisoners, some of the things around Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case and fighting against him being executed in the late 1990s, being the tip of the spear of that. After that, we knew just from our own history of fighting COINTELPRO and being victims of that, that this was going to be a perfect excuse to make everything that happened during COINTELPRO5, this was going to make that legal

So we kind of reorganized our plans, re-articulated a number of different things in our work, and said that we wanted to re-pivot to do a much more concentrated power building project, and we wanted to see what we can really build. This was in 2003.

We created a five-year plan, and we were looking to recruit many of our members to come on down, including myself, leave different places that we were scattered out over in Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Detroit to move on down to Jackson and add some skill and capacity there.

I moved to New Orleans right after the flood, as I was a national organizer of the organization at that time, to really try to focus and hone in on that effort. But that really sharpened some things for us in our minds at the time, that led us to believe we were on the right track around trying to concentrate our forces and it made us look much more deeply at the impact that ecological calamity and climate change is going to have on the black communities in the Deep South.

So we really honed in on Jackson, and made it much more important for me and others to move here and try to concentrate our energy in doing a real dual power type experiment, and that’s what we’ve been working on the past 15 years really, with the Jackson-Kush Plan.

Logo for Cooperation Jackson

M: Could you tell me more what you mean by a dual power experiment?

A: For us, particularly at that time, it meant building autonomous institutions and an autonomous practice of self-governance in the community. That would do two things. One, it governs itself and does a lot of taking care of basic needs, particularly in a poor community like Jackson, that they did not have the capacity and will to do, to try to meet some of those needs on our own through mutual aid and solidarity economy type work, [like] building cooperatives. Then the other piece of it was really to stop the repressive arm of the state. 

That’s the notion of dual power that we were trying to build and trying to push forward with the Jackson-Kush Plan. For us in practice what that would look like from 2003 to 2012, 2014, was People’s Assemblies, I think was the highest expression of our practice in that regard, where we were bringing different forces in the community together just to make real democratic decisions on how to handle everything from supporting a lot of the elderly, a lot of work around mediating the turf wars and communal violence taking place, both in the community and on a domestic front. Those are things that People’s Assemblies specialize in. Also raising broader democratic issues around how to contain the police, how to have a counter-force to violence perpetrated by the police.

So those are all things that the People’s Assembly did well. Then at different times, it also came together real well to provide extensive mutual aid during times of crisis or, one of its best moments was doing, right after Hurricane Katrina. Jackson had a distinguishing note of being the city with the fourth highest number of folks who were displaced from New Orleans in particular and were forced to move here. They could be just dumped here. That initially created a lot of tension within the community, particularly around some of the government programs like housing. There’s not much public housing in Jackson, not anymore. What they did have was a lot of Section 8 housing.6 They moved them up in the priority list, where a lot of folks in the community had been on the waiting list for 5, 10 years. That created some real tension in the community, but the People’s Assembly did a good job of mediating that, and then providing relief to folks. 

M: I want to walk back a little bit and ask if you could give a brief explanation of what a People’s Assembly is and how they make decisions.

A: The People’s Assembly model you had here, that I first had because there’s still an institution called a People’s Assembly here, but it’s unfortunately in my view turned into more of an information sharing institution for the Mayor, more so than an assembly. For us, an Assembly, it was something that was facilitated by, in essence, a coalition of forces. The group that initiated a call for it was the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, in alliance with a longstanding set of left forces in town. Which here would range from the NAACP. We had a small fraction of Communist Party and Committees of Correspondence, a few small anti-fascist groups that have been around for a while. All of them played a key role over the years, building the People’s Assembly.

It was really rooted in five particular neighborhoods where it had some real strength. Two in South Jackson, one in West Jackson, which, West Jackson is the largest geographic area in the city, but one in West Jackson and then two in North Jackson. These are all working-class neighborhoods, Black working-class neighborhoods. They would primarily meet in parks and churches, depending on the season, depending on weather. Folks would come together primarily based on different issues at their height once a month, and people would bring forth different issues that they wanted to have addressed, make a pitch or argument for. People would take up counter-arguments for. There would be a striving first for consensus. If consensus couldn’t hold after two rounds there would be a vote, and that would have to win by two thirds.

Then once the decision that was made by the group that was there, typically there would be a committee, a volunteer committee would emerge to carry out the work, that would be actually right there, people would sign up for. Then the continuing of executing that work would be handled primarily through that committee. Then the different committees that were created would form what was called a People’s Taskforce. The People’s Taskforce was really coordinating a lot of in-between times of the Assemblies, to make sure the work was carried and what folks could do, and at different times set the agenda.

I would say just for my own editorial, just so folks know, the Assemblies typically work best in times of crisis. Here, that was quite often because of being a Deep South state run by neo-confederates and fascists in the main. Both politically and socially, they were always advancing some measure attacking immigrants or queer people or abortion clinics. You name it, there’s always some level of attack which is going on even now, with COVID. 

So folks would be very good in responding in defense of each other. Where we would often see sometimes some challenges and troubles was articulating what we were for, and building a degree of consensus around that. That sometimes often broke down between those who had some form of a religious or spiritual practice, those who were more either agnostic or atheistic in their orientation. So the impact of being in the Bible Belt would show up at those kinds of moments. In terms of fighting the forces of white supremacy and fighting reaction, that’s typically when it was at its full strength.

M: That makes sense. Do you want to tell me a little bit about how the current crisis is impacting people in Jackson, with COVID and everything?

A: Yeah. For lack of a better term, it’s very schizophrenic. The mayor has been trying to enforce fairly strict physical distancing type orders, and encouraging folks to take it seriously. That’s been hard because there was a bunch of conspiracy and just nonsense stuff floating around the Black community, not just here but nationally. So I know I started, even in February, was arguing with folks in different radio forums here and online. There was this notion that started getting put out in a lot of Black, Afrocentric political circles that only Chinese people could get COVID-19 and Black people were immune. I don’t know whose pseudo-scientific bullshit that is, but that’s utter nonsense. But it was very widespread, very popular.

Also combat different notions I’ve heard going in the other direction, but with the same impact, if people are true believers in Jesus, the blood of Jesus will protect them from COVID-19. We’ve been battling that. 

But then on the other hand, you got the Governor [Tate Reeves], who basically has just been following behind everything Trump and the right-wing think tanks that have been pressuring him, and been in his ear, Tate Reeves has been on the front lines of trying to implement their programs and policies. It wasn’t until Florida, and I think it was six or seven of them all on the same day, they gave these weak stay at home orders but weren’t requiring that the state shut down or anything of that nature, clearly weren’t following the medical and scientific advice. But for two weeks, he was on air, on a government channel, with supposedly this liberal-type division of Church and State, which has always been a sham here, but he would be on TV for several hours a day reading the Bible in mid-March. That was his response to COVID-19. So you get a sense of how just all over the place things have been here.

We first started noticing its impact with several members of the homeless that live in our community, just a part of our community, part of our membership. They disappeared for a couple of weeks and we started asking around folks here. “Well, you know, they died.” It was like later putting one and one together, we were hearing more about what people died from, which was just unusual that they died from COVID-19. It was spreading pretty early around here.

But folks have no access to medical care. There’s no real public transportation in Jackson. So the nearest hospital from my house is five miles away, and not many people will walk there. Most homeless people, even if they do show up, the first response typically is have them arrested and then have the police determine whether they need healthcare. That was even pre-COVID-19.

So we’ve been watching that escalate. There’s at least 10 homeless folks we know about from our masking work (trying to distribute masks), and just talking to folks that we know in the community about what’s going on. There’s at least 10 people who’ve got it, none of whom have been tested, none of whom have been included in the official count of the state. But we know there’s a severe under-count of how many have been infected, and how many people have died from it here in Mississippi.

I think the under-count on this thing here is pretty severe. What we do know from what’s been counted, it’s primarily Black women who have been exposed, from primarily service work that they dominate here in Mississippi, store clerks and things of that nature that have been the most infected, and it’s been overwhelmingly Black people who die.

It’s having a serious impact here in Mississippi. Not to the degree I think of what we saw in New Orleans last month, but I think Mississippi, and Jackson in particular, I think is just starting to really pick up. I don’t think we’re nowhere near peak infection here at all. The only thing that might stop it, because there’s nothing that the government is going to do, and nothing that the medical institutions here have the capacity to do, the only thing that might stop it is nature, and that being the changing of the season, and sun killing the virus in a lot of places. So people where it might come into contact with a door or something like that, sunlight killing it.

That may be the only thing that stops it temporarily but I think our biggest fear in what we’re getting prepared for, learning from other past epidemics, that this is probably going to be like the flu in 1918 and it’ll probably last some years and be seasonal, because of some of the populations of poor Black working class and homeless population that it’s clearly been embedded in now, but this is going to be around for a while.

M: Do you want to tell me more about the programs that y’all are implementing in response to COVID?

A: Yes. So, the first thing we tried to do was what we know how to do. Many of us being veterans of Hurricane Katrina, we learned a thing or two about mutual aid and emergency relief from that experience. So we quickly got into that mode, early March. Luckily, I would say for us, with our international orientation and politics, we’ve been in dialogue with folks from Naples and Milan, at that time, who told us ‘stop, don’t do that. Unless you have the proper personal protective gear, that’s not going to work.’ They let us know that they did it in late February, responding to how it was picking up real quickly in Italy, particularly the folks up in Milan, where it’s more concentrated. They all got sick. They let us know, ‘back off, don’t do that because you’ve got to have the gloves, you’ve got to have the face mask, you’ve got to have the mask.’ Which at that time, a few of us did, but not many.

So we stopped doing that, and then we tried to repeal and to figure out what the hell could we do? Because by that time, we had figured out a couple of folks that we knew when they had died, so we knew we had to do something with the resources that we built up and amassed and the skills that we amassed. Then we got a call from one of our members about, you know, “do we have any masks or could we make some?” 

We went, wait a minute, we can do that. We’ve got enough skilled folks who know how to sew. It was in like the second week of March, we pulled a team together. They started researching which would be the best mask, got the sewing machines out and started working.

Then our crew that does the 3D printing, we got some information again from Italy, that some folks in the Fab Lab network7 that we’re part of, that they started printing masks and [3D] printing ventilators. We got some 3D printers. So we got our own masking program now that’s been developed, that we’re sharing out with folks, so they can freely download it and do all those things, and hopefully use it in their communities, anybody that has those kind of tools.

And we’ve been doing mask distributions basically once a week, every Wednesday. So we’ve got another one tomorrow. It could be about 120 a week that we give out of the foam mask. The 3D printed masks, we’re doing about, I think now about 20 of those a week. We make a distinction that the 3D printed masks go primarily to healthcare workers. So we can only do a certain limit of those and they’re much more efficient and more medical grade. So trying to give those to a lot of the nurses and stuff in particular, so they don’t get infected and they can help defend other people’s lives.

So we’ve been doing that, and since that’s kicked off in the last two weeks, we’ve been ramping up a food distribution program. So it’s not a full mutual-aid practice that we would normally do, but things that we can do safely, given the kind of protocol that we’ve set out. So those are the two emerging community responses that we’ve been doing, and now we’re trying to ramp up the political response, and that’s calling for May Day actions on a mass scale, that we fought for, that’s what that’s about.

People were saying, look, there’s more people who die from the flu every year, or more people who die from malaria. I was like that’s true, that’s correct but those are things that are calculated very much so by the health and insurance rackets that exist on a global scale, so that’s acceptable death for capitalism. This is something new and outside the bounds, so they don’t know how to factor it in yet. I always kept telling people, let me speak to you from more of a personal connection, tragedy for one of my best friends, died from SARS 10 years ago, which is another type of coronavirus.

M: Right.

A: Fortunately, none of our members that we know of at this point have gotten sick. And nobody’s died. Now I know over 50 people throughout the world who have died personally. It impacted me in that way. But none of our folks, I think, from us taking precautionary measures, none of our folks have gotten sick.

M: I’m glad to hear that. Do you want to tell me about your political response now and the May Day actions?

A: Yeah. The thing that really kind of propelled us in motion was this rush to put people back to work, that we first heard on a state level. We didn’t have the evidence then that we have now, but we suspected that this thing was killing Black people and Latinos at a disproportionate rate. That was our suspicion in March. 

That means we need to take, not just a community response, we got to take a political response and try to send a clear message that we’re not going to die for Wall Street, we’re not going to die for deep pockets. We’re going to try to reach as many of our people as possible to say, no, this is time to put out some maximum demands, basically.

They’re not gonna provide hopefully the basic things we need. Gloves, masks, no protective gear. There’s no way in hell that people should go back to work. We have been agitating for that in our own community. They had to shut stuff down here, so a lot of things would just open in March. And then when Trump got on the bandwagon, saying that he wanted the country to all open up again on Easter.

And looking at the overall conditions and the number of wildcat [strikes] that were already popping up at that time. This would be the perfect call to start building toward a general strike in this country. Because the things that we were seeing, like in February, most folk just shake it off, any notion that universal healthcare could be a possibility. Now, that’s like a basic demand. So, the situation has just elevated people’s consciousness to a great degree. And we were like, let’s try to play a role, step into their void. Let’s not let the Right define what the feeling is, we need to from the Left, try to define it. 

I don’t think we made it clear enough in that first statement8, that we didn’t think May Day could be a general strike. So that’s why we’re calling it towards a general strike. We need to take mass action on May Day, send a clear message. But we got to work our way up towards that. This is going to be a protracted struggle. 

So the coalition we’ve been pulling together, and we’ve joined forces with CoronaStrike and General Strike 2020, who were out before us, earlier than us, we’ve kind of all come together, you know, joining messages, working together, trying to build some links, plan out all the different activities that are going to happen on May Day.

So that’s what we’ve been focusing on through the last two weeks. I see a lot of momentum going. Trying to put it all together, I think is going to be one of the next major challenges. The first critical thing is getting people in motion. Say hell no, we’re not going to work, we’re not going to shop, we’re not going to pay rent, we’re gonna shut it down, navigate all the hills of that.

We’re working to start building levels of self-governance in our community. To really balance out the system. That’s ultimately what we’re trying to get through that. And eradicate it, no ands ifs or buts. But easier said than done. We got to move millions of people to that program. So that’s something that we will keep pushing for on our end. Struggling for that clarity and programmatic unity. It’s going to take time. 

But I think that if nothing, this pandemic I think has exposed the sheer exploitative nature and brutality of the system. So I think there’s many millions of people who are waking up, as this hit home with millions of people now being unemployed. You know, millions being cut off from their healthcare. I think the inhumanity of the system I think has become apparent and people are going to be demanding a whole different set of social relations on the heels of this, and how we fight that out is going to be critical.

M: The last thing I want to ask is what the best way for workers across the country to get involved in this movement is?

A: For workers, particularly essential workers, you got to start with organizing your fellow coworkers. So there’s an inward look that folks first have to do, if they’re being honest. Because what we’ve been stressing in our calls is kind of arming them to agitate, to do a level of education and inspiration. But the real actions have to take place by decisions made by workers at the point of production. I know, here we can have an impact in Jackson and we plan on doing that. But folks in New York, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, everywhere, it’s themselves who have to make that determination of what level of risk they’re willing to take, and that’s going to be determined by what level of strength or level of unity or solidarity they have with their coworkers. So our thing is to uplift actions, like wildcats that have been done and rouse people’s imagination, let them know that a fight like this is possible. 

And so to uplift that direct action to show that we can get some immediate results. With deeper levels of organization, you get a lot of results. One of the things that we’ve put out there is encouraging folks to organize to seize the means of production and democratize it, turning it into co-ops, or things of that nature. We’ve seen some level of initiative with that, with folks saying in some of the auto plants, they want to start producing masks and ventilators and things like that. But I have to stress, you first got to start with organizing their coworkers at the point of production. And try to move as a team, don’t move alone. That’s how they can isolate you. When you organize with folks move as a team.

M: Great. Okay thank you so much for speaking to me, this was a really great interview.

A: No problem.


 

Marisa Miale: Hi Adam! Thank you again for agreeing to the interview. Could you start by introducing yourself for our readers, telling us a little bit about your background as a worker, and explaining how you got involved in organizing at Target? 

Adam Ryan: Yea, my name is Adam Ryan, born and raised in southwestern Virginia, the Appalachian region of our state, specifically in Christiansburg. We have a lot of the same problems as other parts of Appalachia in terms of poverty, drug addiction, shitty jobs and slumlords, but we have two local colleges that act as a sort of buffer to all those issues, so while we do have more infrastructure developed here than in other parts of Appalachia, that infrastructure is only geared towards the students and the colleges and not the local working class. Some folks have even designated our area as “Metrolachia” because of the college system and the huge import of wealthy students and their families largely coming from the DC suburbs in northern Virginia. There’s definitely animosity between the local working class and these students who basically get to live in bubbles the colleges work to cultivate, so they don’t have to see or really know what it’s like being a local living in the area.

I got hired on at our local Target back in 2017. The store has been here for over a decade. My family has worked there and many other similar shitty low wage, no-benefits jobs in the area. You either work in the service sector or manufacturing in the New River Valley. I specifically went to Target after our collective New River Workers Power was conducting social investigation with local working-class families primarily through canvassing our local trailer parks. That’s how we got the lead about the abusive boss Daniel Butler at our local Target store. We hit a roadblock trying to organize working families against these trailer park slumlords and decided to switch gears to labor organizing. 

I had prior experience with labor organizing back when I was an IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) member and went through their Organizer Training 101. This was back when I moved to Richmond, Virginia in 2010 when I was organizing Black working-class families disproportionately affected by our state prison system. We started a group called “SPARC” (Supporting Prisoners Acting for Radical Change) as a joint initiative between ourselves as workers in southwestern Virginia and the New Afrikan Black Panther Party – Prison Chapter headed by comrade Kevin ‘Rashid’ Johnson, who’s a Richmond native. This was all before New River Workers Power had formed. We had an exclusive focus on prisoner organizing at the supermax facilities at Red Onion and Wallen Ridge state prisons located out in Wise County. It was when I moved to Richmond with others in SPARC to better serve those most affected by the prison system that I got tied in with a recently-started IWW chapter. We saw an opportunity to tie the two efforts together and basically were doing a proto-IWOC campaign of sponsoring the prisoners we were organizing as SPARC into the IWW as union members. We figured it would at least give us some legal room to not have our mail tampered with since it was official union business with our fellow workers in the state prisons. As SPARC we got our mail censored all the time and were designated as a group trying to “promote insurrection” in the prisons. This all came to a head when we had a series of prisoner hunger strikes we helped organize and support back in 2012.

Long story short we were stretched too thin trying to take on the largest, most well-funded department in the state of Virginia with only a handful of organizers scattered across the state, we also were young, in our early 20s with very little organizing experience under our belts and it became too much, so we transitioned to organizing locally within Richmond city itself (still a monumental task). I spent several years trying to do some workplace organizing as well as community organizing around school closures, tuition hikes, and police brutality, but eventually ended up homeless since the shitty service sector job I had at CVS wasn’t enough to cover my rent. I never had enough funds to even afford a rental unit with a formal lease. I was always living in illegal housing and paying slumlords under the table, so it was easy for them to push me out, and I had nowhere else to go but to return back to my hometown. That’s when I started up New River Workers Power and all the local organizing we are doing here now, including the Target organizing campaign.

M: Could you tell us a little about the history of Target Workers Unite and the kind of work y’all do?

R: We launched Target Workers Unite at the beginning of last year initially as a fail-safe to our attempt to collaborate with this NGO called “Organization United for Respect at Walmart” otherwise known as “OUR Walmart” – which now goes by the name “United For Respect.” This organization was initially started as a front for the union United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) back in 2012. It was a very similar model the “Fight for $15” front started by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Their goals weren’t to formally unionize these shitty low wage service sector jobs from Walmart to McDonalds, but rather to build a lot of PR to then funnel that energy into electoral politics and aid the Democratic Party in the hopes some reforms could be passed through state and national legislatures. 

Workers were instrumentalized to become spokespersons and advocates rather than trained as militant organizers who engage in collective direct action to win concessions from the bosses. By the time United For Respect (U4R formerly OUR Walmart) reached out to us they had split from the UFCW after their union president cut funding to their front. The executive directors then found new funders through the Center for Popular Democracy, also a front largely funded through these bourgeois philanthropist foundations and trusts like the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, etc. They scour the internet and news outlets to see any manifestations of worker activity outside the unions and try to bring those workers into their fold, that’s how they found us after our first wildcat strike against our local abusive boss.

I didn’t intend the wildcat strike to transform into a national Target worker organizing campaign, but that’s how it organically developed. The paid staff of U4R reached out and wanted to incorporate us into their efforts, saying they wanted to “organize all retail workers, not just Walmart workers,” hence the name change. But after struggling with them for over a year on what organizing workers actually meant, I found out they already had their agenda formed – which wasn’t determined by the rank and file workers, but rather the paid “professionals” whose strategy is essentially dictated by the bourgeois foundations that fund their NGO. We wrote a full statement of what that experience was like and why we had to launch Target Workers Unite if we wanted actual rank and file Target workers to be trained up as organizers and take direct action in our stores. After seeing what tools they utilized and what “organizing” looked like to them I also figured they weren’t really doing anything that drastically different from what we had been doing, minus the huge source of funds and paid staff they could rely on to do the work for them.

I should clarify that we weren’t trying to organize along the lines they were – in terms of trying to take workers out of the workplace to become public advocates pushing reforms and teaming up with opportunistic politicians to push a reformist agenda, but more-so their heavy use of digital organizing techniques through social media. That is probably the only thing I feel I may have learned from them after participating and trying to push for rank and file worker organization in our stores. Maybe a slight refinement of what we had been doing, but there wasn’t really that much substance behind their efforts beyond trying to produce high-quality propaganda that looks good in the press. 

I figured if these “professionals” could bullshit their way into a “legit” labor organization, then why can’t us rank and file workers do it ourselves? At least we would have autonomy and the ability to determine what path we take vs constantly having to struggle against their paid staff over what constitutes real organizing or what are we ultimately trying to achieve as workers. I really was turned off by their default social democrat ideology that drove their slogans and abstract demands they had no real leverage to realize. Like when Bernie Sanders came out talking about getting workers on corporate boards as a policy in partnership with this NGO that to me was the epitome of their politics and endgame. Why should we be trying to emulate the European mainstream unions when they’ve run into deadends themselves when trying to build workers’ power that isn’t dominated by capitalism? If we are going to make pie-in-the-sky demands, we might as well advocate workers’ control and taking over the shopfloor, eliminating management and the capitalist division of labor. At least we send a clear political line to workers by doing that rather than the default opportunist, class compromise politics they were pushing, which was tolerable for their bourgeois funders.

In terms of the work we do now it’s a combination of digital organizing, going into the social media spaces we know Target workers are at and agitating them to organize directly about shopfloor issues and corporate-wide issues over things like unstable scheduling, lack of hours, lack of benefits, ageism, favoritism, and all-round poverty this corporation purposefully enacts for the purpose of control over our workplaces, dividing the workers, and repelling any efforts by workers to capture a larger share of wealth generated within the company. We work to find workers who are most motivated to take action in the stores and show through direct action we can win smaller demands, prove our competency and leadership and build morale that there is an alternative to how the jobs are structured, what can workers to to change the conditions and boost morale which shows workers we don’t just have to accept things as they are. A lot of this is class struggle on the ideological level, most workers don’t know their labor rights as defined by the NLRA, they don’t know how to build a labor strategy to organize and win concessions, we have to build that culture from scratch and that’s just where we’re at, even in the middle of a pandemic.  

Logo for Target Workers Unite

M: It sounds like it’s been a long road to build worker power for y’all. Can you tell us more about some of the shopfloor issues you’ve been organizing around the solutions you’ve put forward to them?

R: Management abuse and worker disrespect have been the most prominent for us. But we’ve also organized against fascism, specifically at my store, by pressing to get a local notorious member of the alt-right banned from our premises. It was definitely a heartwarming experience to see so many of my coworkers willing to sign on and say we don’t want fascists in our space, they are a safety hazard to our coworkers who are LGBTQ, Jewish, workers of color, and leftists. We didn’t fully escalate on that campaign, but this fascist Alex McNabb decided he wanted to try to mess with us over this and did what any reactionary would do and call up our management to complain he was being “harassed”. Our unity was strong enough that management didn’t do a single thing to us for utilizing our labor rights to organize for a safe workplace. That fascist hasn’t dared to come back to our store since. We’ve done a lot of mutual aid for coworkers too, fundraisers for LGBTQ coworkers trying to get top surgery, showing support for LGBTQ coworkers by distributing and wearing trans pride bracelets in the face of Trump’s announcement to remove certain protections for LGTBQ coworkers on the basis of discrimination.

 A lot of what we’re doing is base-level stuff of trying to educate coworkers at my store and across the country what are our labor rights and how to exercise them in a strategic way without getting caught up in legal battles, especially outside the context of a formal union. So many workers view unions as service-based in the same way they pay for a good as passive consumers and expect the “officials” to fix their problems for them. So we have to cultivate that new worker culture of solidarity that’s only surviving in small pockets across the US right now. It’s not a living practice for the majority of US workers. 

I’m not going to pretend we have this huge network with worker committees across hundreds of stores, but we do have a lot of coworker contacts across the country we’re actively working to engage and trying to train up to essentially become “shop stewards” in their stores. When you get the reputation of being a worker who can get issues on the shopfloor fixed without having to go to management and coworkers see you have knowledge and experience in exercising these rights they come to you with issues, much like a shop steward would function in a formal union. 

The big joint effort we’ve been working on across Target stores was our Target Worker Survey project. Every year the corporation has us take their “Best Team Survey” which is really superficial and doesn’t allow workers to elaborate on how they feel about their jobs, nor do workers necessarily trust it enough for them to be honest, especially when their store managers press upon them to answer in a positive way or stand behind them as they take the survey. Us workers crafted our independent survey all by ourselves, with over 60 questions to get an understanding of what life is like for Target workers both on and off the job. We got over 500 responses from across at least 380 stores in 44 states, the results weren’t surprising, but also very condemning of Target. We’re actively working to expose what work conditions are like at our jobs and working to push back on the hegemony Target’s PR wing has in making it look like it’s all honky dory at their stores and distribution centers. We’re working to counter their propaganda with our own based on the accounts of workers themselves. Out of that survey we crafted a Target Worker Platform which was again based on the responses we got from Target workers on what they think we need to make our jobs something we can live on. COIVD-19 has sort of put that on the backburner now and we’ve had to develop an emergency petition calling for more safety and compensation for us Target workers since we are at such high risk of exposure to the virus – in large part because Target doesn’t want to take the right measures to limit foot traffic in our stores.

If you’ve ever worked in a public-facing job where you have to deal with consumers you know they have their own narrow interests in mind and that usually means them being disrespectful and inconsiderate of us Target workers. For instance, it’s not uncommon for us to find half-eaten products on the sales floor, or used tissues stashed around the store, let alone practicing social distancing, respecting our personal space as workers, and making unrealistic demands upon us because they feel entitled to “customer satisfaction.” These recent waves of protest over the economy being shut down are really indicative of that selfish attitude, Americans don’t like being told they can’t do whatever they want as consumers, it’s the trade-off they got instead of things like worker power or a social safety net, let alone political agency which doesn’t relegate them to a passive role. 

Online organizing has been a huge component to what we do as well. There are a lot of Target worker social media spaces that we constantly agitate in to make workers aware we even exist and bring the ones who are interested in organizing into the fold of Target Workers Unite. Social media is a crucial aspect of labor organizing these days, if you’re not using it, you’re missing out as an organizer and worker organization. Recently we’ve started building relationships with Shipt drivers because Target owns Shipt, it’s basically like instacart or other gig worker jobs where they shop the items for a customer and deliver it to their homes. By connecting with these folks we get a much better understanding of Target’s strategy and vision as to how they’re transforming our work and also responding to market forces and competitors like Walmart, Amazon, and Kroger. We also are just going to be stronger by organizing along the supply chains because each sector of workers has knowledge of their operations and helps us counter the bullshit narrative Target likes to put out there to the general public. One of the next steps for us is to establish contact with the workers in the Chinese factories where the majority of the commodities we sell are manufactured. 

M: Could you tell me more about how COVID-19 has impacted Target workers, and how you developed the emergency petition?

R: Target workers and their families are beginning to contract the virus, it’s not surprising considering the corporation isn’t restricting foot traffic in a serious way, they instead leave it up to the discretion of the customers to engage in best practices, but if you’ve ever worked in a public-facing job like ours you know when people assume the role of a customer they become very entitled and take offense to being regulated on their shopping behaviors. We need proper administrative controls which don’t rely on the discretion of consumers. The corporation knows what it’s doing by leaving it up to customer discretion as to whether or not they behave in a way that actually respects us as workers and prioritizes our safety. They rather make sales over our concerns for worker safety.

We developed the petition very quickly after the national emergency was announced, reviewing what practices other countries had engaged in to minimize spread and contamination, as well as reviewing the recommended protocols from organizations like the CDC and OSHA especially towards healthcare workers. Because we weren’t seen as essential workers nor respected as essential prior to this, many people were overlooking our needs as frontline essential workers because we usually aren’t seen as “real workers” nor having a “real job”, therefore why should we be considered for such things? It’s a contradiction that has only sharpened as this has progressed and more and more workers are realizing how vulnerable we are, how much we’re just sitting ducks at our jobs as we have to rely on customers to be considerate of us and our needs.

One thing we notice about Target even before the pandemic is how quick they are to try to route us and defang our demands by issuing press releases to the public which at least gives the appearance they are going to address safety and compensation concerns. They are very good with the smoke and mirrors, they even have some workers believing in their bullshit. But in a way we have to be thankful that capitalists can never meet our needs in the end of the day because the nature of capitalism will never permit that.

M: I think that speaks to what essential workers across the country are feeling right now. Can you tell me more about the action you’re taking on the shopfloor to respond to COVID?

R: We’re calling for a mass sickout across Target stores and distribution centers. We want to show Target us workers are not ok with their feet dragging on rolling out more safety precautions we’ve been pressing for since the announcement of the national emergency. Beyond this action we’ve been doing the same thing we were doing before all this, educating our coworkers on their labor rights, working to build out shopfloor committees, and pressing our management to respect us or we’ll escalate and make their lives hell. 

M: Hell yeah. How is the crisis impacting the shopfloor committees and their ability to organize?

R: To answer your first question, its caused more workers to see the need for independent action, so we are in a good position just by making our presence known and workers reach out on what they can do about the issues at their stores. At my store I’ve been helping some new members of our store committee to take on issues of favoritism and disrespect, those everyday workplace issues are still in place despite the virus, the virus has just exacerbated it all and pushed people to the point of being fed up and wanting to fight back.

M: Do you have a vision for how COVID-19 will impact Target Workers Unite in the long run, and how it will develop after the virus subsides?

R: I think this virus has lit a fire under people’s asses and those who aren’t totally brainwashed by the corporate narrative see that if they don’t take independent action then nothing will ever change and corporate will only do the bare minimum to “protect” workers. A lot of workers are seeing they are being left high and dry, that’s an opportunity to consolidate more workers into our network. We should emerge from this action and this pandemic stronger than when we went in and it already looks like that is playing out just by the rates or participation in our sickout action for May Day.

M: Can you tell me more about the shift in consciousness for workers who weren’t active before and want to fight back now?

R: The shift hasn’t been huge, but it’s happening. I would say it’s the vanguard of workers who have been fighting to raise awareness and educate their coworkers on the safety issues we face and to push back on the corporate narrative which tries to lull them back to sleep. The contradiction is that many workers were black-pilled or primed by various authority figures on how COVID19 isn’t that serious and people are overreacting, so we’re already having to fight from the opposite end in challenging those reactionary ideas propped up by billionaires. We have to be the militant minority that pushes the rest of the working class forward, even if a bunch of them may resent us initially for breaking this unprincipled labor peace with the corporate executives. 

M: What lessons do you think workers across the country can take from Target Workers Unite about organizing during COVID-19?

R: I think the lessons are that while this moment has definitely spurred worker action the working class is still a class-in-itself rather than a class-for-itself. Many are still caught up in the corporate ideology, remain passive, and don’t view their workplaces as sites of struggle. We have to operate as a militant minority and work to reconstitute the working class as a subjective force able to effectively fight capitalism and these corporations. This is a good beginning for that.

M: Thank you so much Adam! Perfect note to end on. See you on May Day.

Logo for People’s Strike Campaign

 

Super Tuesday Special

Donald, Parker, and Christian are joined by one of the greatest political commentators of our time, Jake from Swampside Chats, to discuss the struggle between Social-Democracy and Woke Liberalism in the Democratic Party. What lies ahead? How can the left benefit from the Bernie movement/campaign? Are Boomers holding us back? Join us for a discussion on a historic election.

The Situation in India and How it Has Gotten Here

Statement by By Zenab Ahmed, Rohith Krishnan, and Djamil Lakhdar-Hamina on the pogrom in India. 

The Pogrom

Last week, Hindu nationalist mobs spent days ripping through the homes, businesses, and religious sites of Muslims in the slums of India’s capital city. Roaming gangs of young men with saffron marks on their foreheads shouted “Jai Shri Ram!” while the police looked on without a word. This isn’t new – India has faced outbreaks of violence, between Hindu and Muslims, as well as organized massacres of minority groups by mobs in the past. Yet the pogrom in New Delhi takes place in an alarming context. India has been electrified by protests, sit-ins, and intense struggle as a result of a new citizenship law passed by Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The law grants preferential citizenship terms to non-Muslim Indians, clearly discriminating against Muslims and other Indians who are not Hindu (including Sikhs and Christians). President Trump was on a tour of India, and meeting with the fiercely nationalist, and Hindu supremacist, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with the aim of deepening ties on trade, security, and Anti-Chinese policy. Trump’s presence appears to have emboldened the crack-down on opposition to the law, with Modi himself taking three days to condemn the killings after they began taking place.

The Left must condemn last week’s sectarian bloodshed, which in four days led to dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries. Concrete steps must be taken to prevent such violence from growing and spiraling into a nationwide pattern of ‘killing waves’. If Modi and the BJP are not removed from power, and if the ideology of Hindutva (social organizing based on Hinduism as a unifying force) is not defeated, India will spiral into a pattern of increasingly far-right national governance, complemented by street violence, that may eventually culminate in ethnic cleansing and genocide. The BJP is pushing India in an increasingly fascistic direction, and there can be no doubt that the brutal confidence on display in India will feed into the strength of the far-right worldwide. There is no room for complacency, anywhere.

Origins of the BJP

First, it is important to acknowledge the BJP’s roots as a party, and the reasons why it has now been able to achieve popular and electoral success. Modi’s rise was not inevitable. Indeed, Hindutva, and its major proponents in the right-wing paramilitary volunteer organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a broader constellation of Hindutva organizations called the Sangh Parivar, largely didn’t have widespread appeal until political and economic crises in the 1970s. The Hindu Mahasabha/Jan Sangh, the torch-bearer of Hindu nationalism in the decades after independence, never controlled a state government, nor did it maintain a notable parliamentary presence. Nevertheless, it was able to develop a strong cadre base, which would be key to its reversal of fortune. The Emergency of 1977, during which the Congress Party’s Indira Gandhi briefly assumed near-dictatorial powers, allowed Hindutva to rebrand itself as a force for democracy and ‘ordinary people’ against the corrupt excesses of Congress. During this period, the Economist described the Sangh as “the world’s only non-leftist revolutionary force.” 

The Emergency greatly boosted Hindutva’s legitimacy, but not its political strength, although regional political forces such as Shiv Sena borrowed from its ideas to maintain consensus for conservative politics, and decimate both the urban labor movement and parliamentary left. During this period, Hindutva was gaining increasing appeal outside of the RSS’ traditional base in the domestic merchant class, as well as among expatriate communities that began supporting it financially. Expats played a critical role in cementing, and broadening RSS patronage to various sections of the Indian bourgeoisie. The BJP was formed by the RSS as an independent political wing in 1980, in order to exploit a heightened sectarian and ethnic supremacist climate, stoked in no small part by Congress, whose anti-Sikh pogroms following the assassination of Indira Gandhi still mark the most intense act of sectarian violence in post-independence India. After 1989, the BJP abruptly rose to prominence in national politics, expanding from the “Hindi Belt” and exploiting an ongoing economic crisis that culminated in a 1991 liberalization of the economy. The BJP campaigns of the late 1980s and early 1990s centered explicitly on Hindutva, most prominently the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya, which led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992. In 1996, the BJP briefly formed a national government, which collapsed in a matter of weeks, only to come into power again from 1998 until 2004. 

Until the mid-2000s, the Sangh Parivar continued to be defined by an upper-caste vote bank. Following their 2004 loss, Hindutva groups managed to expand outwards, at the same time that they got increased financial support from a bourgeoisie disillusioned with Congress. During its period in opposition, the BJP moderated its Hindutva rhetoric, shifting to a more developmentalist approach, and in due course, brought Narendra Modi to the fore as party leader. Modi himself is a former RSS cadre who takes pride in his humble origins as a tea seller and was assigned to the BJP in 1985. He was the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 during a campaign of major ethnic cleansing in the state, which led to him being denied a U.S. diplomatic visa in 2005. As Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi oversaw the so-called “Gujarat Model” of development, characterized by the extensive investment in urban areas coupled with strict austerity. While Gujarat’s public goods and rural infrastructure crumbled, investment expanded exponentially, the BJP focusing upon connections to the news media and telecommunications. 

The BJP successfully passed itself off as a different party than the violent communalist organization of the 1990s. Modi was elected Prime Minister in 2014, and by 2016, the party had taken back control of several state governments on a platform of development and anti-corruption. The BJP also established a unit for social media, informally known as their “IT Cell,” which capitalized on the spread of internet access and mobile phones to centralize and rationalize their political messaging. Since that time, these accounts have been used to coordinate lynch mobs, incite riots, and create what can only be described as an alternative reality for many BJP supporters. Since Modi’s developmentalism has largely withered on the vine, with sluggish growth, rising food prices, and the state dealing a crippling blow to its own economy through demonetization, social media radicalization along with an aggressive foreign policy has become extremely important. Following reelection in 2019, the BJP has turned up the communal heat, revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, creating the largely undiscussed National Register of Citizens, and passing the Citizenship Amendment Act. The party will continue to get more violent, along with India at large.

Statement of Condemnation, Call to Arms:

As communists, in such a situation, we stand by the victims of the police and the pogroms, we condemn class-traitorous enemies of the working-class, and we only express solidarity to the working-class victims. To see an example of a failure to do this,  one should read the statement of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in which they ask to meet with the notoriously bigoted home minister Shir Amit Shah, having the gall to ask why he didn’t intervene sooner to stop the violence. This vacillation is shameful. Those in the non-Indian Left must condemn, and take seriously India’s increasingly fascistic politics on the national and street levels with the harshest possible language and maximal contempt for state forces. The BJP is successfully instituting genocide and ethnic cleansing on a national scale, achieving the Sangh Parivar’s vision of an India violently purged of Islam, Communism, and other ‘foreign influences.’

The Left within must continue to push for national protests, and global acts of solidarity, to highlight Modi’s mismanagement of the economy and India’s need for deep structural change. While the removal of Modi and the BJP wouldn’t solve the heart of the problem (which is the capitalist system and the continued strength of British imperial structures in the country) it would certainly defuse the situation and slow the pace of mass killing. Otherwise, like Nazi Germany before it, India is likely to face pogroms like those which have taken place in New Delhi on a regular scale. 

Concretely, what is demanded by the situation is the strategy of the United Front. All workers, peasants, and Muslim organizations dedicated to defense, the defeat of Hinduvata, and a future of sanity, reason, and good-will, must band together politically. For the most immediate threat, pogroms, it is time to start taking self-defense seriously. Different organizations and communities must exchange information and be there for one another, fighting back against slaughter and reaction. But more will be needed, as a successful and united front of the left must find a way to dislodge the RSS-BJP ideology from its mass basis. If that does not occur there is no knowing the dark outcome of the decade. Those suffering because of that same movement of Hindutva must somehow find a place, a movement to band together , both in the streets and at the ballot box, and those weaker elements recruited by Hindutva must be won away and given a new political home.  It is unclear how this may happen, in India’s increasingly bleak national landscape, but surrender isn’t an option. 

The international left must take what is occurring in India seriously. The global right-wing is not dead or defeated, and though historical analogies may be stretched, the cost of not seeing the proper extent could be fatal. After all, idiotic theories propounded in the 1930s by Communist officialdom predicted that Mussolini and Hitler were just a passing phase. 

 

Between Friend and Foe: The Democratic Party Primary and the Future of the Empire

Rosa Janis analyzes the Democratic Party Primary election as the symptoms of a dying empire that couldn’t die quite soon enough.

With the Democratic Party primary close on the horizon, we are set to witness one of the most important conflicts in American politics since 1968 being fought out on the battlefield of democracy. This battle will not only decide the fate of the Democratic Party but quite possibly the nation as a whole. While there have been other brutal conflicts waged within the confines of the Democratic Party, such as the all-out slugfest that was the 2008 primary election, this primary season might have world-historical value. 

In his 1935 treatise, The Concept of the Political, the infamous political theorist and jurist Carl Schmitt put forward the thesis that the height of politics, the Political, as he put it, was defined by conflict. How political agents draw the distinction between friends and enemies (the “friend/enemy distinction”) determines not only the content of their politics but also their ability to win over the masses and wield the power of the sovereign. This thesis came out of the crisis of the Weimar Republic, now the Federal Republic of Germany. Carl Schmitt saw that the establishment comprised of liberals and normal conservatives was not able to engage with the political, and consequently unable to unite the German people against an enemy and thus protect their own state against the politically-minded Nazis and Communists. Carl Schmitt, being on the political right, decided to align himself with the Nazis despite his own personal reservations about Hitler, since the Nazis were, in his mind, the only ones who could possibly offer a political alternative to the Communists.

It seems that we are living in Weimar America, suffering through the military embarrassment that is the War on Terror, the lingering aftermath of the 2008 recession, and the looming crisis of climate change. The stability of the American Empire is questionable, to say the least. While we do not have Nazis and Communists fighting in the streets, there is a real conflict between political actors that is going on over the corpse of a rotting nation. As alluded to earlier, this conflict is the 2020 Democratic primary. 

The battle within the Democratic Party seems, on the surface, to be simply a conflict between two relatively similar factions of the same political party: anti-Sanders establishment liberals and pro-Sanders social-democrats. But it is much deeper than that. The meaningful difference between establishment liberals and social-democrats is in how they both engage with the political; the contest for how they seek to draw different friend/enemy distinctions for the nation. The establishment liberals of the Democratic Party are drawing the friend/enemy distinction on the geopolitical level with their neo-Cold War rhetoric against Russia much in the same way that Nazis and neo-conservatives drew the friend/enemy distinction on the geopolitical level through pro-war rhetoric. On the other hand, the social democrats are drawing the friend/enemy distinction closer to that of the International class lines of old. The two different lines of struggle that these factions are pursuing will become more prevalent as both the American Empire and the world slide deeper into crisis.

The Crisis of Liberalism 

The political establishment of the United States has been in a deep crisis since the end of the Cold War. With the death of the Soviet Union, every politician in Washington lost their most valuable enemy. The Soviet Union gave the United States a superpower to compete with on every level and provided a rationale for the commission of horrific acts of open imperialism upon the world in order to combat and contain the supposed evils of the Soviet Union. On the domestic level it created a coherent ideology of American liberalism to contrast the Soviet Union’s “totalitarianism” and allowed for social progress to be achieved through various reforms. 

This crisis was not initially seen as a crisis but rather a victory. It was the end of History – liberal democracy was hegemonic across the world and the political establishment of Washington thought that they were going to be able to rule the world through technocratic non-political means. However, this sentiment was abandoned as conservative elements within the state, particularly that of the military-industrial complex, needed a compelling ideological narrative (i.e., a political one) to rationalize expanding its size and power. Thus the happy liberal consensus of the 1990s was traded out for the conservative war on terror of the 2000s. 

Initially, the war on terror served its purpose well. The military-industrial complex was able to expand at a rapid pace, invading every aspect of American life through draconian measures such as the Patriot Act, and a new patriotic consensus was created in American politics around combating the threat of “radical Islam”. But as time went on, it became clear that “Islamism” could not fill the vacuum left by the USSR in American political consciousness. The threat of Islamic terror that was manufactured by the United States was vacuous compared to the Soviet Union, as there was no single nation-state that could truly compete with American hegemony. At first, it could be said that this was somewhat advantageous, as the United States was able to exaggerate the extent to which Islamic terrorism posed a threat to the Empire. It could make a geopolitical mountain out of the molehill of an extremely loose network of amateurish terror cells – which comprised Al Qaeda – by painting them as a vast secret network of deadly Islamic supersoldiers, armed with weapons of mass destruction and lurking among the innocent American populace. The incoherence and immateriality of “Islamic Terror” also gave the military-industrial complex free rein to attack whomever they wanted through manufacturing tangential evidence of terrorism. 

This advantage, however, would quickly turn into a disadvantage beginning with the Second Gulf War. The American public was led to believe that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. But as the conflict transformed from a quick invasion to an apparently endless occupation, the public grew weary of the war. The evidence that had pushed the American public into the patriotic fervor for war in Iraq was slowly revealed to be non-existent and the fear factor of terrorism was lost on the American people. George W. Bush only won the 2004 presidential election by trading fearmongering about terrorism for fearmongering about homosexuals, thus dividing the anti-war John Kerry camp along culture war lines. 

The second term of the Bush administration was dismal. The war in Iraq dragged on, unpopular as the president who was responsible for it. To top it all off, in the final year of the Bush administration one of the worst recessions in recent history hit the world economy, withering any hope for a Republican victory in 2008. 

The Obama administration established itself on distinctly non-political terms, hoping to unite the nation after the 2008 recession. Obama ran a campaign that was full of vague slogans and cozy rhetoric of bipartisanship but devoid of policy initiatives. What would be catastrophic failures to any other administration, such as Obamacare being shot down almost immediately after the election (despite having a record-setting number of Democrats in both the house and the Senate), and managing a jobless recovery, did not seem to affect the public’s view of Barack Obama. This was probably due to the fact that the first black president was such a powerful symbolic accomplishment that not even a mediocre job performance could harshen the positive vibe that Obama enjoyed. 

The Democrats did not understand that Obama was unique in this regard. In the moment just before the 2016 election, it seemed that the future was going to be apolitical Obama-era technocracy forever. The shifting demographics of America – old, white Republicans dying off to be replaced by a demographic rainbow coalition of Democratic minority voters – and the popularity of Obama were seen as evidence of this future. And despite the bitter memories of her vicious run in 2008 and the surprisingly hard time she had putting down a putatively socialist Sanders in the primary, no one doubted that Hillary Clinton would be the winner of the 2016 election. It was “Her Turn,” and this was only cemented in the minds of everyone in the media and liberal establishment by the out-of-nowhere victory of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries. Trump, being a buffoonish reality-TV show host with the 5th-grade vocabulary and no political experience, was seen as a pushover for Clinton. All the polls leading up to 2016 showed Hillary winning quite easily. With all this momentum behind her, Hillary did what no one at the time thought she could do: she lost. 

The temporary fixes of War on Terror and Obama-era liberal technocracy could not meaningfully deal with the crisis of liberalism that came out of the demise of the Soviet Union. The Hillary campaign, with no real friend/enemy distinction to draw from in her ideology of politics-free liberalism, was left completely incapable of rallying their base to stop Trump. Trump, on the other hand, was easily able to harness the power of the political to his own ends. The rhetoric of “Building the Wall”  was distinctly Sorelian and Schmittian in its character. It did not matter that a wall already partially existed in the form of border fencing which abutted bits of the Mexican-American border, that much of what Trump wanted to build was physically impossible given the uneven terrain of that border, and that even if Trump was able to get bits of his wall built it would not stop illegal immigrants from coming over since most of them come over via green cards. The wall was not a policy proposal but a myth. When the French theorist Georges Sorel pushed for socialists to advocate for the mass strike as a means of achieving the workers’ revolution he did not think of it as an effective strategy by itself. Rather, it was the confidence that would emerge from the idea of the mass strike – the myth of its power – that would compel workers to revolt against the ruling class and thus bring about socialism. Trump’s wall, much like Sorel’s general strike, was a myth. But that was its power. “Build the wall” became a rallying cry for responding to a combination of deindustrialization undermining the economic security of the poorest settler whites in key swing states like Pennsylvania and social progress getting under the skin of relatively well-off petit-bourgeois settlers. Through the myth of the wall, Trump was able to draw the friend/enemy distinction along distinctly racial lines in the 2016 election.

After the 2016 election, the Democratic Party was left in shambles. With their faith in the political ideology of Obama-era (neo-)liberalism crushed, the Democrats needed something else, and two options were laid out before them. Either they could follow the path set up by Bernie Sanders’ run in 2016, class struggle and old-fashioned social democracy, by moving toward the left of the political spectrum, or they could continue moving rightwards as they had done since the 1990s. The Sanders option was unviable for them, as modern American political parties are essentially fundraising mechanisms with political ideologies loosely attached to them. If the Democrats alienated their wealthy backers with the rhetoric of class struggle, the party would essentially fall apart. As a result, moving to the left was impossible for the Party, despite its half-hearted co-optation of the rhetoric of the Sanders campaign. The slogan of “Medicare for All”, for instance, became widely used among Democrats – despite their clear lack of intent to enact any such policy. The Democrats had to move rightward, but how to do this was not clear in the initial chaos of 2016. Then came the Steele dossier.

Russiagate Liberalism, Pete Buttigieg, and the Climate Leviathan

In the book Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our Planetary Future by Joel Wainwright and Geoff Mann, the authors lay out a speculative future based on the liberal technocratic response to climate change. The label that they give to the possible future state is that of the climate Leviathan, the climate Leviathan being a kind of authoritarian world-state that grows out of the need to save capitalism from climate change. This is only one of the possible futures they lay out in their book. The others are: climate Behemoth (reactionary national regimes that respond to climate change through denial and closing borders); climate Mao (a resurgence of 20th-century Stalinism in response to climate change specifically coming from East Asian Maoists); and Climate X (a global revolution coming from the instability created by climate change).

Defined by a global state of exception, a combination of Malthusian and green-Keynesian economics imposed upon an unwilling international population, the climate Leviathan described by Joel Wainwright and Geoff Mann appears to be wild speculative fiction, and to a certain extent that is a fair assessment. The authors overestimate the extent to which planetary sovereignty is or would be a desirable goal for technocratic liberal elites. While planetary sovereignty would certainly be a rational response, as climate change is a planetary problem and the United States in particular often acts as the “world police” with its foreign policy, there is no clear way for any of the Western powers to establish such a regime. The United Nations is a farcical institution with little power, so it’s highly unlikely that we’re going to get the Alex Jones-ian wet nightmare of the UN world-state. The authors point to the Paris Accord that was signed by Obama to suggest that liberals want some kind of planetary sovereignty, but this ignores the fact that the agreement was non-binding and therefore a mere symbolic gesture at most. The strongest evidence given by the authors to the idea that planetary sovereignty is something desired by liberals is bits of textual exegesis from Kant’s utopian essay “On Perpetual Peace” and a few powerless scientists calling for action. Even if it is hypothetically possible to create planetary sovereignty under global capitalism as it currently exists, the idea that the American military-industrial complex (which American liberals are a part of) would want to sacrifice even an ounce of its power to completing such a project seems absurd on its face. 

What is more likely to be the technocratic liberal response to climate change is something that is in between the Leviathan and the Behemoth, a careful balancing act between a mild version of green Keynesianism and top-down economic fixes of the climate Leviathan to reduce carbon emissions side by side with the hardline authoritarian nationalism of the Behemoth to maintain the sovereignty of the American government in the chaos of our global crisis:  a perfect compromise between wishy-washy “Center”-leaning Democrats and the more conservative-leaning military-industrial complex. The hows of achieving this bipartisan hell remained unknown until late in 2016 when the Steele dossier dropped into the hands of the liberal establishment. This bit of hit-piece journalism originally commissioned by the Hillary campaign in 2016 created a “new” narrative of Russian interference in American politics. 

The Democratic Party had already witnessed the power of neo-Cold Warrior rhetoric with the Tea Party offensive against Obamacare. Glenn Beck, in particular, would serve as the model for the future of mainstream Democratic punditry, with fact-free paranoia-driven conspiracy-mongering being the perfect ammo for any political movement. But the Democrats were not simply duplicating the rhetoric of the Cold War; they were also hoping to copy its geopolitics. On the surface, to do such a thing makes little sense since the Soviet Union and modern-day Russia are two very different countries. The Soviet Union was an industrial-military superpower with a command economy and proxies on every continent of the world, modern Russia a middling regional power whose economy is kept on life support by an unstable oil market and selling off its once vast military arsenal. The Russian Federation is the modern sick man of Europe. However, even in its weakened state, Russia will still be a power looking to secure resources that will be made scarce by the climate crisis. Also much like Trump’s wall or the “terrorism” that fueled the war on terror, the threat of Russia to the USA does not have to be real per se, so long as it serves political ends well enough. 

The threat of Russia allows for the expansion of power by both the military-industrial complex and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party establishment benefits from being able to get their supporters to attack the enemy domestically, continually slandering both the Bernie Left and the Republican Party of being a puppet of Putin’s plot to destroy American democracy. Meanwhile, Democrats like Elizabeth Warren hope to expand the power of the deep state by allowing them to punish social media giants for allowing “fake news” (alternative news sources and opinions outside the media monopolies) to exist on their platforms. Previously Democrats pushed for the censorship of “fake news” through the negging of Silicon Valley CEOs. Now it’s become clear that such negging was merely a means for rationalizing state censorship, a normalization of the state of exception before the state of exception is needed. 

Out of all the candidates in the race, Pete Buttigieg is the most thoroughly in line with this future Political (in Schmitt’s sense) to the point where it could be said that he is the anointed sovereign of it. This is not apparent on the surface of his campaign, as he blends in with all the Obama clones that came before him, matching the pablum-spewing rhetorical style and valueless feel-good vibes of the Obama campaign to a tee. He’s a gay man but not in a flamboyant or feminine way that would make straight voters feel uncomfortable, even going so far as to only come out as a homosexual in 2015, well after public opinion had swung toward the acceptance of homosexuality, and only ever daring to kiss his husband on the cheek when on the campaign trail. This is similar to how Obama presented himself, being a black man who was not stereotypically “black” in his demeanor and attitude. Like Obama, Pete Buttigieg is only somewhat experienced as a politician on the local/state level. But this allows him to appear slightly outside the Democratic Party establishment without being politically radical enough to scare away wealthy donors. The only thing that really seems to separate Pete Buttigieg and Obama in terms of their respective backgrounds is that Pete Buttigieg is a veteran who did a brief “tour” in Afghanistan, which is a major plus given how popular veterans are among voters. Pete Buttigieg is the perfect Obama clone, and this is all because Pete Buttigieg was designed to be this way from the very start. 

The manufacturing of President Pete started early. After going through a brief socialist phase late in high school in which he praised Bernie Sanders and was influenced by his Gramsci scholar father, Buttigieg became a student at Harvard University where he would make elite connections. This culminated in him getting a job at the Cohen Group, a consulting firm that was founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, with an extensive clientele made up of the wealthiest companies in the arms industry. He would then go on to earn a fellowship at DC-based foreign policy think tank The Truman Center. In their college recruitment material, they state to be looking for “exceptionally accomplished and dedicated men and women who share President Truman’s belief in muscular internationalism, and who believed that strong National Security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic but are two sides of the same coin”; and have been described as being the ones who mobilized the Democratic Party’s interventionist agenda in the Middle East.1   

In 2008 Pete Buttigieg took a “vacation” to Somaliland with a “friend”, Somaliland being a separatist territory within the nation of Somalia and Somalia being one of the premier training sites for Wahhabist terrorists. The prevalence of Wahhabist terrorism would make Somalia/ Somaliland a seemingly unattractive tourist destination to most, but Pete and his friend Nathaniel Myers only spent 24 hours in Somaliland. This brief trip gave Pete Buttigieg the opportunity to write a puff piece on Somaliland advocating for its independence as a supposedly neutral observer. Nathaniel Myers who was working as a business analyst at the World Bank at the time of this so-called “vacation” would later go on to work as a senior advisor for the United States Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID-OTI). The OTI is a specialized division of USAID which destabilizes nations through a complex network of local proxies and contractors on the behalf of the United States.

The manufacturing of Pete Buttigieg continued with his military “service”. While his campaign spins a narrative of his “tour” in Afghanistan as a normal guy in the military, passing out cheesy photos of him in full body armor carrying a gun to create this impression, the truth is that he probably was never in any kind of danger during his time in the military. This is because Pete was no normal soldier. He was an officer in Naval Intelligence who spent his six months in Afghanistan in 2014 with a little-known unit that operated under the Drug Enforcement Administration. The name of the unit was the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) according to his appointment papers. No one in the press or the public actually 100% knows what his role in that unit was because the job description on the discharge papers was left completely blank. The unit itself was tasked with undermining the financial and material networks of the Taliban, carried out through heavy collaboration with the “intelligence community”. The French news organization France-Presse described the ATFC as “a multi-agency organization currently comprising about 30 specialists on loan from the Department of Drug Enforcement, Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, Department of Defense’s CENTCOM, the CIA and the FBI.” This brief stint in Afghanistan probably established his connections to the intelligence community further than ever before and gave him knowledge of counterinsurgency strategy.2

 

When Pete Buttigieg finally started to run for president he was not only able to receive the donations of 40 billionaires, making him a favorite among the ruling class, but he also received a whooping 218 endorsements from “foreign policy and national security professionals”. This is all rather suspicious considering that his only political experience before running for the presidency was being the mayor of a small college town in Indiana and all his more experienced Obama clone opponents were unable to get the same level support from either the intelligence community or the wealthy. He was also able to pull a “victory” in Iowa despite polling in 3rd in almost all the polling done right before the Iowa caucus, declaring that he had won well before the confused tallying was done – in a move similar to Juan Guaidó’s, leader of the CIA-backed coup attempt in Venezuela – while the app used to count the votes in Iowa was developed by a Buttigieg- and Democrat establishment-connected software developer Shadow Inc. Everything so far has gone according to plan.

One might be thinking to themselves “okay, Pete has connections to the intelligence community and is doing some shady things during the primaries, but where does the climate Leviathan come into play in all of this?” The answer to that isn’t obvious from his platform and rhetoric, since 90% of it is devoid of any kind of meaningful policy content. However, two particular stances in the void of empty platitudes that make up the Buttigieg campaign give a look into what exactly the Pete campaign has been designated to do. First is Pete’s response to criticism of the targeting of black neighborhoods by the police in South Bend, and second is his proposed “national service program”.

His response to criticism about the record of South Bend Police targeting black neighborhoods reveals how authoritarian measures will be rationalized through liberal ideology. Essentially his response was that the police were targeting these neighborhoods because there are high amounts of gun violence within them and that the South Bend Police Force who was pursuing a racist policy was merely being tough on gun violence. Gun control isn’t simply about fighting the big mean NRA and protecting vulnerable high school kids. It becomes a justification for the state of exception. As the interlocking crises of climate change and capitalist meltdown destabilize most of the world’s nations, it will be proletarianized black neighborhoods that will be the centers of resistance to the state, as they are already the weakest links within American society as is. The original Black Panthers understood that poor black neighborhoods were vital sites of class struggle, and when they were proving this through their practice the FBI sought to violently crush them. Militarizing the police and sending them as an occupying colonial force into these neighborhoods is a process that has been going on for a long time, but there have never been progressive arguments for doing this sort of thing that didn’t seem blatantly hypocritical given the lip service that they pay to the “black community”. Gun control gives out a free pass to terrorize poor black neighborhoods at will, since they can say it’s not about controlling a rebellious population, it’s about protecting their children from gun violence within their own communities. Of course, the police and more importantly the larger Security State apparatus could care less about what happens to black children – they have been responsible for waging a war against black neighborhoods for decades upon decades. Everything related to black communities has been a matter of control and use for the empire since its inception. 

Further, Pete Buttigieg’s national service program is an effort at the mobilization of the whole of society. While the Buttigieg campaign has denied that his national service program would be a universal recruitment draft like that in the infamous novel Starship Troopers and that most people involved in the program would end up going into the Peace Corps rather than the military, it is clear that the program is an aggressive effort at recruitment that hasn’t been seen in a long time, opening up jobs in every branch of national service. There’s been a slow quiet realization that the market nihilism that has dominated America for the past 40-something years has eroded the strength of the nation, dividing the citizenry into increasingly niche demographics and eroding the ability to engage in any kind of civic duty by enforcing impulsive tendencies in order to sell products. Buttigieg has tried to sell his national service program by appealing to his own military experience: 

“National service can help us to form connections between very different kinds of Americans, as was my experience in the military,” Buttigieg said in a statement. “I served alongside and trusted my life to people who held totally different political views. You shouldn’t have to go to war in order to have that kind of experience, which is why I am proposing a plan to create more opportunities for national service.”

Along with appeals to his own military service, Buttigieg argues for his program as a means of combating the larger crisis of climate change. In fact one could argue that the whole point of Pete’s national service plan is to harness military Keynesianism as a means of mobilizing the whole of society and militarizing labor towards the end of combating an enemy. This all might sound familiar depending on how much knowledge one has on the subject of revolutionary conservatism, in particular, that of Ernst Junger, who in a short essay “Total Mobilization” and his book The Worker laid out a vision of the future in which societies overcame the limits of liberal capitalism via the mobilization of society through war economies. This sort of 20th-century totalitarian horizon was lost to us in the age of neoliberalism when the logic of markets seemed to be dominant among the ruling class. However, as the neoliberal order begins to collapse with the dual crises of capitalism and climate change, old ideas are slowly creeping into the discourse. Pete Buttigieg and his handlers may never acknowledge that their vision of green military mobilization rhymes quite closely with that of the early forefathers of fascism, but it does not matter as material conditions necessitate the development of such a seemingly odd cross-ideological pollination.

Even if Pete Buttigieg is not the CIA candidate that will be couped into power, there are still many in the race who are inclined towards the new consensus of totalitarianism with a liberal face. Mike Bloomberg not only turned New York into a miniature police state when he was Mayor but also praised Xi Jinping for China’s response to climate change, suggesting that his own politics are in line with that of the climate Leviathan. 

The re-emergence of class politics

The surge of support behind the Sanders campaign has caused a great panic among many in the establishment of the Democratic Party. One of the most entertaining of them all is the televised mental breakdown of MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews. Matthews has been rendered a hysterical mess by the continuing success of Bernie Sanders, going on seemingly insane rants about how Sanders will conduct mass executions and institute full communism. This is laughable to most, as Bernie Sanders’ politics are those of a moderate social democrat. However, there are kernels of rationality in the panicking of Chris Matthews in his party. 

On the most practical level, Bernie Sanders is a threat to the Democratic Party’s existence. This is not because Sanders will ruin the Democratic Party’s reputation among voters like the Democrats are claiming, an erroneous notion given that he is one of the most popular politicians in the United States and consistently beats Donald Trump in head-to-head matchups according to polling. Rather it is ruining the Democratic Party’s reputation among donors that is the real threat. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties function merely as fundraising machines which pair candidates with rich donors loosely based on the ideological preferences within the capitalist class. If said wealthy donors flee the Democratic Party, then there will be nothing left of it. So when the candidate not only actively runs independently of donations from the capitalist class, but runs on a platform that aims directly at getting rid of big money from the political process altogether, it is more than simply a threat to the Democratic establishment’s control over the party, but a threat even to the survival of the party itself. This is why despite Bernie Sanders being able to win primaries and garner the majority of delegates and votes, the Democratic Party will refuse to give him the nomination. The Democratic Party has been continually choosing to meet the interests of their wealthy donors over their voters since the late seventies, abandoning policies popular with their base in favor of policies that would be popular with wealthy donors. This trend is likely to continue all the way to the convention, where the Democratic Party will choose to bleed voters in order to defend the interests of their capitalist donors by denying Bernie Sanders the nomination no matter what happens.

On a more theoretically abstract level, the Bernie Sanders campaign is a re-emergence of an old form of politics: class politics. In Concept of the Political Carl Schmitt lays out the unique character of class politics: 

The most conspicuous and historically the most effective example of this antithesis is formulated by Karl Marx: bourgeoisie and proletariat. This antithesis concentrates all antagonisms of world history into one single final battle against The Last Enemy of humanity. It does so by integrating the many bourgeois parties on earth into a single order on the one hand and likewise the proletariat on the other. By doing so a mighty friend-enemy grouping is forged. Its power of conviction during the 19th century resided above all in the fact that it followed its liberal bourgeois enemy into its own domain, the economic, changed it, so to speak in its home territory with its own weapons. This was necessary because turning towards economics was decided by victory of industrial society. The year of this victory, 1814, was the year in which England triumphed over the military imperialism of Napoleon.” (pg 75)

The reactionary Carl Schmitt understood that it is the universal character of class politics that challenges the whole capitalist order. This is specifically because of how class politics divides the whole of humanity into two distinct camps, leading the hungry masses of the proletariat into the battlefield of the economic, the territory of dominance of the capitalist class, to engage in a global war. Everyone on the political spectrum from the farthest left (Karl Marx) to the darkest corners of the far-right (Carl Schmitt) has understood this, and this is why the history of modernity is the history of class struggle. 

Chris Matthews and all the capitalists of America now squeal in terror because they had confused the brief victory of neoliberalism as the final defeat of the proletariat until Bernie Sanders busted onto the scene with his rhetoric of class struggle. While tame compared to the all-out class warfare of communism, the capitalist class understands that once the rhetoric of class struggle begins to rear its ugly head in politics it cannot be stopped with mild reforms. They are not afraid of Bernie Sanders per se, because Bernie Sanders is merely the manifestation of something larger. They focus so heavily on the mean comments that they get on Twitter and other online spaces because it is a hostility that will if not completely stomped out, boil over into real violence when shit hits the fan. They’re coming to the uncomfortable realization that all this might not go away once Bernie is pushed out of the Democratic Party. In fact, it might only make it worse. 

The ancients knew that it was the Mad who can really see. As one of our modern Oracles of Delphi, Chris Matthews is blind, he cannot see the plainness of Bernie Sanders, but that superficial fact does not matter because he is looking into the depths of our future. He can see the bodies being piled up in the streets, the mass graves, the famine and most importantly the war. He screams that we are on the Eve of Destruction and he is right. But the Gods are cruel. Even when they bless the lucky few with premonitions of upcoming events they can never let them see everything. We know that things now are leading towards an inevitable final conflict between the capitalist class with their Leviathan and the hungry mass of the proletariat with their heroes, we know that it will be bloody and long but we do not know how it will play out. All we can do now is rally our men, pray to the Gods and hope fate is on our side.

 

 

On Hasidic Jews, Anti-Semitism and Non-Profits

In light of recent antisemitic attacks, Lane Silberstein gives perspective on political divisions and class contradictions within the Jewish community, particularly Hasidic Jews. 

Amid the frustrations and struggles of so-called “late capitalism” a very old capitalist problem has again come to the fore: antisemitism. Last month there were nine antisemitic attacks in New York City and the surrounding area in the span of one week, with the bulk of them targeting ultra-orthodox Jewish communities. Understanding and approaching this reality is confusing not only for gentiles, but also for well-meaning liberal, leftist and secular Jews, most of whom are isolated from these communities. I’ve lived in New York for ten years and been Jewish much longer. As a Jewish socialist, I hope that these preliminary thoughts and resources can spur further discussion and action.

To be clear, I am not Hasidic. I am not really religious at all. In the wake of this recent attack, Hasidim are speaking out and writing moving pieces that I encourage people to read. More effort needs to be made to translate the robust Yiddish press that circulates among Hasidim. My knowledge of Hasidim is sorely lacking, based on readings and some personal interactions. I am also conflating “Hasidic” with ultra-orthodox, which historically is not accurate; when Hasidim emerged in the late 18th century, they were opposed by other Orthodox leaders. Today, there are many ultra-orthodox Jews who trace their lineage to the misnagdim of Lithuania. Among Hasidim, there are many groups, often called courts, that trace their history to specific geographic locations. Their politics vary: I remember being at a Menorah lighting several years ago put on by Chabad, a group known for outreach to non-Hasidic Jews. At this time, Trump had moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, so the event was dedicated to him. Chabad is also known for their “mitzvah tanks,” the buses on New York street corners that give out ritual items — they started calling the buses that after Israeli armor dominated the 6 Day War. Most other Hasidim are anti-Zionist. 

What I can offer readers, however, is insight into the bourgeois world of Jewish liberals, their relationship to capitalism, nationalism and whiteness, which affects how they feel about Hasidim. One of the biggest conflicts for Jewish socialists is the discrepancy between our lives and the power of the “Jewish establishment,” a vast conglomeration comprised mostly of nonprofits with budgets in the billions of dollars. They operate independently, and some of them have tiny budgets, and they collaborate on occasion; but as a whole, they function to uphold the status quo and buttress against socialist organizing. Many socialists have written about the “nonprofit industrial complex,” as it is often called. Recently, the left’s conflict with the Jewish establishment has centered around Zionism and the establishment’s inability to end the occupation of Palestine — but it’s clear they are equally unable to address relationships between Jews and people of color, to adequately embrace Jews of color, and even to understand and tackle antisemitism. 

With these recent attacks, it would be a good opportunity for liberal Jewish nonprofits to donate to Hasidic causes, but many of these mainstream Jewish organizations feel the need to pay their directors six figures, so it’s unlikely they will be able to free up those funds. The history of (Jewish) nonprofits is based on a fundamentally orientalist relationship between bourgeois Western European Jews and poorer Eastern European Jewish refugees. (You will often hear about tense relationships between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews; a lot of that can be traced back to condescension between Ashkenazi Jews and other Ashkenazi Jews). That said, contemporary nonprofits are another way for the bourgeoisie to remain aloof from both the working class and Hasidim, while claiming they have solutions to our problems. The Jewish establishment has spent decades not building ties to working-class Jews, Hasidic or otherwise. Were these connections between nonprofits to be built, they would happen on a board member-to-board member, bourgeois-to-bourgeois level, and reaffirm the power of Hasidic elites as well as non-profit hegemony. 

The path forward relies on working-class Jews from all backgrounds building connections on our own, and a good way to start is with the OTD (“off the derech”/lit. not following the path, i.e. ex religious) crowd. These Jews, often young and LGBTQ, have left their tight-knit families at great personal risk. Occasionally, high profile suicides will make the news. Groups like Footsteps, which helped produce the Netflix documentary “One Of Us,” do outreach and provide resources to OTD Jews, but their model is fundamentally individual, and not based on building power against Hasidic elites or raising class consciousness. Another group, Yaffed, is pushing New York politicians to adopt stronger oversight of Yeshivas’ educational programming, who do not teach adequate math, science, and English. DSA and other electoral organizations should endorse candidates who follow Yaffed’s recommendations.

Detailing the history of Hasidic Judaism is a task so complex that it has required the recent publication of a nearly 900-page book. The authors write,

From its beginnings, Hasidism was far more than an intellectual movement. It was also a set of bodily practices, including praying, storytelling, singing, dancing, eating, all performed within the frame of the reciprocal relationship between rebbe [leader] and Hasid [follower]. The very physicality of Hasidism played an enormous role in transforming it from an elite to a popular movement. Despite all of the traditional elements one finds in Hasidism, this concatenation of ideas and practices was something entirely new in Jewish history, a movement of mass religiosity that would take its place side by side with more secular movements as part of the complex phenomenon of Jewish modernity. 

Building ties with practicing Hasidim will be a long and difficult undertaking, because this internal social network remains incredibly strong, and is able to provide them with not only psychological and emotional community ties, but material sustenance like housing and food. Hasidim try as much as possible to isolate themselves, and distrust outsiders: “it is impossible to think of Hasidism without its use of new weapons against secular culture.” Their penchant for speaking Yiddish is part of this. Imagine being born in the US but never learning proper English, an “immigrant to your own country,” as Footsteps often says. White supremacy, patriarchy, and faith in their corrupt leaders are strong. Considering the hand-wringing about the “white working class”, organizing Hasidim is a very American problem. The distrust that Hasidim have towards liberal groups like Footsteps and Yaffed (whose founder receives death threats) means the work for socialists will be especially hard. 

Overall, Hasidim live in poverty. While many of them do work, it’s often for little pay in retail. Their cost of living is high: kosher food, dowries, and expensive private education. Latinx workers led a strike in 2017 at B&H Photo, which is owned by Hasidim; working-class Hasidim could have joined the workers against the owners, but this did not happen, and the strike was defeated. Many Hasidim rely on food stamps. Amid the antisemitism scandals around Corbyn and Labour, he was defended by ultra-orthodox Jews who valued his support for social welfare. 

I predict that Hasidim will welcome greater police presence, who to my knowledge have good relations with their own informal police, the shomrim. They will not really care about the waste of resources. Maintaining our solidarity with those already targeted by the state is of utmost importance and will be difficult – think of how ultra-orthodox anti-Zionism is not really based in solidarity with Palestinians. Again, liberal Jewish institutions are useless in this. They trust the police (collaborating with the police seems to be the ADL’s whole raison d’etre). When the police fail and inevitably start working with open white supremacists, we will see how the Jewish establishment responds. 

Theoretically, I believe it is worth differentiating between fascist attacks (e.g. Tree of Life massacre) and attacks whose motivations are rooted in neighborhood-specific contexts. In Jersey City, where an attack took place, Hasidim were making recent moves, displacing long-time residents. For Brooklyn, studying the history of relationships between Hasidim and people of color is necessary. The Crown Heights riots and the general trend of gentrification are relevant. Jimmy McMillan, who became famous in 2010 for his “the rent is too damn high” speeches, held antisemitic views. But if a black person’s only interaction with Jews is one in which the latter is a landlord, this is a different conversation from fascist antisemitism that posits Jews are letting in too many immigrants and fomenting white genocide, and one James Baldwin writes about with characteristic sensitivity and insight. However, while it appears that a black man perpetrated the recent Monsey attack, local Republicans there ran an ad in August warning of “Jewish takeover” Rockland County. The conflation by certain members of the commentariat between “black” and “leftist” are not even worth addressing; they are racist and have an obvious political motivation. But we are seeing a dangerous mix of social issues, and it will be all the more important for Jews to show up to anti-racist organizing, such as prison and police reform. 

I’m also thinking right now of liberal and conservative Jews’ nationalistic feelings for the US, which are not uncomplicated. On the one hand, they think this country is unique in its opportunity for Jewish success (that is, they ignore whiteness); but they’ve also had that latent Zionist paranoia where, at any moment, gentiles will turn on us. Maybe they will start to see that this country is built on racism and colonization and isn’t actually safe for any vulnerable group. The relative success of white Jews, however, blocks some of us from realizing that antisemitism is fundamentally about a relationship to capital. Suffice to say that liberal Jewish analysis of antisemitism as something unending and “just a part of society” is as useless as Orthodox Jews blaming Jewish assimilation or Zionism for the Holocaust. Antisemitism forces Jews to share a fate while we do not all share interests. The linking of fate with interest is the meaning of solidarity; only in socialism can there be true solidarity.  

What else is next? This might sound crass, but a Jewish president who delivers well-liked universal programs could help stem antisemitism. Bernie wrote a widely-read article about combating antisemitism directly, although it relied on the action of state agencies, and was met with criticism, including my own. Expanding the rights of tenants and fighting gentrification could also curb awkward feelings about Jews, but neither the Jewish establishment nor Hasidim are invested in this fight. With the possibility of another war in the Middle East, this time with one of Israel’s enemies, the potential for diaspora Jews to be blamed is always there. Anti-imperialism is part of the fight against antisemitism. 

At the same time, what’s happening now is showing us the need to be prepared, because a Jewish president, while good in the long-run, in my opinion, will result in more immediate backlash. I’m not of the mind that uniting as Jews, that is, on the basis of identity, is what’s crucial right now, as my overview of relevant power relations has hopefully made clear. Jewish identity is being constantly redefined and deployed for political means. But antisemitism is a problem for the working class, and capitalism will not be defeated until antisemitism is. Overcoming differences that have put in place by the non-profit industrial complex and elitists will be key, because the only thing that will protect us, and build connections for the future, is solidarity and defense of the working class. 

Further reading: 

 

Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition

For this episode, Parker and Donald welcome Cosmonaut editor and writer Medway Baker on to Canadasplain the Westminster system. Join us as we put on our inner socdem wonk to discover what went wrong for the Labour Party in the recent UK election.

 

Faith, Family and Folk: Against the Trad Left

Donald Parkinson takes issue with the calls for a “socially conservative leftism” that have increased in popularity since Jeremy Corbyn’s defeat in the UK election. 

Socially conservative, economically leftist 

The recent UK election has been a test of faith for many. Seeing countless working-class people vote for a gang of pedophiles, who want to cut the NHS in the name of nationalism, is a dark sign for Marxists who are invested in class politics as the pathway to an emancipated world. Regardless of how one feels about social-democracy or bourgeois elections, this was a defeat for the left. Nationalism triumphed over classical working-class politics attempting a return to the national stage. 

The defeat of Jeremy Corbyn by Brexit has been seen as validation for an ideology that can be described in short as “socially conservative, economically leftist.” The argument goes as follows: given the choice between economic redistribution and nationalism, the working class has chosen nationalism. Therefore the left needs to embrace nationalism along with all the other parochial “forces of habit” found in the working class if they want to win. A recent example is the advocacy group Blue Labour, which at least gives an honest argument for these politics without obfuscation. 

Blue Labour argues that the politics of social conservatism aligned with economic leftism has a new majority, a silent majority if you will. It calls for a politics that is “Internationalist and European” but “not globalist, nor universalist nor cosmopolitan.” It calls for embracing the parochial against the universalist in the name of resisting the commodification of labor, not unlike the “Reactionary Socialism” maligned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Yet instead of arguing for a return to feudalism, Blue Labour wants to return to a Fordist economy where the family and nation are stabilized by a protectionist social order. 

This argument is given theoretical justification in a paper by Steve Hall and Simon Winlow. Hall and Winlow paint a historical picture of the British Left as a sort of battle waged by middle-class reformers trying to enforce a cosmopolitan morality on a socially conservative working class. According to Hall and Winlow, these reformers were first found in organizations like the Reform League and Fabians, entering the Labour Party to force their middle-class ideals on the workers’ movement. Fair enough, but Hall and Winlow accuse Engels of wanting to destroy working-class life to open the space for socialism, and claim the Soviet Union was inspirational to the Fabians because it was “yet another system imposed upon the working class by a middle-class vanguard.” 

Then the article ventures into the territory of rightist conspiracy theories about “Cultural Marxism”, claiming that the Frankfurt School and the post-structuralist academics were merely a continuation of these middle-class reformers. Here we find a narrative best expounded by Christopher Lasch in his seminal Revolt of the Elites, in which middle-class technocrats try to impose social engineering on a wholesome “common people”, people with a healthy instinct of revulsion towards top-down social engineering. This is a worldview where anyone who strives to fight for socially progressive ideas amongst the working class is inherently a “middle-class outsider” trying to force their ways upon the righteous common folk. 

This is also a worldview that has been bubbling under the surface since Marxist theorists like Michel Clouscard and Christopher Lasch critiqued what they saw as a narcissistic and libertine superstructure that reinforced and served modern capitalism, particularly after 1968. Today figures like Angela Nagle and Aimee Terese repeat similar critiques to an online audience.  A common target is open borders and LGBTQ politics, and appeals are made for the left to make peace with the social-conservatism that (supposedly) dominates the working class. At the same time, Tucker Carlson calls attention to a potential electoral majority that is “culturally conservative and economically populist”, which can challenge a “state religion of woke politics” and the “elite left”. In the journal American Affairs, formerly pro-Trump, a more intellectual case is more for this kind of politics. A general political trend seems to be emerging in both the left and the right, basing itself on the premise that organizing the working class and challenging liberal capitalism means turning to social conservatism and even embracing traditional values. To quote a tweet from the leftist podcaster Sean P. McCarthy: 

Seems to me like religion, family, and the nation state are all things that give people a sense of community and duty counter to the alienation and loneliness of late stage capitalism and the left should probably shut up about abolishing them and let people enjoy things. 

In this, we see three of the main categories that the left is supposed to make peace with. Religion, family, and nation-state have long been critiqued by the left as an ideological fetishism and forms of oppression and alienation. This is not some deviation of a “postmodern cultural turn”, as some like to claim in an attempt to appeal to an earlier form of leftism where class issues were at the forefront. The Bolsheviks included figures like Alexandra Kollontai, who sought to overcome the bourgeois family while her comrades called for a radical internationalism that aimed to make no compromise with national chauvinism. These positions are a continuation of the radical enlightenment convictions baked into Marxism that critiques all oppressive superstitions that limit human potential. Yet with the left losing harder than ever, many think that it’s time to give up on these convictions. They think it is time to make peace with and even start appealing to what is essentially reactionary tradition in the name of building a movement that will effectively challenge neoliberal capitalism, both economically and culturally.

We can call this tendency “traditionalist leftism”, or “trad leftism” for short. It is a form of populism that sees the working classes as inherently morally correct no matter how organized or politically conscious. To even see social backwardness as a phenomenon among the working class to be challenged is to capitulate to a petty-bourgeois moralism more concerned with abstract universalism than the direct needs of workers. The working class is scared of migrants, alienated by trans people, and annoyed by the feminists who seek to guilt them for desiring a stable family life, the argument goes. To oppose these attitudes is to play the role of the middle-class reformer who seeks to impose progressive values on the workers against their will. As a result, the trad leftists implicitly call for a program of strong borders and strong families along with a paternalistic welfare state, sometimes flirting with an embrace of religion. After all, wasn’t Stalin himself opposed to homosexuality, making concessions to the Orthodox Church? 

In a previous article, I argued against similar logic, albeit one that was less outright in favor of chauvinism, by arguing that a politics of economism that focuses purely on the bread-and-butter is anti-Marxist rather than authentically Marxist. Yet to simply appeal to “true Marxism” to show why the trad leftists are wrong helps us little when most people don’t consider themselves Marxists in the first place. Moralizing or calling people Strasserites won’t help us either. Instead, we need strong political arguments as to why an economist “leftism” that appeals to nation, family, and church is not the answer to the problems facing us today, especially for when we engage with working-class communities that themselves hold conservative sentiments.  

Nation

Let us begin with the issue of the nation. Blue Labour argues that a politics that “opposes borders and the idea of the nation… cannot develop an alternative story of democratic nationhood, nor one about belonging, nor about international relations.” The underlying premise here is that it is only through nationalism and the nation-state that a democratic polity can be constructed, and since a democratic polity is necessary for leftist politics leftists must embrace the nation. This entails embracing border control to limit migration and putting “our own workers first.” It is a political logic that aims to affirm the nation-state as a protective shield against the power of the global market, with neoliberal capitalism a contradiction between national sovereignty and globalization. Outright Marxists like Wolfgang Streck have made these sorts of claims, arguing for a distinction between “people of the state” and “people of the market” to assert that without a strong national community there is no possibility of opposing capitalism. 

Following this logic, various leftists like Angela Nagle and Paul Cockshott have argued that leftists should welcome rather than oppose immigration controls. Ultimately this argument follows an unspoken premise that right-wing nationalists have been repeating since the dawn of the nation-state, which is that social programs rely on an ethnically homogenous community. Therefore, if leftists want to rebuild a welfare state ravaged by neo-liberalism they have no choice but to become advocates of a strong nation-state to preserve the homogeneity of the nation in the face of immigration. And the longer they wait to do this, the longer they will lose like Jeremy Corbyn.

Blue Labour argue that rejecting the national can only mean embracing an “abstract universalism” as opposed to a concrete and actually existing national community. From this abstract universalism, one can only fail to actually form a working-class polity. Yet what the argument seems to forget is that nation-states themselves at one point were merely abstract universalism. The French Revolution developed the modern nation through a notion of universal citizenship that sought to ensure the rights of man, and to form the nation-state a disparate collection of agrarian communities had to be mobilized in the name of these rights. Through a process of political mobilization and organization, the abstract nation was made into a concrete political reality, centralizing different communities under a representative government with rights, duties, and a common language.

If it was possible to do this for the original nation-state then it is also possible to take an abstract internationalism and turn it into a concrete polity. The Second International began such a project, building a working-class culture that oriented itself around a “demonstration culture”, which sought to build a sense of international community among a federation of national parties.1 By organizing the working class around principles of solidarity with workers of all nations and forming transnational institutions, it is possible to build a democratic community that is not rooted in a particular nation. This isn’t going to be easy; the Second International ultimately succumbed to nationalism. Yet to say that only the nation provides a basis for building a democratic community is to surrender to the path of least resistance and ignore the possibilities contained in history. 

If we aim to build this international community of proletarians, we must oppose immigration controls. As Donna Gabaccia shows in her work Militants and Migrants, the process of migration has been key in the formation of transnational working-class communities.2 To say that immigration controls are necessary because the nation is the only way workers can form a political community is to impose conditions that make transnational working-class communities more difficult to form.

Another issue with embracing the nation-state is that we are entering a global crisis of climate change that simply cannot be addressed on the national level. Developing the kind of response needed to the potential catastrophe on the horizon is going to require cooperation beyond the national level and working towards a global planned economy. The alternative is that nations compete to have the least disastrous downfall, protecting their respective populations from the worst while shutting out those suffering like a sinking lifeboat. It is imperative that humanity moves beyond the nation-state if it is going to survive. 

Family 

“Abolition of the family” has long been a controversial position amongst communists, prompting Marx and Engels to have to address it in the Communist Manifesto when defending themselves from right-wing attacks. The response of Marx and Engels was to point out that the family was already withering away in the face of capitalism for much of the proletariat, an observation that is made today by the trad leftists to argue that an embrace of family values is the logical conclusion of anti-capitalist politics. 

I will concede to the trad leftists that “abolish the family” is not exactly a winning slogan. This is not because it scares workers but because it doesn’t effectively communicate what we are aiming for. We should be more precise in our language, and set our sights more specifically on patriarchy. It is the dependence of women on husbands and of children on their parents that we wish to do away with, not the cohabitation of kinship and the emotional support that comes with it. Of course, there are some leftists like Sophie Lewis who see a future beyond the family based on universal surrogacy, a vision that seems more designed to troll the trad leftists than as a genuine political program. Such visions are genuinely alienating, yet their existence does not require an equally contrarian response that affirms the traditional family. 

According to Christopher Lasch, the family is a “haven in a heartless world”. If social life is reduced to pure economic competition between atomized individuals, then the family, for those lucky enough to still have one, is one of the few forms of community they have. There is no doubt that the destruction of the family by capitalism with nothing to replace it is quite grim and psychically horrifying. Yet it is mistaken to idealize the family as an escape from the impersonal alienation of the market, when for many people the family is itself a form of personal and direct alienation. Not everyone lives in a world where their family is their friend; in many cases, one’s family can be their worst enemy. We can do better than valorizing one form of alienation in response to another. 

Rather than returning to the family in the face of its destruction under capitalism, we should seek to create a world where the haven of the family is not necessary. Rather than a society full of broken families, we need a society where someone without a family can thrive as well as someone with family intact. This is what “abolishing the family” truly means: to end the economic relations of dependence of wives and children on the patriarch so that kinship is based on voluntary relationships of genuine love and community. This would entail not ending the ability of parents to raise their children, but instead giving children the option to leave their families if they are abusive, while retaining support networks beyond the misery of foster care. It would mean ending the unpaid domestic labor of women that reproduces the nuclear family, by socializing this work and removing its gendered connotations.

This is not to mention that a reassertion of family values could only be done through a turn towards a vile culture of patriarchy. We must understand that patriarchy is not simply an attitude of men, but a historically derived mode of production with institutional forms according to which the wife and children are the property of the father and perform what is essentially slave labor to reproduce the household as an economic unit. To turn back to the traditional family would require empowering this economic unit by reinforcing the conditions under which women are essentially the property of their husbands. Until the trad left is willing to own up to this and describe the measures they will take to accomplish this, their gloating about family values is merely subcultural posturing. 

Religion 

The issue of religion is hardly cut and dry. Religious belief has been an ideological force for mobilizing the vilest of reactionary movements, such as the Iron Guard in Romania or the current rightist coup in Bolivia. Yet at the same time, religious sentiment has been used to mobilize those on the side of socialism and decolonization, such as Catholic Liberation Theology or Muslim National Communism. It could be argued that a policy of secularism rather than militant atheism is preferable, with militant atheism having done more harm than good for the Communist project by alienating potential sympathizers. 

Yet for the trad left the question of religion goes beyond the question of whether someone can hold religious beliefs while also being a good communist militant. For much of the trad left an embrace of religion is coupled with a turn towards social-conservatism. It is obvious why; embracing a social-conservative viewpoint is impossible without distorting Marxism. Within religious doctrines, one can find an ethical appeal to justify taking up the reactionary viewpoints they see in the working class. There is also a communitarian and collectivist element to religion that, like the family, can serve as a “haven in a heartless world” which can be counterposed to atomizing liberal individualism. Another factor is the lack of an (at least explicit) ethical framework in Marxism, a belief system that exists as counterposed to utopian socialists who aimed to build socialism on the foundation of ethical ideals.

Examples of socialists turning to Catholicism or other religious tendencies are primarily niche phenomena on Twitter, but there are some more famous examples, like Catholic Elizabeth Bruenig, known for her anti-abortion stance. An attempt to articulate such a politics programmatically can be found in the “Tradinista Manifesto”, written by “a small party of young Christian socialists committed to traditional orthodoxy, to a politics of virtue and the common good, and to the destruction of capitalism, and its replacement by a truly social political economy.” 

The Tradinista Manifesto is essentially an internet shitpost with no historical importance. I only turn to it as a good example of the contradictory nature of the social-conservative left and problems with turning to religious values as a counter to liberal capitalism. It begins by asserting that Christ is king and that the polity should, therefore, promote the teachings of the Church, “autonomous but not fully separate from the Church”. What we have here seems to be a sort of light theocracy, albeit a theocracy that is supposed to promote economic justice. The vision of economic justice here is a sort of Proudhonism, not dissimilar to Catholic distributism. Class society is to be eradicated while property rights are also asserted. The solution is the promotion of worker cooperatives, everyone becoming a property owner. How this vision is supposed to be feasible given the development of modern productive forces is left to the imagination. 

Even more contradictory is the simultaneous rejection and promotion of sexual conservatism. Our Catholic authors claim to be against “Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and similar forms of oppression” yet at the same time claim that “Marriage and family life should be specially supported by the polity to promote the common good” while also taking a “pro-life” stance against abortion. This is a stance that may make sense to the religious idealist, but to a Marxist it is nonsensical. According to Engels, the wife was the first form of private property and the institution of the family is the economic basis upon which the oppression of women rests. Such a position is like calling for the abolition of obesity while supporting the fast-food industry. 

This contradiction captures the very bind that the trad socialists find themselves in. In calling for left-wing economics and social conservative cultural values, they fail to recognize that social conservative values only have purchase because of the division of society into classes and the various forms of oppression that accompany them. People turn to various traditional structures like the family and religion partly because they serve as shelters from the worst aspects of capitalist society. There is, of course, the force of habit that these attitudes have instilled in people which often dies hard. Yet it is unbelievable that a strengthening of the family would be a feature of a world where economic equality was the norm, unless women were systematically excluded from this norm in order to avoid granting them economic independence. Authentically ending class society therefore entails ending patriarchy.

We also find here a problem with trying to base politics on religion in general, as a religious ethics tends to be based on a priori claims that are not subject to further questioning and therefore must be held to. Alexander Bogdanov referred to this as “authoritarian causality,” a type of thinking that holds causality to be rooted in a greater power that exists before all other causes.3  Religious traditions see the work of god or gods as this final cause and therefore hold ethics to stem from these gods, making them unquestionable. This means that a collective and democratic understanding of what defines the “good life” is out of the question, since this answer is already taken as an item of faith.4 So when the Tradinsitas attempt to construct a left-wing politics for the modern world, they are forced to adhere to the Catholic Church’s dogma of being against abortion while simultaneously claming to be against misogyny, resulting in an incoherent politics. 

Despite these contradictions, the desire for an ethical grounding beyond the scientific analysis of history provided by Marxism is real. It is my opinion that for us communists, ethical nihilism is not a tenable position. A basic ethical worldview is needed. Perhaps we can find this in the ethics of classical republicanism, a discourse that was implicit in the entire early socialist movement that Marx and Engels were embedded in. Or, maybe Lunacharksy’s “god-building” is the solution, wherein the wake of the old religions’ destruction humanity must build a new religious system devoid of superstition, which can provide a moral grounding for humanity. Such a moral grounding must be universalist and based in reason, not in a traditional creed that isn’t subject to further questioning. Regardless of how one feels about these ideas, turning to the old religious dogmas is not a solution to the problem, even on pragmatic grounds. One’s religious sentiments are very much rooted in their own upbringing and personal experiences, and cannot unify the masses of wage workers around a common human task of overcoming class society. A pluralistic approach that allows for the participation of religious socialists in a greater movement, unified around a truly universalist radicalism, is preferable. 

Is liberal capitalism inherently socially progressive? 

It is a common talking point of the trad left that capitalism destroys all the patriarchal and traditional bonds of the old communities, creating an atomized liberal individual who can be exploited by capital. Julius Evola, the ultimate philosopher of traditionalism, famously said that capitalism is just as subversive as communism. With this there can be no real disagreement. Yet this premise is taken a step further with the argument that to truly be opposed to capital means to affirm these traditional forms and protect them from erosion by capitalism. To be socially progressive, they say, is only to do the work of capitalism for the capitalists, and the left is nothing more than a vanguard of liberalism as long as it maintains an opposition to social conservatism. 

The idea that capitalism is inherently socially progressive and antagonistic to social conservatism should be held up to closer scrutiny. This brings us to the theories of Karl Polanyi and his notion of the “Double movement.”5 According to Polanyi, capitalism is unique because of its tendency to subsume all elements of social life to the nexus of market exchange, alienating all that was once inalienable. Focusing on 19th Century England, Polanyi discussed the transformation of “natural” communities, in which land and labor had an inherent worth that was mediated through relations of personal duty and obligation, where now these are objects of abstract exchange. Where labor was once mediated by tradition and custom it now carries a price tag, subject to the whims of market anarchy. As Karl Marx would say, “all that is solid melts into air.” 

In Polanyi’s vision this movement of capital to subsume all that exists outside of it inevitably triggers a countermovement to protect social order from this corrosion, as the market will eventually destroy the foundations upon which it functions. This countermovement can take many forms, from national protectionism to communitarianism to the welfare state. Against the atomization of humanity into sellable commodities there is an assertion of social solidarities that aim to restore what was destroyed. The countermovement is seen as external to the logic of the market, yet at the same time necessary for its functioning if society is not to fall into a war of all against all. 

Polanyi would make an excellent theorist for the trad left, as using his framework one could call for a reassertion of the family, nation and church as social solidarities to provide the foundation of a countermovement against neoliberal capitalism. Yet by identifying capitalism solely with the logic of the market and social disintegration, Polanyi overestimates how much these countermovements are actually outside of capital. He sets up a situation where any reaction to capitalism will be inherently conservative, defending and reasserting the traditional ways of life that are disrupted by capitalism. Yet what if the movement of capital and the countermovement against it, the double movement, are internal to capitalism, rather than the latter being external to it? 

Melinda Cooper, in her work Family Values, develops exactly this critique by looking at the role of the family in the history of neoliberalism. Drawing on the work of Wendy Brown, Cooper argues that neoliberalism and neoconservatism both need to be understood as a greater dialectic within capitalism. To do this, she focuses on the role of family in policy and discourse from both neoliberals and neoconservatives, showing how both political tendencies were invested in the maintenance of the family as the basis of a society based on market contracts. Neoliberals like Gary S. Becker and Milton Friedman used concern over the disruption of the family by welfare as a reason to promote the welfare reform, not simply as a matter of cost-cutting, but as a way to promote the equilibrium of the family as a sound basis for the equilibrium of the market.6 This throws into question the understanding of neoliberalism as having an inherently socially progressive superstructure of hedonistic sexual liberation from the family. Milton and Rose Friedman would write in their book Tyranny of the Status Quo that

If we are right that the tide is turning, that public opinion is shifting away from a belief in big government and away from the doctrine of social responsibility, then that change…will tend to restore a belief in individual responsibility by strengthening the family and reestablishing its traditional role.7 

For the neoliberals, the family was a spontaneous order that would develop when set free from the distortions of welfare and provide a basis upon which the market could flourish. Neoliberal welfare reforms aimed to make the family rather than the state absorb the cost of externalities, which meant that welfare reforms aimed for more than just budget trimming, but also for enforcing family morality. For neoconservatives, the family was something to be actively protected that required intervention from the state. When the family didn’t develop as a spontaneous order due to neoliberal reforms, neoconservatism as a political force was necessary to reassert the family as a countermovement. Cooper summarizes the relationship of the two ideologies to the family as follows:

If neoliberals were adamant that the economic obligations of family should be enforced even when the legal and affective bonds of kinship had broken down, social conservatives were intent on actively rekindling the family as a moral institution based on the unpaid labor of love. Both agreed, however, that the private family (rather than the state) should serve as the primary source of economic security.8


Neoliberalism and neoconservatism can be seen as an example of how Polanyi’s double movement is a dialectic internal to capitalism itself, with countermovements that aim to reassert what is destroyed by market forces acting to facilitate the reproduction of capitalism as a whole. As a result, countermovements that assert the family or nation as protective shields against the worst aspects of capitalism do not offer a way out of capitalism; they instead act to stabilize it. Furthermore, market liberalism does not necessarily entail a social progressive superstructure. The capitalist zealots most intent on subsuming all life to the market have seen an important role for family life, even if they leave its promotion to other political forces. Seeing the rise of alternative lifestyles and sexualities as simply a superstructural expression of neoliberalism is ultimately too simplistic and ignores how social conservatism synchronizes with neoliberalism. 

What is necessary is an emancipatory alternative to class society itself that can transcend the dialectic of market liberalism and social conservatism, rather than assert one side of it against the other. The destruction of village and family life in capitalism nonetheless creates a community of the proletariat which is engaged in collective labor in the workplace and community, fostering the potential for a new community that is not rooted in parochial ways of life. The formation of this community through transnational alliances as a political collectivity allows for a way forward, beyond the atomization of the market and patriarchal nationalism alike. 

Is the working-class naturally conservative? 

Many of those who would make arguments similar to Blue Labour may not themselves have much attachment to the traditional family or nationalism, but think that the left simply needs to abandon social progressivism out of a pragmatic need to appeal to the working class. This notion is based on the premise that the working class is “naturally socially conservative” and that mobilizing them for the purpose of economic redistribution should take precedence over struggles for the ‘recognition’ of marginalized peoples. 

This notion can be found in a recent overview of the most recent work of Thomas Piketty by Jan Rovny. According to Rovny, the pattern of voting in which lower-income brackets voted for the left while upper brackets voted for the “Merchant right” has been disrupted by the process of neoliberal deindustrialization. While the wealthiest still vote for the right wing, the constituency of the left parties is no longer the working class but middle-class professionals, often referred to as the PMC (professional-managerial class). Now what remains of the working class is picked up by right-wing populist parties, in a reversal of the political realignment of the early 20th century when political parties with a working-class base had socially progressive agendas. 

The explanation as to why the socially progressive left was able to win over the working class is that the old equivalent of the Brahmin left (examples given are Jean Jaurès and Léon Blum) were able to push against the inherent social conservatism of the working class. These middle class intellectuals “translated working class authoritarian tendencies into a fight for universalistic social progress” and “replaced nationalistic tendencies of the working classes with socialist internationalism”. Rovny takes issue with Piketty’s optimism that this can happen again for two reasons: for one, the left cannot square the economic interests of the working class with progressive middle-class intellectuals, and furthermore right-wing populists are able to meet the economic interests of the working class without the added baggage of social progressivism. 

The problem with this argument is that it naturalizes both the social conservatism of the working class and the social progressivism of the middle-class professionals. Working-class social conservatism is not a “natural” result of their spontaneous life experiences but a product of the institutions that dominate their lives. Right-wing demagogues in the media and other institutions such as churches actively fight to win ideological domination over the working class and channel economic grievances into chauvinistic attitudes. Working-class conservatism is not a natural inherent quality of the working class, but something they are socialized into by political actors who actively struggle for domination over everyday life. It is something historically and institutionally determined, not “natural”. 

Social progressivism among the professional stratum is a similar phenomenon, also something historically and institutionally determined. This social progressivism is related to the fact that this stratum serves the role of ideologically justifying the rule of the capitalist class. The “woke” ideology of this stratum is a product of the role they play as HR managers for a capitalist order that aims to nakedly exploit the global proletariat and manage the imperialist order, while still presenting itself as progressive by offering economic opportunity for marginalized people. Their social progressivism is designed to leave as much room as possible for capitalism to function while ensuring that it preserves opportunities for those who were previously left out. If capitalism loses the need for a socially progressive mask then we can expect to see this stratum embrace a nakedly reactionary chauvinism. 

This understanding of the petty-bourgeois professional as inherently socially progressive with the working class as inherently socially conservative puts us in a position where any attempt to fight for genuine communist politics can only be understood as middle-class wankers trying to beat an alien ideology into the working class. It is also just as condescending to the working class as the middle-class liberals that the trad left rightfully condemn because it assumes the working class is too narrow-minded to embrace a universalist and progressive worldview. The truth is that the working class has no institutions of its own in much of the world right now, and therefore cannot be said to have an ideology of its own. As a result, it is a plaything of socially reactionary and socially progressive sections of the ruling class. 

The lesson here is that we need to struggle against both social conservative demagogues who preach to the working class as well as the woke professional stratum and expose their hypocrisy. If the right can dominate the social life of the working class through its institutions and win them to its own platform, then the left can as well. It has been done before, and there is no need to square their economic interests with those of salaried professionals. This struggle has to take place in the realm of politics as well as the terrain of everyday life. It will certainly be an uphill battle, given the domination of our enemies and the unwillingness of the left to actually build a working-class base. We cannot put faith in the working class to spontaneously take up an emancipatory communist politics, nor can we surrender emancipatory communist politics to win easy support by playing to people’s prejudices. There will be many defeats on the way, like the one we saw in the UK. But to give in is not an option; we have to fight for the truth and not sacrifice our principles because of demoralization and a desire for easy victories. 

Degrees of Kevin Bacon from the PKK

Remi and Guy, a multi-tour volunteer foreign fighter in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, sit down for an extended interview around the history, political and economic structure, military situation, and future outlook for the project in Rojava.

Addressed are the most pressing critiques of the political structure adopted by the peoples of the region, with an eye toward marginalized ethnic and political groups, the relationship of the multitude of factions to one another and the population at large, and where things go from here. With the abrupt withdrawal of US forces and the attendant shift in the uneasy balance of forces in Syria, Turkey has invaded, Russia has vacillated between intervention and aloofness, and the fate of NES may lie in the balance.

Since recording, events have developed quickly. We will release an update interview in the coming days.