RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
EP 296 NAR #12 RPS Second Convention, Shadow Government, and Escalating Activism
EP 296 of RevolutionZ and episode twelve of the Oral History of the Next American Revolution sequence reports on RPS's Second Convention's ups and downs and the origin and implementation of a shadow government. Interviewees report how the national convention and subsequent shadow government were planned, assembled, and carried out. The interviewees take you fromorganizing's ethical dilemmas to the psychological and social impacts of activist choices, to the dynamics of new institution startup efforts within a corrupt, oppressive, society. Listen (and/or you can read on ZNet as well if you like) and then you can judge for yourself: Do Miguel's questions, Patti's, Malcom's, Lydia's, Bill's, and Barbara's answers, and even my interjections provide insights and inspiration applicable in our time, in our world? That is certainly their and my aim.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 296th consecutive episode and the 12th in our Next American Revolution sequence. Episodes in that sequence are remember chapters from an oral history and as well include some comments from myself. So in this episode, titled Self-Definition, interviewees Patty Cohn, malcolm King, lydia Luxemburg, bill Hampton and Barbara Bethune discuss RPS's Second Convention and its shadow government. This chapter is going to be short, I think, at least relative to the last few, which gives me an opportunity to offer a few preliminary comments without them stretching the session on for too long.
Speaker 1:The oral history was first written seven years ago. There followed an effort to turn it into a screenplay for Hollywood or Netflix. Having not seen any such movie or TV series, you can likely deduce correctly that that didn't work out, at least not up to now. Then recently I went back to the original manuscript, worked on it quite a lot and, not without trepidation, embarked on the current sequence of Revolution Z episodes. After all, trying to convey lessons from a future revolution is outrageous enough Doing it via an oral history that is conveyed with I don't know, I think about 15 different people of diverse backgrounds, all conveyed with one person's voice just escalates the outrageousness. Doing this is a bit of an experience for me too. As I convey the words to you in each episode, it is very nearly like I too am hearing them for the first time. Thus my occasional interjections. But the process also makes me a kind of consumer of the words and as such I can have opinions about them, and that proves to be a little bit frustrating. You see, despite my having very nearly 60 years of political involvements, experiences and so on, I like the words. I'm hearing the words resonate. I find them instructive and inspiring. They ring real to me.
Speaker 1:I don't want to go overboard. Let's call it a draft, and as such, of course, it could get better. In fact, as soon as I get to the end, I will go right back to the beginning and give it another end-to-end edit before I try to find a book publisher who will put it in print. But despite that, I want another crack at improving it. As I read here each week with you, I find that I feel and imbibe plenty of wisdom from the interviewee's future hypotheticals that seem to me to be applicable now. So why is that frustrating? Wasn't that the point? Wasn't that the aim. Again, I don't want to go overboard.
Speaker 1:Pretty much everything I have ever been involved with or written has been for me in part, and often even in large part, frustrating. In what way? Regarding reach, audience feedback, impact. Yet I think there is a difference, or at least so it seems to me.
Speaker 1:This effort, an oral history of a next American revolution, is specifically conceived to make relating to it pleasant and easy. I tried to do that with, for example, participatory economics in the book no Bosses. But there is a limit to how pleasant and easy or personal or emotive you, or at least I, can make something that is quite abstract and new to readers. So the difference is that NAR is ironically, despite being from the future, a lot more familiar and accessible. It isn't remotely academic, it is conversational. It isn't made at all formal but is kept informal, mainly hell's bells. It calls itself an oral history of the next American revolution. It is therefore interviews with people who well, don't really exist, revolutionaries, talking about a revolution. It seems like it's worth a listen, a read. No, I know reading nowadays is well down in frequency across the board. Listening seems to be pretty much up and you wouldn't believe the numbers of listens that the weirdest and crappiest and especially most unoriginal and redundant podcast stuff attracts.
Speaker 1:So what is frustrating about presenting NAR? Well, I wouldn't expect apolitical folks, folks who feel fine with or who even bemoan the impossibility of altering the status quo, to rush to read or hear an oral history of a future revolution, even if Tolstoy had signed on to mold the words, even if Rod Serling came back to record the words. But what about leftists taking a look, giving a listen, the words, but what about leftists taking a look, giving a listen? They're, at their very least, tens of thousands of people, and I think more like hundreds of thousands of people, who are the actual sought audience for this oral history. And how many do I reach? Seven of them? Well, okay, more than seven, but statistically it might as well be 7. Let's call it 700. Even if it was 7,000, that is still frustrating.
Speaker 1:If 250,000 people listened to or read NAR 1 and NAR 2 and decided this is not worth my time, okay, that would be fair enough. Might even be totally reasonable and apt, but certainly fair, Though I have to admit, I would then wonder why the left isn't lefter and bigger, if NAR hasn't appealed, or that no bourses, for example, for that matter, didn't appeal, or that so much else of ample substance that so many people who want fundamental change have produced on being sampled, didn't appeal enough to then get more attention. It is instead that such material is mostly not sampled, much less assessed at all. So who is at fault for that? Me certainly, but I have to say also whoever of you do really give such material a chance and like it, but who don't seek to interest others in it. Sometimes it feels like we on the left think that to write something or to plan something, or even to say something or even to do something, if the thing is really worthy and potentially helpful to others, is alone enough Value will impact. But that is, of course, not true. The hard part is not so much coming up with something useful, potentially valuable. The hard part is getting something useful, potentially valuable, ample initial attention for anyone to even decide that it may be worth some of their time. Outreach, outreach, outreach is the priority problem. I think Miguel and the interviewers got that, but they aren't here now. Okay, my little rant is over. Miguel now embarks on another NAR chapter by first asking Patty Cohn. Patty, ex-military, you became a writer, activist focused on understanding and relating constructively to working class and particularly military agendas Relating strongly to other ex-military you got involved with peace movements and campaigns aimed at military and police structure and policy.
Speaker 1:At the first convention everyone agreed that decisions were temporary until there could be a second convention with greater participation. Can you tell us how that second convention came about and what it was like At the first convention, miguel, those attending and voting were self-selected and attended as individuals. We liked RPS ideas, so we came as individuals. We liked RPS ideas, so we came. Organizers circulated materials beforehand but despite their efforts, people who attended hadn't all deliberated face-to-face in advance. For the second convention we wanted to improve on that. Our idea was that participants would all come from chapters. We waited over two years to have it and during that time established over 800 chapters. The average chapter had about 40 members, so we had roughly 32,000 really quite active members. 32,000 people was too many to attend the convention, but we did want to gain cross-chapter solidarity by having folks from across the country meet, hear others' experiences and share lessons. We would together ratify or perhaps reorient the basic RPS commitments and national campaigns.
Speaker 1:We had to decide who would attend and how things would function. Our plan was simple. Each chapter would send five people, at least three women, at least two people of color, so that about 4,000 people would attend. Chapters would choose who they sent, using any method they favored. All chapter members would share costs, however Each chapter agreed. All chapter members would share costs, however, each chapter agreed.
Speaker 1:People coming from all the many chapters in each city would meet citywide at least twice before coming to the convention to get to know one another better and to discuss ideas they wished to bring. One statewide meeting would precede the national convention as well. These meetings were themselves themselves conventions of a sort. Finally, delegates from all over the US would come to the National Convention. The National Convention would last five days. Time would be set aside for presentations, discussion, debate and for various elections and special events, including talks, social events, meals and topical meetings. Each chapter's delegates would get time before major voting sessions to caucus with their full chapter memberships online. Chapters would receive reports and register their preferences with their delegates via these online sessions. Everything would be recorded and accessible. Of course, naturally, this was only a way, not the way to do this, but it was the way that we did it. I interject it's some nuts and bolts, some details, unlike the rest of the oral history Details, but it is interesting that it does seem to have some new wrinkles and how seriously they took their arrangements.
Speaker 1:Miguel next asks how did the planning occur A year ahead? Each chapter could optionally propose a person to work on a planning committee and serve as convention staff. Everyone knew this would be a big job and also that the odds were good. One wouldn't get chosen to do this unless one was pretty well known. Chapters proposed about 400 people. Descriptions of all these nominees were distributed to all chapters. Chapters couldn't vote for their own nominee and each chapter got four votes. Each chapter had to vote for two women and two men and also had to vote for two people of color. Then the 20 women with the most votes and the 20 men with the most votes were on the committee, as were the 20 people of color with the most votes. The committee therefore had to be at least 40 people and could conceivably be as many as 60 people. It turned out to be 48. Those 48 became the planning committee and staff responsible for getting a venue, preparing advanced communications, developing an agenda, inviting guests, chairing sessions and handling accommodations and food. Chairing sessions and handling accommodations and food.
Speaker 1:Patty asked Miguel what from the first convention? Did the second convention change? The program was updated, of course, miguel, but the basics of RPS had been conceived wisely and barely changed at all, at least that I can remember. I guess the biggest innovation was implementing the shadow government idea. Various factors led to that and for that matter, it certainly wasn't original to RPS. The Green Party had done a shadow government during the second Obama administration, but at a much lesser scale than RPS undertook and with almost no impact. A precipitating factor of the RPS effort was that various RPS members had begun running for office and wanted an RPS project that those who did not win and their many supporters could plug into. I interject, you have to wonder. Did this idea of creating a shadow government have merit? Would it create tension over who holds office, elevate some to persistent power, thereby creating hierarchy, and get trapped into ratifying existing structures? Seems like a risky project, doesn't it, patty continued, tone and style changed dramatically.
Speaker 1:At the first convention, there was an undertone of worry that we would blow our opportunity. At the second convention, confidence and a celebratory mood replaced worry. Almost everyone felt we were building a vehicle that was going to take society to a whole new place. Of course it wasn't certain, but there was considerable confidence. There was revolution in the air, but it wasn't childish, it wasn't wishful thinking. No one thought it was imminent. It was a quiet, calm assessment. Rps was growing and it wasn't going away. We had skits which poked fun at ourselves and even at particular prominent figures in RPS. Folks laughed. There was no defensiveness. People were serious but there was a lightness to it all. There was no defensiveness. People were serious but there was a lightness to it all.
Speaker 1:Discussions and the votes on program and for the shadow government meant a lot to us but nonetheless we were relaxed. Rps's emphasis on diversity and respect for minority positions served us well. Most votes were lopsided, yet the losing parties were always accommodated with means to explore their ideas further, to be ready in case the winning ideas proved unsuccessful. I'm not saying we had no tense moments, particularly with close votes, but there was much less than at the first convention and even more telling when decisions were reached. I didn't detect bad feelings, but the unity wasn't an emergent hive mind.
Speaker 1:The reverse held Since the first convention. Far more people broached and advocated richer and more varied ideas. People were gaining trust, confidence and a sense of perspective. People often consider only numbers of people relating and growth of militancy as signs of progress. But while those measures matter greatly, if you think about what would have to pertain in a peaceful, just, caring, self-managing society, the kind of less easily described interpersonal progress I am pointing to was what kept the greater and steadily growing numbers of more militant participants functioning well together.
Speaker 1:I interject have your experiences with others borne out the importance of the kind of interpersonal progress Patti describes? In our time, have our projects generated steadily increasing trust and attentiveness among participants? If not, should we think about why not? About how to do better, or is Patty wrong about the importance of such developments? Miguel next asks my apology. I forgot to ask you how you became radicalized. Do you remember Dealing in death and, in time, deciding to deliver it yourself was horribly wrong.
Speaker 1:One day and this actually did not happen often I saw firsthand someone who I killed die face to face. Next day I watched a buddy of mine die. Other days I killed and saw death on my side too, but it was nameless. After a time it was all just death, like a palpable, nasty cousin of life, uninvited but constantly showing up. I was a product of military indoctrination, and that is not easy to overcome. It had two main parts. Ideology was only a small aspect, since the first paramount part blindly obeying orders took total control over having opinions at all. The second paramount part was contextually valid, at least to a point, but in the broader reality of social life it was entirely insane.
Speaker 1:It was that we were a team, a family. Each of us was dependent on and needed to regard others as a lifeline to survival and as essential if it comes to it to save, even at personal risk. But more, this family had borders and anyone outside those borders was an enemy. To the inside, we were taught, show respect and incredible solidarity, limitless loyalty. To the outside, show nothing but unyielding strength and, if need be and the tripwire for this was always set to snap easily deliver violent aggression. Horrific hostility was our name. Connections that formed on the battlefield were enduring, both positive ones with friends and negative ones with nameless others ran deep In battle. Our military mentality forced its survival and winning. But in life, our military mentality bred antisocial isolation.
Speaker 1:My radicalization began when I began to jettison false beliefs and behaviors in Iraq. It deepened when I later urged and helped others to do likewise. I looked at individuals' views, but also at where the views came from and what alternatives existed. Before long, I saw the link between imperialism and antisociality, and between a life-denying system and its mentally tortured soldiers of fortune. At that point, rps provided me a natural home. It kept me on track and sane against my PTSD and I like to think it made me effective in the struggle.
Speaker 1:Miguel next turned to Malcolm King. Senator King, I think you ran for and won your first local election not long after the second convention. What was the attitude toward elections that emerged from the first and then the second convention? What impact did RPS have on your efforts then and later too? Please call me Malcolm, and yes, I did win my first election back then.
Speaker 1:The RPS attitude, which hasn't changed all that much since, was that to run for office was potentially good and to win was potentially good. But there were also serious pitfalls that could pervert good into bad. The main benefits that we liked were that running could facilitate outreach to new audiences. It could raise consciousness and boost morale. Winning could gain access to resources to help win more gains in the future. I interject pretty succinct, but it seems accurate about benefits, doesn't it? Malcolm continued. The main pitfalls were that candidates might fixate on winning votes and lose track of larger aims. We might worry more about vote tallies and fundraising than about actual program. Having won an election, or even just done reasonably well, candidates might develop an elitist better-than-now self-perception. We might fall in love with holding office more than with achieving worthy aims.
Speaker 1:As individuals, rps members aided campaigns we favored and we even ran for office. But as an organization, to avoid getting sucked into electoral dynamics at the expense of our broader agenda, rps opted against collective electoral participation. Rps members helped immeasurably with my campaigns and my work while in office as well. Rps members gave me a rooted sense of my role. They helped me arrive at my views and practices. They pushed me to be accountable. During my Senate run, almost everyone centrally involved in my campaign was in RPS. Yet as an organization, rps never officially had anything to do with it.
Speaker 1:Miguel, I am guessing perhaps a little ill at ease. Pursuing Malcolm's experience as senator. Turns to Lydia Luxemburg. Lydia, did the shadow government idea surface at that time? How did you get involved? What did the shadow government do and what did you do in it? The idea, miguel, was floated back when Ralph Nader had run for president as a Green, and Greens actually had one during the Obama administration. When Sanders lost the nomination in 2016, the idea surfaced again, this time for him, but it didn't happen. I remember wanting Nader to do it and then Sanders, but feeling that without a prominent jump start, such a project would accomplish little. Years later, the idea resurfaced in RPS and it became part of the agenda for the second convention.
Speaker 1:I liked the idea and agitated for it, even though I worried that without a well-known national figure to generate excitement, it might not fly. The logic was to set up a group who would have the same official positions as their counterparts in real government. We would have a president, a vice president, a whole cabinet and various other positions as well, including Supreme Court judges, senators and other posts too. I interject can we imagine doing that? Would it be able to do enough to matter? Lydia continues. Ironically, given my desire for someone really prominent to galvanize the idea, and despite the fact that I wasn't particularly prominent, I became the first president.
Speaker 1:But the key factor wasn't me or even my lack of prominence. It was the 32,000 RPS active members and tens of thousands of other supporters who were not yet in chapters. They were what made the shadow government idea work. Members contributed on average $25 per month, which meant nearly $10 million in the first year, with the amount growing dramatically due to our growing membership each year thereafter. And members also helped generate policy and demands and agitated for them.
Speaker 1:The idea was for our shadow government to operate in parallel with the real government. We would take stands on all major issues the real government addressed, but also on critical, though officially unaddressed issues. We would offer our views to display an alternative and to agitate for policies that we favored. We also generated our own projects and programs and fought for progressive policies. I interject, yikes. They had 32,000 members. I interject Yikes. They had 32,000 members and embarked on and sustained all that DSA has. What Two and a half times that? Can we imagine DSA embarking on and sustaining something similar? If not, well, what is the difference? Why could the RPS effort happen but not be undertaken by DSA, for that matter? How did RPS get it going? Miguel returns to Patty Patty at the second convention.
Speaker 1:How did the first shadow government get formed? It was partly an election for the president, vice president and senators and it was partly a process of appointments for Supreme Court judges, cabinet members and others. The shadow senators were elected before the national convention by state conventions. The president and vice president were elected at the second convention, with part of the convention being the candidates giving speeches. Nominations were conducted earlier at the state conventions and were whittled down to four for each national office by a prior national online vote of all chapter members. The vote at the national convention was of the whole membership too, since each chapter got live reports from its delegates, saw the speeches live online and then held votes of its members at local gatherings. For the vote at the convention, chapter tallies were conveyed. It was surprisingly dramatic and exciting. Lydia became the first president, as you know, and Bert became the first vice president.
Speaker 1:Ironically, lydia had been wrong to think the project required a famous president. What it really required was high understanding of and solidarity with what it undertook. The senators were all present and a meeting of all who had been elected began, appointing judges, white House staff and the shadow cabinet. Then, while other activities proceeded for the bulk of attendees, part of their time at the convention went to the new government members setting up their subsequent online and live meeting schedules. Did it all go smoothly? Were there any serious problems? There were hiccups, of course. Folks would argue about the merits of different candidates. No one knew precisely what the new jobs would entail. Sometimes communications got confused or failed for technical reasons, but in my memory it was all so aggressively positive and optimistic that the good far outweighed any glitches. Were there serious convention problems? Regrettably yes. One dynamic arose, and I was actually intimately involved.
Speaker 1:A group of ex-military made a collective proposal on behalf of arming souls to battle directly with police. They saw themselves as true revolutionaries precisely because they identified their readiness to shoot it out with their being revolutionary, and they identified rejecting weaponry, rejecting shooting it out, as being phony or even cowardly. To the extent they had a case. It was that if those seeking change rejected the use of weapons, those defending the status quo would inevitably win by sheer force of arms and repression. It was a one-step argument and they were correct that if it was true that we could not win fundamental change without overcoming state violence, with movement violence, then anyone who said we should be non-violent was conceding that we could not win fundamental change. If the if part was true, then the then part followed. But was the if part true? Well, of course we now know from experience. It wasn't, though some Rambo-ish types are probably still holdouts, but really we knew it then too, and much earlier as well.
Speaker 1:What made this a problem wasn't that such a view was offered, but the way it was offered. These guys marched in armed with rifles and took the stage. This, they felt, demonstrated the power of guns. They offered their effectively one-line logic and from then on, their only stance was you were either with us or you were with the state. Where the state was, everyone hell-bent on maintaining the current system. Still, why a problem? Well, it was, in my view, because the people present didn't want to take too strong a stance with these folks, who had, after all, gone through wartime conflict. That they had jaundiced views was considered a product of their history and your involvement.
Speaker 1:I argued the counter view that violence would not only distort our ability to think straight and function well witness them but that it would play into the hands of the powers that be. Violence was terrain where the state would inevitably win. Our task in confronting violence was to disarm it by making it ineffective, such that more violence against us would mean more dissent from us. I was a veteran of active duty and a military organizer, so I quickly gathered a group, unarmed, and we simply walked up on stage and said Now what? Are you going to shoot us, or would shooting us do your agenda more harm than good? Surely you can see we aren't on the side of the state. Surely you can see we aren't cowards. So are you going to shoot us because we reject your argument? Shoot us or let's go talk further. Our act diffused their formulation that anyone against them was for system preservation. By comparing our own history of organizing and activism to theirs, which was nearly nil, we got them to leave the stage to talk further with us.
Speaker 1:The ensuing talks were a bit cathartic for many. The truth was that, rather than their history as it manifested in their thinking being a justification for their thinking, our time talking together revealed that their thinking was not carefully reasoned, but something else. The bigger point was different, though. They did have an effect which reverberated for some time. The truth is, both sides of the argument had some merit. Our side was about overall relations in the large Movements, thinking they can fight the state, play into the hands of the state, which itself wants nothing so much as to make politics into war, moving from our terrain of issues and aims to their terrain of pure power. In the small. However, the armed guys on stage did reveal a parallel truth. In a group, one guy with a club is a problem, five guys with guns are an even bigger problem.
Speaker 1:We faced two issues. On the one hand, could we handle police and military violence in local demonstrations? The answer was yes, but only by way of creating a situation in which, if the police or military used violence against us, it would rebound to our benefit, not theirs. The second issue was trickier. Could we handle personal violence from our own people, such as these vets, motivated by thuggery, lunacy, infiltration or by sincere belief? It would be hard, if not impossible, to make internal violence counterproductive for them if those doing it were beyond reason, much less if they were actively trying to damage RPS. We did okay with the guys on the stage at the convention, but they weren't trying to harm RPS. What if they were? And so emerged a feeling that RPS had to have a means to deal with internal or external craziness or sabotage.
Speaker 1:Discussions went on for some time. Could we address this threat yet not corrupt the style and modes of operation of RPS and distort people's mindsets and views of one another? Could we prepare for such situations without our preparedness doing us more harm than the situations themselves. A first thought was well, how about if we have a few people who have the training and the experience for handling crazy, violent interlopers, invisibly armed and prepared? There were two problems. First, the secrecy contradicted so much else we were doing.
Speaker 1:We decided the decision had to be taken by the organization as a whole, including that those empowered for security would not openly carry or even be known. We decided to elect a group who would then secretly designate security folks. But second, what if these security folks themselves became problematic? We decided the people picked shouldn't be the most macho and military in bearing and training. Experienced folks should train the people picked as need be, but the people literally providing security should be mild-mannered. We also decided that while the set of steps made sense, we weren't sure it was really needed. After all, we had now completed two conventions and we had been involved in all kinds of demonstrations and campaigns, including often running up against police and state power. So maybe paranoia about the likelihood of internal lunacy was a bigger problem for us than such lunacy itself. And it turned out that this cautiousness at undertaking the project was wise. We had the plan ready to propose for a wide discussion and vote, but we decided to hold off until and unless practical evidence suggested it was needed, and because of our huge growth, that time never came. On the other hand, I and various others around the country did quietly work with folks on how to deal with intruders, drunks, ideologically intractable folks, with intruders, drunks, ideologically intractable folks, infiltrators and the like, non-violently but forcefully. And here we are, so I guess all was well.
Speaker 1:Lydia asked Miguel what was the hardest thing about doing the shadow government, and do you remember what you considered its first successes? Well, truth be told, it was a tremendous amount of work. After all, we were generating positions on an amazing array of issues and we needed to get the facts right, even though we lacked the giant support bureaucracy the real government had. I was constantly meeting, discussing and then holding press conferences and giving public talks. I was on the road 200 to 250 days a year for my four-year term. It was exciting and there was a sense of accomplishment and joy in the work, but it was also exhausting and, honestly, when it was repetitive it was quite boring. We didn't have office holders traveling first class and doing only that which was engaging. No office holders did our fair share of rote work and the responsibility we felt was also difficult. But as hard as the work was and as tiring as the constant pressure to deliver was, I think the hardest part was perhaps psychological, and this had two parts.
Speaker 1:First we formed our shadow government, mimicking the US government structures and offices. But everyone involved hated that set of institutions. It made each day strange. I hated the presidency and yet I was shadow president. We wanted what we created to resonate with the country. When I gave a speech it was a shadow president and the same would hold for the rest of us. That way the media and even the public would quickly understand the contrast between RPS and the actual government of the US. But shadowing the government precluded, at least at first, a contrast of operations and structure. The difference was only policies To redress that we decided to slowly alter our government structure, announcing organizational changes like other policies that we advocated as things we thought ought to happen in the actual government. We changed various election laws, funding mechanics and then added and deleted various positions, changed their mandate and made other changes too. Even during my four-year term, I interject. So I guess it becomes clear that this project was very far from just optics. It was a vehicle for outreach, contrast and also for action. How large an organization will we need to have with how great a level of shared vision, trust and desire to accomplish something similar now, or say after the 2028 election, and do we think it will be worth the preparation effort and focus Lydia continues.
Speaker 1:The second hard thing was also psychological Keeping my head on straight, and likewise for other folks. We didn't require that everyone call me Madam President and otherwise pay homage, but at least at the outset many did, and I was constantly interviewed, questioned and listened to as if I was some kind of oracle. So it would have been all too easy and I suppose even natural, to get into bad habits. I work to avoid that, but I think what helped most was I invited as my press secretary and chief of staff people who would keep me in line.
Speaker 1:Assessing successes is not so easy. People usually think in terms of actually winning, sought gains, but in truth that is not the earmark of success. You can win and go home and it doesn't mean much for the long haul, even if there is some important benefit in the short run. You can lose a battle, a demand, whatever, but in the process establish new methods or new organization or new consciousness that persists and leads to later gains. You can win nominally but lose. You can lose nominally but win. I interject. Do we nowadays understand that? Do we act in accord with that? What do you think? Lydia continues.
Speaker 1:I think the first significant success, in both senses, that we all celebrated was when, after just a few months, we countered mainstream government military policies, budgets and interventionism with our own foreign policy approach, emphasizing disarmament, reallocation of funding, use of military forces for social good, retooling bases, withdrawing troops and so on. Our proposals were so extensive, clear and sensible and their immediate and long-term benefits were so apparent that the whole process gained tremendous credibility. From then on, shadow presentations of policy were highly anticipated and taken very serious by wide circuits of people. Our passing dramatically expanded social service policies, minimum wage policies, work-width length laws and so on was also a very effective step. We didn't just contrast our desired policies and choices to the mainstream government's actual policies and choices, though that was part of it, after all. We said to people see what you get with them and see what you would get with us. We also went beyond that to the shadow government, investing time, energy and funds into outreach, organizing and agitation for our policies and in that way we started to win gains, which was another massive achievement that in turn spurred us to do more. Miguel, next turns to Bill Bill.
Speaker 1:The broad idea behind the RPS shadow government wasn't limited to government. What was the general approach and how was it pursued? The shadow alternative idea was to create models for future institutions that were also worthy projects for the present. Being shadow or alternative meant these projects did functions that were in some degree done by existing institutions, but did them in parallel and in new ways. The be worthy aspect was that we should create projects whose operations would contribute to ongoing activism and to people's well-being, or both. A media or organizing project would do mostly the former. A health clinic or a daycare center would do mostly the latter. The model aspect was that we should create projects that evidenced how things would be different in a better future and that revealed or discovered new ways of operating that were suitable for future relations.
Speaker 1:You can see that the shadow government, steadily reconceiving itself, fit all the criteria. Shadow alternative projects were initiated. As you would imagine, sometimes young people just getting out of school or otherwise entering adult life would look for a positive project to pursue and decide to create a media project, a clinic, a restaurant, a law firm, a food distribution center or whatever else in accord with RPS values and commitments, whatever else in accord with RPS values and commitments. Another path was when older folks with a history in some field decided to move toward doing things in new ways, sometimes by transforming their old institutions and sometimes by leaving their old project and creating a new one. Over time we saw some health clinics, daycare centers, restaurants, food stores and a few law firms transform. We also saw various teachers, health workers, daycare workers and lawyers leave their existing establishments and group together to form new alternatives.
Speaker 1:I interject you have to wonder what kinds of thoughts and fears folks making these changes had. It would have been good if Miguel had tried to reveal some of that. Bill continued. One difference, maybe even a category difference, was whether a project was literally shadowing an institution in society or whether it was simply functioning on its own as an alternative. Maybe only the former should be called shadow and the latter should be called alternative. So the shadow government was literally shadowing the federal government, the real government, not only not operating in the same way, but expressing views and advocating for them, but issue for issue, act for act. In contrast, a health clinic, magazine or daycare center wasn't shadowing a mainstream institution. It was doing similar functions, but in its own alternative way. It was a fine line though, for example, a shadow government was continually redefining itself to have alternative features.
Speaker 1:Barbara asked Miguel, what impact did this approach have? How did it interact with more direct campaigns? It had pretty much the intended effects, I think, though not every attempt panned out. Each successful shadow or alternative project educated those involved and also those who witnessed it or interacted with it about what a new society could entail and mean. As the efforts grew and diversified, they revealed and even tested potential features of new arrangements. Likewise, when a shadow or alternative institution was working well, it would benefit its consumers and workers, students and teachers, medical staff or patients and so on in the present, and its product might contribute to social change more broadly.
Speaker 1:Why did some efforts work and others, as you say, not pan out? Well, miguel, the recurring reasons were not so different than what plagues any startup firms in a market system Lack of resources and constant pressure of financial shortfalls hurt. Limited visibility rooted in the tendency of the mainstream to ignore or ridicule such efforts. Hurt. Pressures on participants deriving from lack of experience and confidence hurt too. People starting out or making a switch had to risk ridicule and failure, because both certainly happened in some cases. So they mulled over their options. Some jumped tentatively, some were full stride into it. Like most social things, there was no single pattern. The miracle is that so many of the efforts succeeded.
Speaker 1:It is one thing to establish equitable remuneration and balanced job complexes throughout the economy. It's quite another thing to do it in a small part of an economy which, for the most part, still worships personal material advance and offers options to get such gains, albeit options that deny others the same opportunities. If you have training and skills and knowledge, you can seek a job paying a lot and for which you have only tasks that are empowering. Or you can seek a job in a fragile startup where you will earn a lot less and have to do disempowering as well as empowering work. Imagine you have family and friends who perpetually warn you that the alternative endeavor is insane. Sticking with doing it is, then, a hard choice.
Speaker 1:It is also very different to participate in an established, large, classless institution or in a quite small one. In the former there will be plenty of people and among them plenty who you will like and take support from. Likewise, there will be a wide range of tasks, so that creating desirable, balanced jobs will be pretty simple In a small operation. In contrast, you may not have friends and jobs will be harder to define and more likely to contain elements you do not wish to do. Finally, projects have to operate in the existing world, with markets constantly compelling, behavior, choices, contrary to what you hope to achieve. All this is difficult rather than only fulfilling and delightful. Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 1:There were many benefits to establishing a desirable workplace even in the earliest days, even with corrupting and constraining features all around you. But for doing so to be relatively stress-free and secure required projects becoming more prevalent and larger. Now such firms are in high demand. Even folks who might fancy themselves so worthy that they should be paid more and allowed to avoid all disempowering tasks have considerable reason to compromise on those desires in order to enjoy a congenial workplace without class conflict. I interject. I guess Miguel felt the same desire for some more detail about this than I felt.
Speaker 1:Bill continued. There are other factors too. Suppose you have a big firm and two members get in a fight, or they have a relationship and it breaks up. Separate the folks involved and the fallout will dissipate. But if you have a small operation and the same thing happens, ongoing awkwardness or outright hostility can be quite poisonous, with separation impossible. Ironically, most critics think alternative institutions are easier and even only possible when they are small, but the exact opposite is true. So, for all these reasons, the earliest projects were by far the hardest, most vulnerable, most demanding and most tense. It was the pioneers, often never acknowledged, who did the most difficult work, not those who unfurled banners of great victories much later. There was nothing wrong with enjoying the latter, but it would be nice if somehow we could have more respect for the unknown trailblazers.
Speaker 1:Lydia Miguel asked it seems like there was a mentality that made all this much more real and powerful than it might have been, or even than similar efforts have been earlier. Can you try to convey what that difference was? I'm glad you asked that, miguel. I think it bears a lot of repeating, actually, because it is very easy to think of the answer as just hand-waving or cheerleading, but I happen to think it really was pivotal. I think one way to describe it is that we went from whining to winning.
Speaker 1:Think of a professional athletic team. What distinguishes those who win from those who lose. Talent and training are part of it, of course, but let's assume talent and training are essentially the same for some set of teams, then what distinguishes them? Luck will be a factor, but I contend that people's attitudes will often be most important. Those who think they can win and who confidently approach even difficult challenges as obstacles to remove, to go around or to climb over have a chance for a great season. Those who doubt that they can win and who despondently approach even modest challenges as immovable mountains that irredeemably obstruct their way have virtually no chance for a good season.
Speaker 1:Imagine a successful football or soccer coach meeting with her team. Suppose they lost their most recent game. It's time to talk about the next game or the rest of the season. Does the coach repeatedly bemoan the size and strength of upcoming opponents? Does she talk endlessly about how the schedule is horrible for her team? Does the coach list her team's detriments and the opponent's strengths as if they are unbridgeable impediments to success? No, the coach respects reality, but approaches each game highlighting what her team can best affect. How can the team alter its choices and behavior to win If the coach spends each meeting endlessly listing the strengths of opponents, without any clarification of how those strengths are to be overcome. She needs to get a new job, and the team may as well go on vacation Now.
Speaker 1:Consider movements. We may not like the similarity, but we too have to try to win, just like professional athletic teams do. That's just the ultimate criterion of success in social struggle. Just playing nicely at improving society isn't enough. Winning ends wars, feeds the hungry, gives dignity to the exploited and reduces hardships. Winning creates a new world without the need for continuing such struggles. On the other hand, just playing nicely or fighting the good fight, but without winning, or, arguably, without even trying to win, lays the seed for further losses to come. So does the left have a winning attitude? Can we have a good season, a good career, with our current mindset?
Speaker 1:All too often in our past, before RPS, the answer has been no. All too often, too many of us looked at a half full or quarter full glass and talked only about how much was missing, in tones that suggested our glass could never be more full. Indeed, we even saw leaks in our glass where they didn't exist and imagined powers to deplete our glass's contents that our opponents did not have. Too few of us asked how do we get more members into our glass and how do we retain those we have rather than watching them leak away? Too often we went beyond sensibly analyzing the conditions that we encountered to fruitlessly whining about things we couldn't influence. Too often we paid too little attention to things about our situation we could remove, end run or climb over much less to agendas for doing so. Am I exaggerating the ills of our past condition? If so, I think not by too much.
Speaker 1:Our glasses are movements. The fact is, whether we are talking about matters of class, race, gender, political power, ecology, international relations or whatever else, our movements weren't, before RPS and also even in RPS's early period, nearly as full of members as they needed to be for us to win sequences of short-run reforms, much less long-run new institutions. But how many leftists back then wrote and spoke about what was wrong with society without accompanying the analysis with a strategic commentary about how to win better, so that, even against their intent, their words had more or less the impact of moaning about the size of next week's opponent? In contrast, how many wrote and spoke about how our choices contributed to why our movement didn't grow faster, or about how our choices contributed to why it lost the members who we did attract, and especially about what we could do to have better choices and yield better results. How many of us wrote or spoke about the oppressiveness or power of the media, the state or corporations as compared to writing or speaking about the attributes needed in our movements to oppose the media's, states and corporations' power and oppressiveness, and about the potential power of opposition and especially about how it might be enhanced? I interject I think Lydia is not talking about phony confidence, bravado and the like. I think she is saying they became self-critically, soberly confident, not by delusionally exaggerating their strength, but by accurately assessing their condition and its causes and addressing them, always going forward. Don't you think that's what she's saying?
Speaker 1:Lydia continued extending the sports analogy a team or coach that doesn't know what it wants to achieve for a season will wind up wherever it is pushed by events, but not somewhere that it seeks to be, such as becoming a champion. Successful teams map out clear goals. If they are not suited to try to win the championship this year, then next year or the next. They attune their daily, weekly and seasonal agendas to their long-term goals. Did the left used to do that? Even individuals in it, much less as a whole. Did we have shared institutional goals for the economy, the polity, for families and kinship, for the culture, for international relations, for the ecology? Did we organize our thoughts about what to do today and light not only of our current strengths and weaknesses and of the immediate conditions we confronted and of our immediate aims, but also in light of how all this related to our long-term goals? I interject, given the time shift of her world, lydia is talking about us. Now she's talking about her past, our present. So what's your experience of the left today and for the last few decades? Many decades? Optimism of will, but accuracy of intellect and persistent focus, or what Lydia continues?
Speaker 1:Most of the left quite rightly criticized professional sports, commercialism, sexism, racism and class relations, but it would have helped if we had also learned a little from them. Sports teams are the world's foremost competitors and, like it or not, we are in a competition rooted in class, gender, race and political relations. Sports reveal that if we despondently whine, we will lose. On the other hand, if we confidently strategize, we can win. Likewise, if we lack goals, we will wind up somewhere where we'd rather not be, but if we have goals, we may attain them. This is utterly obvious Really it is, but it's worth emphasizing because, amidst pyrotechnic displays of mental virtuosity about contentious paradigms, as well as amidst serious and admirable projects and movements that suffer a lack of resources and serious time pressures, this simple truism is often the first thing to drop out of our consciousness, so trite as it may sound.
Speaker 1:I think it was our cultivating a mindset to win that was key to the shadow government and also our PS working. We weren't preening for the mirror. We weren't taking selfies to celebrate our good looks. We weren't peddling our resumes, we weren't whining. We were unceasingly hell-bent on increasing our numbers of participants, the effectivity of our infrastructure, the depth of our morale and thus our power to win immediate reforms and to lay the groundwork for further gains in the future, all the way to a new society.
Speaker 1:Looking a ways back, when Sanders had his millions of votes, I thought, okay, come on, do a shadow government, but maybe it was just as well he didn't.
Speaker 1:If he had, I think its composition and evolution would have been quite different than ours has been. He would have started way bigger and with way more resources, but a shadow government that he did would have been less grassroots and would have had fewer insights about developing in ways suited to winning a new society. You can see how I hope if someone thinks that the left is not able to become a serious player in the future of our society and thinks all that's really possible is tweaking existing relations this way, and that then the mood and agenda of a shadow government would be very different than ours has been. And this applies not just to the shadow government project but to the whole logic of a parallel or shadow society. And at that comment Miguel brought his chapter 12 to a close. Next for our oral history sequence is Miguel's Chapter 13, in which Bert Dellinger, lydia Luxemburg, andre Goldman and Peter Kerbrall discuss RPS vision. But for now, this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.