RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 304 Confusing State Agendas, Genocide Ethics, Clickbait Culture, Voting Strategy, and Left Program
Episode 304 of RevolutionZ is a bit unusual. Most of it poses more questions than answers. It moans "I don't get that," more than it proclaims "here is what is right about that." And what "thats' does it take up. Israeli and U.S. war making. Ecological suicide. Empathetic caring individuals supporting or turning a blind eye to genocide. The pervasive nature of deceit in our society from the normalization of "clickbait" culture in digital media to collective tolerance for and involvement in deception in daily life. Voting Green in contested states, or abstaining altogether, or supporting Trump. But then the episode ends with a dreamy positive formulation of of program.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 304th consecutive episode and I hope you will, if you haven't ever already, visit the Patreon page and consider providing support and, even more, consider spreading news of this, awareness of this, by word of mouth, or by online comments, or by social media or by whatever suits you. That Revolution Z, sponsored by Znet, is worth a listen. This session, I am a bit at wit's end, I admit. My title this time is what, huh, that is. It's what W-H-A-T question mark, huh, h-u-h question mark. That strange title is because I find myself being asked questions very often that I have trouble answering confidently, much less answering in a way that I think the person who is inquiring is likely to hear, as in register it and consider or even discuss it. So I'm going to address a bunch of issues in this episode to reveal my state of frustration I guess it is about each and perhaps, maybe, to just shed a little light on some, because there is some stuff about which I do feel pretty secure in my views, about which I do feel pretty secure in my views.
Speaker 1:So, at a loss, we could start with what is Israel doing? What is Israel's agenda? It feels like Israel's agenda is expand the war it's not even a war. Expand the massacre, massacre, expand the genocidal and bring in the united states as a partner, not just in abetting it, not just in uh cheerleading it, not just in arming it, not just in alibi-ing it. All of which has been the case up until now for what Israel has been doing in Gaza bombing hospitals, schools, telling people to go there in order to avoid our assault on everything around you, and then, after they get there, bombing there too, and then there and then there, and then there and then there. That has been the behavior. And now it is expanded in its target, so to speak, to Lebanon, and it is on a path which appears to be inexorably, step by step, trying to expand, trying to create a regional war, if not something larger. That appears to be Israel's agenda.
Speaker 1:Okay, so why am I confused? Well, I'm confused because I guess you could say the bulk of my life, my understanding of state agendas, has rested upon the idea that those agendas will, perhaps not with the perfection of a mathematical calculation, but at least in the large, they will, reflect the interests of those elements inside the country that are dominant, that have power, that are in the position to direct policy. Now, that seems natural. And then also that those policies, that those elements will be manifesting the interests of elite sectors. What would those be? Well, certainly the owning class which dominates the economy, certainly a political class which gets its stature and position partly from its relation to the economic elite, but also partly from its position in the political organs, in the state, in the government, and also cultural elites, sectors of the economy that are dominant in terms of community definition, all right. So in the case of Israel, you know, that means the owning class, the capitalist class. In Israel, it means the political apparatus, the elements whose power has stemmed from and been enlarged by their position in the government, and it means the dominant cultural community, which, in the case of Israel, is the Jewish community. And then there's misogyny and the role of men, and out of all that intersecting involvement comes policies.
Speaker 1:Well, how is it that out of all that, in Israel, there comes a policy which may well not only not manifest anything that resembles a human belief in, or desire for, or commitment to justice or equity, or in even the most simple and minimal terms, but instead barbaric violence, sort of like we saw with oh yes Nazi Germany. That nonetheless doesn't even include the likelihood of Israeli success. It instead risks a likelihood of Israeli disaster. So that even if we assume which is largely the case that Israeli elites, like American elites, don't think about the well-being of people elsewhere, don't care about the well-being of people elsewhere, don't even care about the well-being of people inside their own domain, israel or the United States, but think about their own domain, israel or the United States, but think about their own interests. Even their own interests are at stake or at risk. It's sort of like the pursuit of fossil fuel and other policies that threaten and risk ecological nightmare. Those policies, too nightmare. Those policies too seem to run up against the actual interests, not the short-term interests, but the long-term interests of even elites. And we have the same problem with the US agenda in the Mideast, because it's essentially the same idea, the same thing.
Speaker 1:And so what puts me at a loss is the emergence of a situation in which the behavior of states in this case Israel and the US has gone beyond vile, beyond being totally self-interested of not the population of the country in question but of the elites in the country in question, but even divorced from that, even pursuing ends that appear to be contrary to those elite interests, and that makes it very hard to predict behavior. It makes it very hard to think about what's going on in terms of understandable interests of constituencies. Even if we include and we must to get it remotely right that they don't pay attention to other people's interests, to other constituencies' interests, it still doesn't leave us able to explain. So I have trouble explaining. When I'm asked what I think Israel is doing, I can say you know, it's expanding the war, it's pursuing an agenda of annihilation of others, but the complicating factor is that it's pursuing an agenda of potential annihilation of itself as well. Same thing for the machinations of economic and political elites, say in the US, pursuing or at least doing very little to obviate the dynamics of ecological collapse. I hope that was clear. I don't know. It probably is somewhat unclear, because I'm somewhat unclear.
Speaker 1:Some more things I don't get. I don't get good people not opposing and even supporting genocide. I don't get that. I didn't get it when I was in high school and when I became aware of what happened in Nazi Germany. I didn't get it. Then I didn't get how do good people not oppose and even support genocide. Okay, the simplest reply to that is they don't. Good people do oppose and even and even battle against genocide. But that's too simple. It's too simple because it isn't the case that the entire german population, or the bulk of the german population, was bad people. They weren't genetically bad. I understood this when I was in fucking high school.
Speaker 1:To say say that the entire population of Germany were bad people, were not people like us, was to simply avoid the hard question. And the same thing holds now. The same thing holds now If we look at Israel and at a certain moment in time and I'm not sure whether it's always the case, but at a certain moment it has been the case it seems to be the case. Now, most of a large part of, let's just say, half of the Israeli population literally supports what is going on, literally feels like maybe it's not enough. We should be more violent, we should be more determinative, definitive in our actions in attacking the Palestinians.
Speaker 1:Are we going to say that everybody who thinks that is somehow a different species, somehow not a good person, but a bad person intrinsically? If we're not going to say that, then we have to try and have some way of answering, and this is what people ask me and I have trouble with how is it that good people, that is, people who, in various circumstances and even in the present, will manifest all kinds of good sentiments, of good feelings of solidarity, of good outrage at injustice, nonetheless support genocide? How does that happen? What is the process by which people follow that path into such a stance? I've tried to answer this elsewhere. What I'm just saying here is it is not a simple question, and to dismiss it by saying they're deplorable, or by saying they're unreachable, or by saying I don't want to talk to them, etc. Etc. Is to give up, because it is essential, it is absolutely necessary if there's going to be a better world, if there's going to be for somebody in my view, with my views a revolutionary transformation of institutions, all kinds of institutions throughout society, to pursue a completely different course. If there's going to be that, there has to be support for that and there can't be 50%, not just opposition to that, but militant, aggressive opposition to that. That has to be undone, and it can't be undone unless one attempts to undo it. That has to be a significant part, not even just a significant part, but an essential core part of what it means to try to create a better society. I also don't get something else.
Speaker 1:It's been the case my whole life that lies exist everywhere, that they're prevalent. After all, the entire advertising industry is premised on a desire to get people to do something that they would not have done were it not for the presence of the ads. And the ads are not conveying really truthful information. They're trying to convey a mood, a spirit, a misinformation to get people to do what they wouldn't otherwise have done. So there's lying in there, there's manipulation in there. It's prevalent. I mean, we all know that lying exists, and it's existed when I was 10 years old and it existed when I was 30, and it exists when I'm in my mid-70s. But there is a change. Something has changed. Now lies are everywhere. Now lies are accepted as not just appropriate but mature behavior. Now lies and manipulation are part and parcel of being what is supposed to be a mature, reasoning, astute adult. If you don't do it, you're a fool. That's more or less the mood that exists in the world.
Speaker 1:If you just look, it really is Clickbait. Isn't just what it once was. You have an article and you want people to read it. So far, so good. You tell yourself well, the title's important, because the title's the first thing they see. So I want to have a title. I want to put a title. Whether I'm a publisher or I'm the writer of the article or whatever, I want to have a title which catches people's attention and which gets them to read it. It went without saying that what the title would convey would be in the article. It would be part of the article. I'm going to name an ironic exception to this in a minute which I just thought of. But that used to be an assumption. Clickbait now is something very different. It's put something in the title which will get eyes on the article. We don't even really care about the content of the article, we just want the eyes. We want the eyes because that's where our revenue comes from. We want the eyes because that's where our status comes from. Whatever we want the eyes because that's where our status comes from whatever.
Speaker 1:Clickbait, if you look at it, go on Facebook and all through social media. My experience of it is mostly in YouTube and I'll explain that in a second, and you'll see that the titles of the videos, for example on YouTube, whether they're short or even longer ones often don't tell you what's in the video. They make you believe something is in the video which is not there. It's something that you find interesting and that you want to see about. And so you click on the video and you the video and the video is over and it didn't do what the title implied it was going to do, didn't even try to do what the title implied it was going to do, and somehow you move on. You don't feel like, well, that's outrageous, that's unbelievable, I'm not going to do that ever again. That doesn't happen. Why doesn't that happen? That's an interesting fact that again needs some kind of explanation, and it does not suffice to explain it, to just explain the behavior of the baiter. I have no trouble explaining that. I know why that is done. What I don't know, why is that? We go along with it, we click on it, we get to the end of it and we don't feel outrage at having been baited and we go and click again Off on a limb. Here I'm going to suggest, from my own behavior maybe, how that happens.
Speaker 1:Of late I've started looking at lots of YouTube videos. Why, well, I don't use social media broadly and to get quick, up-to-the-date information. To get quick, up-to-the-date information. By information I mean something that bears upon the actual facts of matters, about the mood of the country, the mindset of people out there in the world, the accumulating mindsets and therefore the trends and therefore the possibilities and likelihoods for, say, something like the election or something like responses to genocide, etc. So I got into looking at these videos, clicking and looking, and it is addictive. I know what's going on, I know what the motivations are, I know what the goals are, and it's still addictive. You have to work once you get into it to get out of it. That's quite remarkable.
Speaker 1:I don't think it's an accident. It is not an accident. It isn't just that lies are going on and that you know that sponsors and creators want eyes, they want people to look and to read because, say, they believe that what they're producing is of value and truthful and honest, and and they want people to see it. Now you know in some cases, but not very much. It's rather they want revenues and they want status and so on and so forth. All right, fine. How is it that it becomes compulsive? I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1:I think it goes beyond anything simple. I'm reminded of the fact that when I was in college, I and some friends discovered that the manufacturers of glue you know airplane glue, like the stuff that you make model airplanes with knew that inside their glue there was a ingredient that could get you high. And it was in there not to facilitate sticking things together gluing, but to facilitate young people buying glue in order to sniff it. They knew what they were doing and they did, of course, become addicted to it and then turn their brains into mush because sniffing glue is totally destructive of brain cells. So they knew what they were doing. So the dynamics of corporate pursuit of profit led those people, the people in the apparatus that was presenting glue to the public, to behave like drug dealers, to become drug dealers because it was profitable. And just consider the oxycodone monstrosities that occurred not that long ago and are still continuing. Same thing the use of tricks, of clickbait, of lies, but on top of that addiction. I think that's going on with clickbait too, modern clickbait for what it's worth.
Speaker 1:I know this isn't volume three of Capital. I know this isn't, you know, for that matter. You know volume 1.7 of participatory economics and participatory society politics. It's much more amorphous, but it may be equally or more important, not only don't I get good people not opposing and even supporting genocide, good people being afraid, good people being escorted down a path of viewpoints that cause them to see things other than what's there, to feel things other than they would feel in any other circumstance.
Speaker 1:Not only does that strike me as hard to explain, but crucial to explain. But then we have lefties in the United States voting green or abstaining in the upcoming presidential election. That too, it seems to me, is hard to explain, or at least I find it hard to explain. And it of course hits much closer to home because the people who are doing that, the people who think that that's a wise thing to do, are much closer in their histories and their backgrounds and in most of their allegiances to the way I am there. But for something goes me and I have trouble ultimately understanding it. I can make a case, I can argue it, I can discuss it, etc. But actually understanding what may be going on on that side and also on the side that dismisses that but does so without real cognition, both sides in that sense become hard to understand. Yeah, I know, vote Green because it's a long-term strategy and it's going to slowly but surely, or maybe even quickly, at some point in time, amass the power to fundamentally change the United States, and that's, after all, what we want. That's vote green.
Speaker 1:Obviously not voting for Trump but say voting for Harris, is to sully oneself, to confuse the population into thinking that there is no left that really understands that the Democratic Party is marginally better in some ways even arguably worse, but marginally better than the Republican Party, and that, while Harris is significantly better than Trump by any standard known to humanity, she's still horrific by any standard of objective, truthful desire for justice, for equity, for people being able to manage their own lives, et cetera, et cetera. And so we give up, we make it appear that no one gets that and that, therefore, the only thing anybody can be for is Republicans or Democrats. The duopoly, as it's formulated, this makes no sense, at least it makes no sense to me. To abstain or vote green in a contested state, not in a safe state, not in California, not in New York, but in a contested state like, let's say, wisconsin or Pennsylvania or North Carolina or whatever, like, let's say, wisconsin or Pennsylvania or North Carolina or whatever, is affecting the final tally of the vote in that state. Marginally, indeed by one. It's affecting it by one.
Speaker 1:To advocate voting green or abstaining in a contested state is to do a little more. It's to affect the final tally of the vote in that state by whoever you manage, in doing so, to convince not to vote to stop Trump. Not to vote to stop Trump, okay, big deal, says the person who thinks abstaining or voting green in, say, pennsylvania is perfectly sensible Big deal. Well, it's not a big deal. In fact it's irrelevant. If the difference between Trump winning and Harris winning is marginal, maybe even not totally discernible, that's not the difference between Trump for dinner and Harris for dinner. There it's pretty clear, I think. But Harris is not someone I want for dinner. But the case that the difference is marginal means that the behavior is marginal. And therefore, voting green to express one's actual support for whatever the green program in the state Pennsylvania happens to be, seems okay.
Speaker 1:Even abstaining to do what seems okay, even abstaining to do what? To do something else, to advocate for a vision or for strategy, to work in some local group, or even just to watch a goddamn movie, is fine. Why? Because not much is at stake. What if a lot's at stake, of two sorts. One sort is immediate and short-term, let's say, over the next few years affects a on people. What if that is the case? What if Trump's policies, as compared to Harris's policies, would hurt, damage, debilitate, many, many, many more people?
Speaker 1:There's only one argument against that, and it would be to say I think for a reasonable person, you know getting rid of, I'm not even going to go through it all, but the only argument against that that is remotely reasonable would be to say well, harris is part and parcel of American imperialism. True, harris is part and parcel of the kinds of policies that Democrats have always pursued. True. She is therefore not only part and parcel of maintaining the basic defining relations in society, true, but she also will pursue imperial ventures, and in the current conjuncture, and in the current conjuncture, in the current situation, in the current time, that could lead to still more mayhem and human suffering and loss in the Mideast, but also more widely and even all over the planet, in the form of a global war.
Speaker 1:And Trump would not do those things. So the problem with that is the conclusion, or the key link, that Trump would not do those things. I don't know how anybody could think that it's more likely that Harris would do those things than Trump would do those things. But if one does think that, okay, maybe the position emerges, maybe, maybe the position emerges. But if one doesn't think that, if one thinks that, you know, trump's position on Palestine is get it over with, kill him and go home, is better than Harris's position, which is maybe a masquerade, but it certainly isn't wipe them out.
Speaker 1:But other than that, other than that idea that there is no difference, we have that there is a difference, that there is a lesser evil and the lesser evil is Harris, and that when there's a lesser evil, if the lesserness, if the gap, is significant, then the vote is warranted, not as a waste of time in a safe state, but certainly in a contested state. It's okay to do in a safe state, but it's certainly warranted and needed in a contested state. It seems so self-evident, so simple. But there's another argument against it, and the next argument against it is yeah, but if you do that, I'm not saying now I'm arguing against it that it's a bad thing that you voted for harris instead of trump.
Speaker 1:I'm not saying I don't want to see Harris win rather than Trump win, but I am saying that you're doing that as a slippery slope. You're doing that. You're voting for Harris in Pennsylvania or wherever. Or you're, let's say, like me, making the argument visibly, writing essays, etc, etc. Talking to people plausibly, writing essays, etc. Etc. Talking to people urging that, in a contested state, it is essential to stop Trump, urging that Harris has to win. You don't have to like her, you don't have to praise her, it's just that she has to win because that's the only alternative to Trump winning.
Speaker 1:The argument against that that I will give wearing those clothes is, but that's a slippery slope, michael. You'll become a liberal. You'll become an advocate of the Democratic Party, you'll become a supporter of the status quo. Your human feelings will manifest only within the restraint, the constraint of not upsetting those who run the Democratic Party, which is to say, ruling elites throughout the US. That will happen to you, that will happen to the left. If the left, if the entire left said left, said okay, in this election, it's crucial to stop trump in contested states, pull the lever for harris and get others to pull the lever for harris, however you see fit to do that with your friends, with your family, with your neighbors, or perhaps if you write in your writing, in your organizing, all the time, making perfectly clear that the Democratic Party is one wing of a corporate party that maintains relations in the United States. The trouble is, it's not really one ring of a corporate party anymore, because the Republican Party has gone so far off the rails that it's no longer a corporate party. It's no longer like, at least for the moment, the Democratic Party. It's much more like much more like a fascist party.
Speaker 1:All right, what's wrong with the argument? What is it that causes me to think I won't become a liberal, I won't devolve into a well-meaning supporter of ongoing injustice? Well, it hasn't happened. I mean, can it happen? Sure, I guess it can happen. Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. I don't have any trouble at all not just criticizing Harris or the Democratic Party, but putting forward desires for a totally transformed United States, which I actually describe. I don't have any trouble talking about strategy to reach that, which does not involve becoming a partisan of the Democratic Party, but quite the opposite. There's nothing intrinsic to wanting to stop Trump, to stop a fascist march in the United States. There's nothing intrinsic to that that compels me to not want to overcome American hegemony in the world, to not want to overcome the institutions that characterize current United States society, past United States society and future US society. If there's nothing beyond the Democratic Party, there's nothing that has that implication, and yet it's taken for granted that that's what will happen. I don't understand why. I don't understand why it makes no sense to me and I have trouble ultimately explaining it.
Speaker 1:And then we have good people supporting Trump. It's like good people supporting genocide. The simplest solution is to say good people, don't support Trump. There's no such thing. You can't be a good person and support Trump. It's impossible. So you're deplorable or you're beneath contempt or you're not worth talking to. Why do good people support Trump? What is it about Trump? About the current times, about the situations that people find themselves in that leads to that kind of a situation, and then what is it that leads to, from supporting Trump to, let's call it, immersing oneself in the necessity of defending Trump to the hilt.
Speaker 1:This is sort of like their flip side, and I think it is really almost a mirror image in some ways. I can say I want Harris to win and I hate Harris. I can say I want Harris to win and I hate Harris. Others may say I want Harris to win and devolve into thinking that Harris is the climax of human potential, it's the best that there can ever be in a person who's affecting US policy. It doesn't follow, but it can be the case.
Speaker 1:Now take the Trump side. Somebody can say and many do say, leftists, don't see this. I hate Trump. You know, trump's a buffoon, trump's a thug, trump's a misogynist, trump's a racist. But I support Trump because I think and then the argument would be I think Trump is the lesser evil. That's the reflection, that's the mirror image. Why is he the lesser evil? Because such people would say Harris is more of the same. Trump may not be more of the same. Trump is such a wild card that he may do something positive for me and mine, for my constituencies. But that can devolve into Trump's the man, trump's great. What Trump says is true. What Trump does must be supported. That's not so dissimilar from the same kind of phenomenon on the other side, where it does exist.
Speaker 1:At times People do slide into that kind of a conception. I can't support Harris unless I say she's wonderful. I can't support Harris and her positions unless I say they are the solution to injustice. You can see, it's a complex world that we are living in. You can sit across from a family member or a friend or just a neighbor or somebody in a restaurant. You could be simpatico on countless things and then want to beat the shit out of each other on something else, and explaining how that comes about is consequential if we're going to have a movement that is larger than a fraction of half the population. Thus lefties dismissing Trump supporters, not wanting to talk to them, not wanting to organize them, not wanting to communicate with them at all, eludes me. It's hard for me to understand how you can want to win and not understand that you have to reach the population, the people who run around saying the working class is everything, then dismiss the working class. To the extent that some people who are black vote for Trump and it exists. Same thing happens. To the extent that 50% of white women might well vote for Trump same thing happens. Dismissal, dismissal makes no sense.
Speaker 1:I hate apocalyptic organizing. All my life I've argued that to try and get people to relate, to understand something new, to examine something new, to become an advocate of something new and then to become an activist. You shouldn't act as if the alternative to that is the apocalypse. The alternative to being on my side is to being the devil, the alternative. It doesn't work, it's dishonest or it has been dishonest Now. There's an element of truth to it. That's a change. But there really is an element of truth to it. Ecologically, international relations-wise, income distribution-wise, decision-making-wise. There is an element of truth to the formulation that we have a contest that involves apocalypse on one side, on the other side, unclear, because too few people have anything that remotely resembles a vision that explains what they want, that explains what they want In any case. The problem with apocalyptic organizing isn't only that it's a lie that it isn't apocalypse on one side, but that even when it is apocalypse on one side, or maybe it doesn't work it doesn't work to try to scare the shit out of people and get them to relate.
Speaker 1:I don't know what does work. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what you have to do. Let's say you're an organizer in Israel to get opposition to genocide. I'm not sure what you have to do in the United States If you're in a, you know, a rural area that is very strongly Trump-supporting or the part of an urban area that is very strongly Trump-supporting. What to do to communicate and to make progress. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1:Here's another one, another circumstance of our times. It's not totally new. When I was first starting South End Press, z Magazine etc. Etc. It existed, and doing it often by a kind of apocalyptic formulation Give us money or we'll go under.
Speaker 1:Two big problems. Are there more subtleties? Of course there's always more subtleties. There's always a but, but these two are pretty big Raising money for oneself. What's the problem? The problem is it makes silos. It makes competing projects. It makes, even if it isn't often set outright that this venue and that venue are competing, they are not trying to mutually enhance one another. It creates that dynamic. It's the market on the left, it's market dynamics on the left.
Speaker 1:I mean an irony here is at dynamics on the left. I mean an irony here is that in the world of the left it's pretty much persistent. It's pretty much the case that one organization does not seek to build another organization in the same domain. It doesn't give visibility, it doesn't promote, it doesn't tell its adherents to go look at the other, to go relate to the other, much less work together, much less fundraise. The irony here is that in the political world at least some folks often castigated by the left, like for instance I don't know Sanders, aoc, the squad, various other folks. Significant difference actually that when, let's say, aoc fundraisers for a candidate in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or wherever, she's not fundraising for somebody who's competing with her for votes, competing with her for votes. Or she's not fundraising for somebody in New York State who might be competing with her, not for the office she holds but for stature inside New York State. Or for a left project to support another left project, to really support another left project, to try to help another left project, to fundraise for another left project, to point people toward another left project. That's a little more like the second case. You are in fact helping someone who is in your ballpark, who is in your domain, but hello, aren't we all trying to change the world? Is the goal here that my project gets bigger and stronger and richer and has more say, or is the goal that the left develops more say and therefore my energy should support that which advances the whole left? That conception is largely absent, and I think it's largely absent not entirely, but to a considerable degree because of the dynamics of left fundraising.
Speaker 1:Consider social media, another thing that I just don't get, and here I'll just put what I don't get. I won't rehearse all the things that I think are damaging about it intrinsically damaging about it, even though it can also be used for good. It intrinsically damaging about it, even though it can also be used for good. Here's what I don't get. I joined Facebook in a moment of weakness when I started Revolution Z, this podcast, on the assumption that it was essential to do because there was no other way to get news of it out. My aversion to it was intense, but I did it and in a few weeks' time, I had I think it's 3,000 friends. Okay, that's utterly insane, totally insane. If you put 2,800 of them, I have no idea how many, but if you put most of them in a room and you had me go through it, like you might go through a room where there's a party going on, I wouldn't know who anybody was. They're not friends. Now you might say, well, they're people who want to be mutually aiding with you, but that's not true. That isn't what happens. Okay, that's a small thing. Here's the thing I really don't get.
Speaker 1:Every once in a while, I get a message I don't know how or why that somebody did something on Facebook, so, in other words, so-and-so posted a message and it's a message to me and I get it in my email and then I can click on it and see what so-and-so did on Facebook. Well, I don't want to ignore it. I don't ignore incoming email. I mean, some of it is, you know, fundraising and all the rest of nonsense and you just ignore it. But when I get an email from somebody, even if I don't know them, I try to answer. If I get an email from somebody I know, I certainly answer. I don't believe in ghosting, so I certainly answer and I think it's responsible to do so.
Speaker 1:So when I get a Facebook message that says so-and-so posted something, my assumption is so-and-so felt that posting whatever they posted was a positive act. It was something that you know they wanted to do because they wanted to communicate, and that they know that Facebook tells others about it and therefore they feel that it's legitimate to have wanted others to see it. And so if I know the person and I respect the person I go look at it. And when I go look at it I see something like you know, nine times out of ten congratulations or good job, or I agree, or maybe the opposite of that, but nothing substantive. And I wasted my time and everybody is wasting their time doing that at least as far as I can see and telling me that that's a sign of friendship to me just debases friendship, and so I don't understand the behavior.
Speaker 1:I think it's probably probably like me and the YouTube videos. I think there's something addictive about it. I think there's something. I don't know what the process is. You do it once, you do it twice, you do it a third time because you did it twice. You do it a fifth time because you did it four times. You don't want to acknowledge that having done it all those times was a waste of time, so you keep doing it. I don't know, is that the explanation or is there something else? I don't know. Okay, we still have just a little time.
Speaker 1:So this has been amorphous, vague, shooting in the dark and not a particularly up formulation of anything. I apologize for all that. It's just. I'm trying to relate to what I think is going on in one form or another in lots of people's minds, among progressives and leftists, and I'm trying to do it without being too firm, but without making believe that there's nothing at stake. Back in July, I wrote a piece. It went up on Z might have gone up elsewhere, I don't know and I want to present it here a little bit updated.
Speaker 1:It is what I would love to hear Harris say in her first public speech as president, and I bet you would love it too. In fact, I think almost everybody would love it, including Trump voters, if it were to happen. It's not going to happen. I'm not under any illusion that it's going to happen. I'm not thinking that, oh, I have to now commit myself to supporting Harris, so she'll do this. No, none of that. I just want to convey the kind of thing broadly that I think, objectively, we would like to hear, so that it's obvious that there's nothing about anything that I said above that implies a support for what is flowing through the mouths of Harris. Say so, this is what I would prefer that she say. Harris say so, this is what I would prefer that she say and this is, of course, far short of I, kamala Harris, am a supporter of participatory economics, participatory society, intercommunalism, feminism and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1:My fellow Americans and citizens of the world, given that the United States is the world's most powerful purveyor of contemporary international violence and the world's most wealthy and chief obstructor of enlarging international law and its most wealthy and chief contributor to global warming and its creator, its main creator of vile disparities in international health and wealth. And given that the United States has the most economic resources to put to the well-being of its own citizens and to use to redress historically imposed international injustices, I propose that, in pursuit of a truly just and equitable United States, as the first acts of my new administration, and to lay a foundation for much more that will follow, we should immediately have a national discussion of the following proposals to generate additional ideas and refinements and then to embark on the envisioned steps, which, to my mind, are 1. I want to abolish the Defense Department as we know it, which is a war department, and establish in its place a Department of Peace and Justice, overwhelmingly concerned with eliminating violent strife worldwide and unswervingly pledged to provide no military aid to nations engaged in international military operations for any reason at all other than immediate self-defense, pledging as well to not undertake any foreign military adventures ourselves unless we are under direct attack. This I want to do to foster peace, but it would obviously also eliminate a huge percentage of current yearly military expenditures, and so I would like to also begin work to transform what will be closed military bases into worker co-ops for the creation of affordable housing and other socially worthwhile projects, with the prior military members of those bases, both domestically and internationally, given jobs in the transformed basis, should they want them, and, for those who then work at the transformed basis, also given half-price access to initially produced housing. What say you to that? Let's talk.
Speaker 1:Two I want to create a department of internationalism devoted to reversing the terms of international global exchange so that, instead of most benefits of exchange accruing to the strong and rich nations, most would accrue to weak and poor nations, thereby reducing unjust, debilitating and destabilizing income and power differentials. This would, of course, entail replacing the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization with newer institutions rooted in international participation and seeking a virtually opposite equity-based rather than equity-smashing agenda. What say you to that? Let's talk about that. Three, I would like to create a department of Ecological Sanity devoted to social survival and diversity. This would, of course, include a Waging a truly massive campaign against global warming, including developing alternative solar, wind, water, geothermal and clean fusion sources of energy on a national and international scale. On a national and international scale. B instituting and enforcing strict laws to limit pollution and waste and to facilitate collective rather than individual consumption wherever appropriate. And C clarifying a willingness to collaborate with other nations for purposes of surviving ecological disasters. What say you to that? Let's talk.
Speaker 1:Four I would like to create a Department of Domestic Equity devoted to narrowing the gaps between rich and poor within the US. This would include implementing massive increases in redistributive profit and property taxes, as well as parallel reduction of taxes on low-income members of society. Massive increases in redistributive profit and property taxes, as well as parallel reduction of taxes on low-income members of society, plus massively providing low-cost, very desirable housing and very strict rent controls and mortgage limits. What say you to that? Let's talk about that. Five, I would like to create a department of just work let's talk about that. And with double time pay for all hours worked beyond 30, for everyone who now earns below $80,000 a year and to reduce hours to 30, with time and a half pay for overtime and with a proportionate reduction in total base pay per week for everyone who now earns more than $80,000 a year. B to raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour at least wherever the above does not immediately accomplish it. And. C, to establish a workers' bill of rights, including rights to assemble, engage in free speech, access financial records, unionize and participate in decision making, the violation of which rights would be enforceable by strict financial and organizational penalties. What say you to that? Let's talk about that.
Speaker 1:Six I would like to create a Department of Health and Well-Being to promote preventive health care policies regarding food pollution, etc. This would immediately A. Nationalize and establish sound health-based policies for pharmaceutical companies, enact free health care for all and expand and update medical infrastructure. And. B. Invest bountifully in quality of life improvements like parks, playgrounds, ball fields, pools and auditoriums for cities and particularly for rural areas throughout the US. What say you? Let's talk.
Speaker 1:Seven I would like to create a Department of Education for youth and elders alike. This would A. Guarantee equitable apportionment of education resources to communities and schools so as to redress regional, race and class disparities. B. Guarantee free higher education for all those who qualify via teacher recommendation or examination success or examination success. C. Open schools and communities for use by community residents in the evenings after the school day, including providing provisions and resources for social engagement with neighbors and for after-hours learning. What do you say about that? Let's talk.
Speaker 1:Eight I would like to create a Department of Race and Gender Liberation. This would A immediately establish taxation penalties for violation of proportionate representation of women and minorities in positions of influence throughout the entire US economy, polity and culture, or violations of well-being of those employed, with zero tolerance for structural violation of rights or dignity. B Work with the Department of Political Renovation coming soon to redress and ensure that race and gender do not affect legal outcomes, other than in cases that seek to redress racist and sexist outcomes. And. C institute abortion on demand policies. What say you? Let's talk. I would like to create a department of political renovation with the purpose of reconstructing US political institutions to enhance popular participation and collective self-management at the expense of corporate and elite administration. This would not only renovate voting procedures and the norms, rights, responsibilities and powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of national government, but do likewise for states and cities, including initiating grassroots, participatory people's assemblies. What do you say about that? Let's talk about that. And finally, ten, I would like to create, in particular, a renovated Department of Justice to move our country from being one of corrupt implementation of profit-protecting laws to being one of accountable implementation of people-protecting laws, to being one of accountable implementation of people-protecting justice, where laws themselves are superseded whenever their implementation would thwart justice and where rehabilitation replaces vengeance as the aim of incarceration.
Speaker 1:Okay, we aren't going to hear that speech from Harris. We elect her to stop Trump. We don't make believe she is going to push for anything remotely like what's above. But you know, if you think about it, if Trump wins, he may well, if he chooses to talk to the American public at all, give a speech not like what's above, but opposite to what's above. He may move us as far from business as usual what we have now in the right-wing direction as the above would move us in the left-wing direction. The right is already acting as though, and may well function as though, and may well succeed at being as able to impact policy choices and structural relationships as would be a left that was ready to give the above speech, which we don't have.
Speaker 1:This is a sad state of affairs, but with four years of explicit collective preparation before 2028, and with 400 years of implicit collective prior preparation, couldn't something like the above 10-point list obviously be substantively deeper and wiser, as well as rhetorically more eloquent and in the air? Couldn't that happen? If you don't think that could happen, okay I do. I think that could happen. It would not be because some candidate was pushing all the above. It would be because movements throughout society were engaging in activism and in consciousness raising. That led to a population that was ready to hear, wanted to hear, was demanding to hear something like an improved version of the above. Even that still wouldn't fully implement what I would call revolution, but it would certainly be a very sweeping, energetic step in that direction and induce a whole lot of warranted, positive support. My point we can develop and partake of revolutionary vision, strategy and program electorally and extra-electorally, even while we also fight off fascism.
Speaker 1:The immediate agenda stop Trump, pursue the long march to a truly new society. That is one task. It is one struggle. It is not the case that to worry about stopping Trump means we ignore the long march to a truly new society. And it is not the case that to pay attention to become a part of a long march to a truly new society requires that we not try to stop Trump. It's one task and that means that to abstain from the trying to stop Trump is to impede pursuing the long march. We need to stop Trump to facilitate, to make more likely, to make sooner the pursuit of the long march.
Speaker 1:Polls now show and, regrettably, history now shows that this election will be very close. Of course it shouldn't be, of course we hope it won't be and it may not be, but we don't know. There's a good chance, a very good chance. It will be very close and we even know that in some states it won't be close. Either Trump or Harris will win, without any doubt. But if the election is close overall, for what determines the next president, which is electoral votes and as of today, that is what evidence anticipates then left abstention and left support for Stein or West could elect Donald Trump. That's just a fact. We can all do whatever we want in safe states without fear of that.
Speaker 1:But in contested states, indeed even in any one of them, one percent of ballots, even a half a percent of ballots, or even less, if they are not cast for Harris, could cause Trump to win that state and via that state and via those few votes could swing the whole election. That's a fact, it is not a hypothesis, it is not paranoia. That it could happen is a fact and in light of that fact and the consequences it would unleash, again, the immediate agenda is stop Trump and pursue the long march to a truly new society. It is one task, one struggle To abstain from the stop Trump component is to subvert the Long March component. And let me be clear just what that means in at least one case.
Speaker 1:For example, it means that for Stein or West to say they are working for fundamental change and to then seek votes in contested states for themselves instead of putting all their energy into getting votes in safe states, while telling supporters to vote for Harris to stop Trump in contested fates, is not just false, it is politically and socially I hate to use the word, but despicable word but despicable.
Speaker 1:Why they would do that, I don't know. But there is no admirable reason. There is no reason for Jill Stein to seek votes which would come from people who might otherwise vote against Trump, for Harris in Pennsylvania or in Wisconsin or in Michigan or for Cornel West to do that. They can seek votes with no damaging side effects in California and in New York and in I don't know how many other 20 other, let's say, states Actually, it's more like, I guess, 45 other states, more like, I guess 45 other states but to do so in the states that are contested, where the election may be decided and when the only decision that can happen in the election. The only thing that can be the case the day after the election is that either Trump won or Harris won is, to my mind, contrary to what they say they are for, and I don't understand why that occurs. Maybe I'm just not understanding, or maybe my understanding is right. In any case, all that said this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.