RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 342 The Measurement Problem and June 14th, July 7th, and Beyond
Episode 342 of RevolutionZ reconsiders how to evaluate success in our struggles against Trumpian fascism.
When someone asks how a protest went, what are we really measuring? Our feelings? Media coverage? Participation numbers? Or something more substantive? Being vague about what matters is our movement measurement problem.
This episode proposes four essential metrics that truly matter: Did our actions inspire continued involvement? Did we raise consciousness among those who witnessed our efforts? Did we grow commitment and strengthen the movement? And did we communicate to power-holders that we won't back down?
Via reflections on experiences during Vietnam War protests, the episode illustrates how unrealistic expectations can demoralize rather than empower. He offers practical suggestions for the upcoming July 17th demonstrations—from coordinated clothing colors to unified messaging—as possible ways to enhance movement solidarity and impact.
The episode goes beyond tactics to strategy including assessing the counterproductive dismissal of Trump supporters as simply "stupid," the strategic limitations of violence, and the false dichotomy between electoral work and direct action. The message is that diverse approaches can coexist within a unified framework if we judge each by its contribution to movement growth and effectiveness.
The episode moves beyond subjective feelings toward strategic thinking to advance progressive goals. The struggle against fascism, all kinds of inequity and injustice, and ecological collapse demands nothing less than our clearest thinking about what works, what doesn't, and how we measure the difference.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 342nd consecutive episode, and you are hearing this at least a week after the June 14th events, though it was recorded earlier, immediately after, as best I could discern, as of early June 15th. June 14th was a huge success, both the no Kings demonstrations, which were huge, with five to seven million participants and gave every appearance of being likely to grow yet again in the near future, but also the rather pathetic military march and its minuscule turnout, which suggested that Trump's public support is seriously declining. If Trump didn't have the federal government at this point, he would have well, not very much. The trouble is he does have the federal government, and the federal government is not nothing. So the struggle to stop him, while progressing positively, is certainly not over. What next? Not to downplay June 14th, which I feel was incredibly important, or the ongoing struggles, which I would like to come at from a very different direction. Suppose I was in your vicinity. I see you and I say hi, how are you doing?
Speaker 1:You might consider the question subjective. We tend to hear it like someone sincerely asking how do you feel? We might say fine, or perhaps not, but in either case we would look inward to answer. But is the question always subjective? Is it always about our internal feelings? Should we always look inward to answer? Consider two factors how do we feel relative to what and how do we feel regarding what? For example, you may ask a sibling, a friend, a classmate, a neighbor, a teammate and so on. How are you doing? Each person you ask is likely to say something like I am doing okay, I am doing fine, or perhaps I am not doing so, great mate. Does the sibling mean he feels light of foot, light of mind, light of weight? Does the friend or classmate mean her social life or her grades are good? Is the question about a diet, a job, one's health, one's mood or what? An answer comes.
Speaker 1:But I wonder in each case and so many others, what is the measure about which the query or the answer is rendered, for the questioner and for the answerer? In other words, to ask or to answer, that you are better or worse means what? What does the question's answer communicate? Sometimes the person asking, the person answering and then the asker who hears the answer actually knows what the various words refer to. They are on the same page. There is concision, but people on the same page understand each other. The context provides clarity about what the questioner's quick ask means and what the answerer's equally quick reply means. I admit, however, that I actually wonder how often there is such clarity in such passing exchanges. Maybe it is often, maybe it is not so often. Sometimes, who knows what pain and trauma or joy and desire lurk behind the words. Okay, that's a general observation that refers to anyone anytime saying I am doing okay or whatever. But let's get back to us and to now.
Speaker 1:Suppose we want to change the world. Mom or dad asks how are you doing, how is it going? Or you ask them, a friend asks you, a reporter asks A teacher, whoever, you say I am doing fine, doing okay, doing great or whatever. On what basis? With what meaning do you say? Whatever you say, you answer and the questioner hears. But what does your answer really mean? What information has flowed, for that matter? Why do you go to the demo and then feel what you feel about it, say what you say about it, write what you write about it, do what you do after it? We want to change the world, not just understand it. Someone asks, we answer, or vice versa. We say we are doing fine, we say we are doing okay, but not great. We say we are doing fine, we say we are doing okay, but not great. We say we are doing great or we are barely hanging on.
Speaker 1:The metric of measurement matters, though it is rarely revealed. Are there one, two or many possible criteria of judgment? Lack of clarity about what we measure creates a movement measurement problem. Creates a movement measurement problem. How are you doing? Well, compared to what? To last week's efforts? To efforts decades back, to efforts elsewhere, to some absolute scale Regarding amount of media coverage or number of people involved? Or maybe, regarding your intentions, did you fully block something or barely block it at all? Shut down something or spectate it? Get arrested or escape arrest, get gassed or avoid gas, sing loud or sing low, march far or sit near what matters? What should we measure? We measure relative to our metric and regarding that which affects our attainment vis-a-vis our metric.
Speaker 1:Maybe our metric ought to be about what furthers a goal, what the questioner and the answerer both have in common. Both have in mind One part, the relative to the goal part should be relatively evident, to the extent at least of questioner and answerer both knowing clearly what the goal is, supposing that they do. How would people on June 14th answer if asked why are you demonstrating what would be a success? The why should be clear, but the success part can get complicated. What factors actually bear on nearing or diverging from your sought goal? An answer depends on what you think, or what your team thinks, or your movement thinks furthers your goal To change the world. We organize, rally, march, strike, block, protect and maybe even burn. For that matter. We may also converse, write, criticize or advocate.
Speaker 1:Shouldn't how we answer about how we are doing depend on what was our goal and what would further or impede our goal? That isn't our subjective feeling about what we did. How are you doing? Ask now may well mean, and really ought to often mean how is your movement doing? Are you moving toward where you want to arrive?
Speaker 1:Unless we have some semblance of clarity, some semblance of shared agreement on our collective goal, on where we are trying to arrive and also on what results can aid or, conversely, might obstruct our getting there, our answer to how we are doing, to how did it go to, was it a success and so on, won't really convey very much, or perhaps might not even mean very much, or sometimes it may not even mean anything. Doing fine, great, well, what is fine? Eyes on the prize, absolutely. But will growing numbers, growing commitment, growing consciousness lead somewhere desired? How about, more proximately, being on camera or not filling the street or not getting arrested or not blocking or burning cars or not? We converse or we write. What the hell matters? What should we measure?
Speaker 1:Suppose we want to end the genocide, prevent global ecological catastrophe and or stop fascism from entrenching, and even beyond all that, suppose we want to move toward a better society, toward a better world. So we act. Someone asks us how did it go? How did we do? We want to answer, but what do we assess to decide our answer? I think we have a measurement problem in that we don't have a lot of clarity, a lot of agreement about how to judge our acts, about what constitutes success and thus also about what to do or how to do better next time. Partly, that's okay. We don't need to be of one mind. We are not bees in a hive. Different strokes for different folks is wise, but it is wise because, given our different circumstances, resources and commitments, different folks will do better or worse at different things, where better or worse, means move further or less far toward ultimate success.
Speaker 1:So June 14th was demo time and it will soon be demo time again. I believe a date is already set for July 17th. A couple of thousand demonstrations will happen, or even more Rallies, marches, civil disobedience, maybe blocking some roads, for example, will occur. It is guesswork to know everything that will happen until it happens. Perhaps there will be provocations and then rocks thrown, clashes and clinches and maybe some cars burned plus some arrests. Will what we do help? How much? Answering that, do we have ideas about how we can do even better July 17th than the major success that was June 14th? Before returning to that question, consider this episode.
Speaker 1:Hell, I have been writing sometimes one or even two articles a week about our current crises and Trump and us for many months, and I do a podcast weekly too. This podcast, if someone asks me, how are you doing? The truth is well, relative to what. Regarding what, when asked, I may answer I am doing okay, meaning I can still get out of bed in the morning, I can still click-clack words into a file and they then most often appear a few places. But I have no real idea, no serious idea, how I am doing or really how the words are doing, which is what I take the question to be asking.
Speaker 1:I don't know the number of eyes seeing or hearing my words. I don't know the number of new thoughts arising from people seeing or hearing them. I don't know how much consciousness is raised and the number of views that all choices that change? Maybe none, maybe some. But beneath my ignorance of outcomes, I do at least know what I want to occur. I seek to impact consciousness, commitment and even choices. I just don't have any idea, article after article or episode after episode, about what's now happening and about current tactics or about longer-term matters like vision and strategy. Whether the words land, whether the words have a desired or an undesired effect. I suffer frustrating after-the-fact evaluative blindness.
Speaker 1:If I was a whole publishing venture and I conveyed not one or two articles a week but 10 or 15 each day, and I was asked how are you doing Then? What Do I report? How many clicks my site got? Do I know what a click even means? Do I focus instead in my budget or on how everyone feels each day? Do I have any way to measure anything less superficial than clicks? And beyond that, of course, any media project is only one among many. How are we all together doing? Is that question about our respective feelings, about our budgets, about our audience size, or is it about our collective and perhaps it could even be our coordinated impact on consciousness, commitment and choices? Where the hell am I going with all this? Back to the streets, back to choosing, organizing and participating in actions, back to inspiring people to participate, back to having participation lead to more participation, back to answering how we are doing, let's say, in LA recently or, more widely, on June 14th. Let me please draw a bit from the past. It's hard not to when you're an old guy and you remember a half century ago better than you remember last week. And you remember a half century ago better than you remember last week.
Speaker 1:For a demo, way back when we wanted to end the war in Vietnam, we meaning some particularly militant and generally well-read parts of the whole movement decided to go to Washington, not for a rally, not for a march, but to stop the war machine. Our slogan was if the government doesn't stop the war, we'll stop the government. So we went. We blocked intersections all over the place, we got rounded up and about 12,000 got arrested and more driven off. The city carried on unstopped. How did we who were there feel? Some were elated, some, like me, not so much. Did we stop the government? Nope. Did people leave thinking they failed to do that, with the war still raging, with the government still perpetrating it? Were demonstrators made likely to mourn failure or to organize to do better? Were those who were blocked by our roving disruptions? Or those who were further away and who watched TV reports, inspired or well? Were they repulsed?
Speaker 1:All of the above commentary bears on and implicitly offers some thoughts about gauging what we ought to do and how well we might do it. Our measurement problem requires some solution, even if it needs continual refinement. We need agreement if our assessments are to communicate other than how we each personally feel about how we ourselves having done this or that and about how we will ourselves feel having did this or that. We need to have some grasp of what matters, not just some, but all of us. What does a day like June 14th try to do? Why participate? How well did we do? How could a similar day, july 17th say, do better?
Speaker 1:I suggest that the same calculus should apply to writing or speaking, or to a personal choice or act, or to a group choice or group act, and the calculus is first, did our choice or act inspire those directly involved to come back still stronger next time and to help others to newly do so as well? Second, did our choice or act raise and broaden the consciousness and the likelihood of future involvement of those who perceived what we did either firsthand by directly encountering it or secondhand by word of mouth or by media reports? Third, did our choice or action grow commitment? Did we grow and strengthen the movement? Fourth, did our action communicate to elites who we are making demands of that we are going to keep on keeping on with new activity that will be well conceived to worry them and finally even force their hand. Settling on movement measurement metrics should be no problem. Once we ask what they ought to be, it becomes rather obvious. Did we shut down the government and the war with our May Day? Civil disobedience is actually a stupid question, but the organizing wrongly put it forefront in many people's minds. Of course not. We weren't ready to do that. Did we grow and strengthen the movement or weaken and even shrink? It is a good question. Same calculations apply now.
Speaker 1:I went to a small city's event on June 14th. A couple of thousand people in a city of about 30,000, filled about five deep on both sides of a bridge road with cars passing down the center. The attendees were animated and angry, of course, since otherwise why would they have attended? Since otherwise, why would they have attended? More telling, I would say that 95% of, or more of, the cars were really demonstratively supportive.
Speaker 1:In the aftermath I have read supposedly sophisticated radical critics say big deal that won't stop Trump and on such grounds, I have heard them disparage the whole thing. They think such pronouncements display their greater commitment and understanding. They instead display incredible well ignorance. It's sort of like back when, folks thinking, well, we didn't stop the war, we didn't stop the government, we failed, instead of thinking what were the consequences of what we did for the people there, for the people who were affected directly and for the people who were affected at a different distance, I think, way back when. Well, the right metric was did the participants have an experience that added to the likelihood of their demonstrating again? Did the cars passing their riders in some cases get inspired toward perhaps themselves demonstrating later? Likewise, for those hearing about the events did they identify with and want to participate, and were useful lessons learned and, in total, across the country, did a threat to the powers that be register and appear ready to grow.
Speaker 1:I think the far, far more militant and radically aware May Day demonstration from way back accomplished little positive and probably quite a lot negative. I think it demoralized many due to not meeting false expectations. It didn't end the government. I think it didn't inspire many new participants. I think it repulsed and at any rate, did not attract many who were directly impeded or who saw reports. Given the times, I think there needed to be 20 or 50 times as many participants and we needed to be far better organized and to convey far more insightful understanding for it to have been a really successful effort. Don't get the wrong idea. I think civil disobedience can be incredibly effective on all counts if those doing it know all the counts that matter and orient effectively to address them.
Speaker 1:Applying even simple metrics is hard. To do so requires that we look way beyond our personal feelings or immediate experiences, and to do that can be seriously scary. To do it well is still harder. We have to think about consequences on us and on others and on the targets of our demands Immediate consequences, but longer-run ones as well. When we don't think about such things. Well, why don't we so suppose? Indivisible, moveon, no Kings, the General Strike Project and dozens and even hundreds of other national and very local organizations set a date I have heard it is to be July 17th, but whatever for another mass turnout and perhaps leading to that or following that, local groups call for local events and suppose people talk and write about it all, and we all come to agree that the measurement metric to have firmly in mind are one effects on those involved, two effects on those who witness or hear of the actions and three effects on elites and on Trump. Consequences include, but also go way beyond our feelings as we act on the chosen day in our chosen ways. Can we perhaps make some changes for next time? In addition to having more people participate, that might improve our outcomes? One thing is training organizers a million, I have heard something incredibly exemplary. If possible.
Speaker 1:I wonder if all of us deciding to wear the same color shirt or pants or whatever might help generate a sense of community, and could that also convey a stronger message of unity? We aren't each engaged individually, but all of us together. What about, dare I suggest it, us all even having the same hat and then wearing it all over. Such things might seem trivial, but could they help communicate more clearly our collective resolve, both to ourselves and to others. Similarly, there were over a thousand signs where I was and perhaps millions of signs nationally. What if instead there were five or perhaps ten unique signs, perhaps chosen via some kind of display and vote, with five or ten really very effective messages? So at the demonstrations we all hold up the same first sign and then, after a bit in unison, we move to the second, and so on. Might things like these help create and display unity to people who only see a report of events? Similarly, for chance, could we all be ready with a few that we all share, so we can get really loud, really spirited, really militant and really in tune with one another over and over. Could some such synchronicity yield great unity, not just during events, but before and especially after. The same color, a few signs, shared chance, none of it dictated from above, all of it freely chosen by all involved across the whole country, or better ideas.
Speaker 1:One big movement with many issues and many tactics. And regarding tactics, could larger locales include march, rally and then also some form of relevant civil disobedience where participants could choose which to partake of, and in what ways Could the day's events convey that, not far off, there would follow more participants, more coordination, more militants and perhaps a national strike and ongoing boycotts. Should different strokes for different folks mean for the big gatherings that there are options to march and to rally, but also for those who wish to do so, for well-planned, well-organized civil disobedience? Blocking ICE cars, but perhaps also establishing sanctuaries at schools and at community centers and in churches? Would any of those possible minor changes help or other more creative innovations? Minor changes help or other more creative innovations?
Speaker 1:Well, what is the point again? What's the measurement metric? To grow the movement, to strengthen the movement, to enhance movement solidarity, to inspire continued involvement and to attract new recruits. To let Trump and company know that we are not cowed, we are not going away. We are diversifying our understanding and our issues and we are coming after them. We are raising social costs they won't like and we are going to raise those social costs higher and higher until they are cowed not us and they give in to our demands, demands which also diversify from immigration to equity, to ecological sanity, from housing to health care, to peace. So that is my main message for today on movement measurement metrics, but I have a few more related topics I would like to quite briefly touch on.
Speaker 1:Consider useless and almost pointless debate and divisions that arise over arcane, distant past personalities versus serious assessments of the well-being and needs of people today. Consider academic posturing about unreadable texts conducted in convoluted language that may or may not even be understood by those using such words, versus real, accessible, evidence-based, logical assessments of the moral and political consequences of current possible actions. If you encounter such polarities, just ask what the hell metric is occupying the minds of those behaving in such ways, or ask yourself whether their doing so has positive, movement building and strengthening effects on themselves, on people who experience their noises and actions, or on those who hear about their acts. We will always need to sympathetically judge and improve our efforts. To do so is constructive. To naysay and attack one another is not Another topic.
Speaker 1:I am sick to the bone of reading about Trump being in office because Americans half the country are stupid. Sure, saying such things can let off steam, it can practice sarcasm, it can win some laughs, but it is itself dumb. It is cheap and ignorant amusement at the expense of others. The irony is a whole lot of folks who have supported Trump wanted fundamental changes. They liked that Trump is into change too. Recognition that the change Trump is into is disgustingly contrary to their interests gets lost in the fog of lies that now confuses nearly everyone. But Trumpers' grievances are mostly real and our needs to reach them and even to learn from them is also real. To denigrate them fails on every sensible metric.
Speaker 1:Another topic how about violence? It is a tactic, nothing more or less. The police use it, the military uses it, football has it, and so on. But does its presence enlarge and strengthen the movement? Nope, not in our current world, and at best very rarely. Does it raise threats elites wish to avoid? No, to the contrary, it provides elites excuses to do this one thing that they have means to do. Quite well, be violent, For that matter. Does it have positive effects on its practitioners? Not really. It tends to warp our personalities. It tends to make us defensive, even paranoid and hostile. Does it have a good effect on those who view it from a distance, who see it? No, we know it doesn't. We know it diminishes our support. However, at the same time, I'm not against violence in principle. In fact, I don't know very many people who are Certainly nobody on the right and very few who aren't actively on the left. Violence in war, violence in certain games, violence in competition and so on. The point is, if you're going to be violent, it needs to be in the context of furthering the development of the movement, furthering its membership, furthering its commitment, making a demand or a statement or providing evidence that the movement is capable of raising costs without spurring the other side to greater strength.
Speaker 1:Still another topic electoral work. We want to get rid of Trump and his company of repressive, oppressive fools. That step undeniably involves elections. To deny that is really peculiar. We also want our efforts to prepare means to reach and gain support for seeking broader and deeper changes beyond Trump. Quite a few who, I know, see some Democrats actually, to be honest about it, arousing more opposition to Trump than radicals do. They don't have every issue on point. They don't want to go as far as we want to go. But, truth be told, many are rallying, marching, demonstrating and even organizing as productively as more radical actors.
Speaker 1:And then some To dismiss. That is idiotic. That you can't acknowledge and even enjoy and praise that and yet simultaneously want and seek more than they seek is idiotic. I'm sorry that views like that persist is sad. It does not reflect radical desires, it undermines them. Same with disparaging those who choose to focus much or even all of their attention on elections rather than street heat of various sorts. Winning is going to include electoral work. Not everyone is built for that. Not everyone thinks their time is best spent doing that. But the same holds for street demonstrations, occupations, encampments and the like. What matters is that efforts broaden and deepen resistance.
Speaker 1:One last topic which I touched on earlier why do people who write and who want a better world, or who do podcasts and want a better world, talk about current events? If it is to grow and strengthen movements that seek a better world, that is good. Metric met Talk about current events and would not write to show off vocabulary and intimidate working people. And when writing for a more activist and involved audience, we would address what is not well known, that we sincerely think people need to know to grow and deepen resistance, even though writing about what is not known involves a risk of being mistaken compared to just repeating that which is familiar. We would not write to repeat what is already well known and that we can confidently get correct, though to no one's gain. We would write about what is controversial, questionable, but important for movement development, and sometimes we'd get it wrong. That's okay. We need to get it right.
Speaker 1:I think there is plenty of room for all progressive writers and activists to do our parts better, and that that's a very lucky observation we should all happily celebrate. Enough in numbers or deep enough in views and commitments to stop Trump and to achieve another world that is possible For all of us to get better by the movement metrics we can share will get us the victories we need. Repeating without improving, won't PS? In all the warranted concern with Trump, trumpism and fascism, we better not forget the existential danger of ecological nightmares. It is all one struggle. I just got a not-too-gentle reminder. I am in Connecticut, roughly halfway give or take between New York City and Boston. I have a good weather app. I just took a look at it. Here are the feels-like temperatures for June 19th to June 27th 99, 85, 90, 103, 108, 102, 100, 97, and 105. All that said, this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.