The Digital Dispatch

From NOEBIE.net

Can Tarot cards predict the future?

· ·

We all know the cliché image of a fortune teller, often in Gypsy garb, turning up cards to predict someone’s future. Many a movie plot is hung on such a scene. For people unfamiliar with the Tarot, this is the image that likely first comes to mind when it is mentioned.

I have come to think of the Tarot in a different way. I think of it as a practice which allows me to bring to the surface issues and ideas that are significant in my life, but may be hidden from my conscious thoughts.

I won’t go into further detail on that at the moment, because I think it’s important first to approach the question posed in the title of this essay. Divination is considered by many to be equivalent to conjuring demons, and by many others to be firmly in the realm of charlatains, the ignorant, the foolish and the superstitious. So its reputation as a vehicle for fortune telling casts a shadow of suspicion on the Tarot. Before we can discuss other uses of the cards at any length, it seems to me that we ought to answer this basic and fundamental question. Can the Tarot be used to predict the future?

First, let me ask a rhetorical question. If you see your child with a shoe untied, and you warn them that they had better tie their shoe, or else they will trip and fall – and they don’t tie the shoe, and they do trip and fall – did you predict the future? Obviously, literally, you did.

More precisely, you observed a set of circumstances, and noticed that a particular outcome was possible (or maybe even likely). There was nothing unnatural or abnormal about this. In fact, most of us do it all of the time. Each time we get in a car, and choose the route to a destination, we’re doing our best to predict the future. Should I avoid 5th Avenue because there may be a train at the crossing this time of day that will delay my arrival? Do I have time to stop for a cup of coffee, or will that make me late to work? How long is the line at the Starbucks drive through? Should I be especially attentive to my driving along this stretch of road, since it’s known for speed traps?

We’re constantly using what we remember and what we observe to make decisions in order to predict (or perhaps to create) the outcomes that we desire. Whether it’s a trip to the grocery store, or retirement planning, this sort of activity is such a fundamental part of our normal, everyday lives that we scarcely even notice it.

So we’ve established that we all do our best to predict the future much of the time. We actually accomplish this feat much of the time too, from predicting that when we rotate the faucet on the left the water will get warmer, to predicting that our intended will make a suitable mate. Perhaps there are no guarantees that our predictions will be correct, but an awful lot of the time, they do seem to be.

Let me ask another rhetorical question. If there was a way to obtain additional information that might be relevant to the question at hand, would that change the essential nature of this process of predicting the future? Let’s say that you could add a radio traffic report to the mix during your morning commute, or a GPS device. Would there be anything fundamentally different about the way the process works? Anything weird or spooky or paranormal about the increased accuracy of your predictions then? Of course not. You’re just expanding your view, and making use of information to which you didn’t have access before.

So here’s one final rhetorical question. What sort of information might a deck of cards offer that could possibly assist in this process? Since we’ve already established that we do, indeed, literally (and almost effortlessly) predict the future with varying degrees of accuracy every day, the key to the question at the top of this essay is whether or not the Tarot can reliably add any valuable information to the process.

I suspect that it can.

Remember our cliché Gypsy, telling fortunes in a tent or a creepy shack? Here’s what’s wrong with that picture. It gives the impression that the information we seek belongs to a realm that is apart from the natural world, and apart from us. In fact, the information that we can access through the Tarot, although “extraordinary” in a sense, isn’t unnatural or unusual at all. It’s just information that most of us are unaware of or tend to ignore much of the time.

If you’ve ever had the experience of misplacing an item, looking all over for it in frustration, finally giving up, relaxing about it, and then walking into another room and immediately finding it right there in an obvious place, then you know precisely what it is like to gain insight from the Tarot. Your unconscious mind knew all along where that misplaced item was. After all, you’re the one who placed it there! The knowledge of where you had put the item was with you all of the time. You were just temporarily unable to bring that knowledge to your conscious mind. The harder you tried to remember, and to retrace your steps, the more inaccessible the information became. Once you gave up, relaxed, and your unconscious mind was able to work without interferance, it led you right to the misplaced object.

In the same way, the images and traditions of the Tarot, like so many other such systems from cultures the world over, offer an opportunity to delve into information that is waiting there for us in our unconscious minds. The information isn’t unnatural or apart from us. It doesn’t come from demons or ghosts or the Gypsy. It’s right there inside of us all the time. It’s just that as we go about our ordinary lives, most of us don’t take the time to explore the tools that can help to bring this information to bear on our conscious thoughts and decisions.

Just how it is that the Tarot works to help us access the thoughts and patterns of the unconscious mind is a subject for another article, perhaps. For now, I’ll only say that I have found that it does so in my own experience.

There is also the notion put forth by Carl Jung that there exists a vast “collective unconscious” where unconscious minds of all times and locations meet in some way. I won’t argue that possibility one way or the other, but it’s certainly interesting to consider the storehouse of knowledge and experience that might be waiting should such a notion be true. For me, it’s plenty enough to be able to explore my own puny little personal unconsciousness.

Before we close, I’d like to add one other note about our Gypsy friend. I want to make it clear that I don’t mean to denigrate her, or the many brilliantly skilled real life practitioners of the art of interpreting the Tarot. There are legions of Tarot readers who are gifted, serious, and dedicated to helping others plumb the depths of special knowledge that awaits in the psyche. You’re more likely to find one of these marvelous people at a table in your publc library than in that shack at the edge of town these days though.

So, can the Tarot predict the future? Maybe not like in that movie scene where the Gypsy turns up the Tower card, there’s a dramatic music crescendo, and then a cut to a burning building. But if we accept that we routinely use information available to us to “predict the future,” and also accept that the Tarot can help us uncover another source of useful information, then I believe we have our answer.

What do you think?

Learn more about the Tarot at my Cards of Light website.

Some Thoughts on Bernie 2020

· ·

Fist Pumping Bernie

I was not one of those who were anxiously hoping for another Sanders campaign. The Democratic Party has been rightly called a “corporate-funded dumpster fire,” and by choosing to run for its Presidential nomination, Bernie will conceivably bring hundreds of thousands of folks into the Democrat fold. These hundreds of thousands ought to instead be working to create the independent socialist workers party that we so desperately need. There are numerous other legitimate criticisms to be made of Sanders’ politics. His lack of anything approaching a coherent anti-imperialist foreign policy, his focus on economic oppressions almost to the exclusion of all else, his vague definition of what socialism even means, his lack of affiliation with (let alone commitment to) an actual socialist organization beyond his own campaign – all of this and more are reasons for concern. The prospects for what might happen if he were to actually win the nomination and the Presidency might also give one pause. We will still have a Congress that is owned by Corporate America. There are any number of scenarios one can imagine where Sanders’ success would actually be detrimental to the socialist cause.

Despite all of these misgivings, I believe that socialists ought to support Bernie for 2020. Here’s why.

Sanders is the face of socialism in America. Bernie is not only the most prominent figure on the American left of our time, he is the most visible (at least nominally) socialist leader in two or three generations. You’d have to go back to Eugene Debs to find another American socialist who could draw millions to the ballot box. There’s certainly a contrast to be drawn between Debs (whose efforts were rooted in the labor movement, and who kept a commitment to independent socialist organizing through his life) and Sanders (not so on either count). But the cold fact of the matter is that we do not have a Eugene Debs at the moment. I hope for the day that we do. At the moment, Bernie is the leader we have. His influence is huge, and the potential for his 2020 campaign to win millions to our side is heartening. The downside of missed opportunities is too steep to pursue.

What’s the alternative? Is there another way to engage with the Presidential Election of 2020 that will better help to advance the cause of socialism? If there is, I don’t see it. In 2016, many of us saw the Green Party’s campaign as our best opportunity for organizing and holding up an alternative vision during the elections. It would also certainly be nice if an explicitly socialist party such as SPUSA were poised to command people’s attention. But with Sanders already positioned as frontrunner for the Democratic nomination this cycle, it’s hard to argue that the third party campaigns will add anything to the debate, or will offer much in the way of opportunities for organizing or building the strength, confidence and consciousness of the working class. I would genuinely love to hear other perspectives on this, though.

Here’s where we should draw the line. Absent a Sanders nomination, socialists should abandon the Democrats’ 2020 Presidential Campaign. Despite the lure of “lesser evilism” we simply ought not support a candidate whose policies and track record are not aligned with our ideals. There is, as yet, no one in the Democratic field other than Bernie who deserves our support.

What else should socialists do? In terms of other work that can be done to move things forward, socialists who don’t choose to support Bernie will still find a lot to do, and bless them. They can continue to organize, to agitate, to educate, to support the struggles of the oppressed. In fact, this is where the bulk of our time ought to be spent even during the campaign cycle. Struggle raises consciousness and confidence in ways that an election campaign cannot.

I just don’t think that sitting on the sidelines of the entire election cycle proclaiming a message of “Bernie’s campaign is problematic” (though this is certainly true) will do a lot toward building the sort of mass movement for socialism that we need. If we don’t find ways to engage positively with Bernie’s campaign, we’ll be looking back with regret in a couple years.

Refuting Arguments Against Socialism

· ·

This essay began as another in the series of articles meant to explain socialism to kids. I intended to draft it as best I could, and then rework it with simpler language for the younger audience. I may still do that, but decided to publish it here, as is, for adults. Questions and constructive feedback are welcome, as always, in the comments.

Common Arguments Against Socialism

Over the years since people first began talking about socialism, there have been many arguments made against it. Here are the three most common arguments made against socialism today, and some responses from a socialist’s point of view.

Capitalism is already the best imaginable system.

Folks sometimes argue that, for all of its faults, our current system is the best that could ever possibly be imagined. They say that the “free markets” under capitalism create the most wealth and freedom possible. They say that the system rewards hard work and genius, and gives us all of these marvelous products that make our lives better. Medical breakthroughs, iPhones, interesting foods – anything that we can dream, we can have – quicker, better and cheaper than ever before. Under capitalism, they say, the common working person lives like a king, and things just keep getting better and better. The “hidden hand of the market” is wise, and if we just let it do its work without interfering, everyone will be happier, healthier and more fulfilled than at any other time in human history. They will also often cite examples of people who grew up in extreme poverty and rose to great heights of wealth and power under capitalism, and then tell us that this would not be possible under any other system. If they can make it, we can too!

It is true that many people, especially people in the United States and other “developed” countries, seem to be doing pretty well. We have enough to eat, homes, cars, gadgets, and plenty of free time to enjoy them. So for a lot of us, this argument rings true. But when you step back and look at the facts, you see a very different story.

Half of the world’s children, 1.1 billion kids, live in poverty. 736 million people around the globe live in what is defined as “extreme poverty,” surviving on less than $1.90 a day. Even in the United States, a relatively wealthy nation, almost 50 million people, including 16.2 million children, live in households that lack the means to get enough nutritious food on a regular basis. One out of every five children in America go to bed hungry at some point each year.

Under capitalism, competition for access to natural resources, especially fossil fuels, has led to war after war for more than a century. Seizing Iraq’s oilfields was one of the main objectives of the British during World War I. The oilfields of Indonesia were a major motivation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the U.S. to enter World War II. Over the last five decades, as many as half of all the wars between nations have been linked to oil, and oil-producing nations are also more likely to face civil wars over control of the oil field profits.

Beyond the wars (and terrorist acts) linked to oil, we also know what the addiction to fossil fuels is doing to the climate on our planet. It is not unreasonable to say that the human race could be facing near-term extinction due to climate change, and the capitalist system is directly responsible. According to the Climate Accountability Institute, just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions which are driving the disastrous warming of our climate.

Poverty, war, terrorism and climate disaster are just a few examples of things that make socialists doubt that capitalism is “the best system anyone can imagine.” In fact, we dare to imagine a better one. Socialists dare to imagine a world where no one ever has to go to bed hungry. Socialists dare to imagine a world where the profits of a few dozen companies don’t threaten the very existence of life on the Earth.

Okay, capitalism has its problems, but under socialism, nobody would do anything and we’d all starve.

Another common criticism of socialism is that if everyone’s basic needs were met, nobody would work, and the whole society would break down. There would be no punishment for laziness, and no reward for working hard or being smart. The system would basically take things away from hardworking people who deserve them, and give those things to lazy people who don’t deserve them.

This criticism says more about life under capitalism than it does about socialism. Under capitalism, we are conditioned to compete with each other. The idea is that if we work harder than other people, or are smarter than they are, or more creative, that we’ll get a reward. We’ll get the reward because we deserve it. So, by definition, people who don’t get the rewards are lazy and stupid and lack imagination. So, naturally, we think that a system set up to meet human needs can’t work, because people are naturally lazy and stupid and if someone isn’t cracking a whip over them all the time, they won’t do anything, because “that’s just human nature.”

There are a lot of things wrong with this argument, but I’ll point out three of the major flaws.

First, it’s just not true that under capitalism the people who work hardest or are smartest or otherwise most deserving get the rewards. Some of the smartest, most creative, most conscientious, most hard working people in the world have barely enough to survive and to take care of their families. And some of the laziest, dumbest, most good-for-nothing slackers on the planet have all the wealth you can imagine. Go say hello to anyone working in a warehouse or at a fast food restaurant, and you’ll see an example of hard work that isn’t properly rewarded. Turn on your television, especially when our President is speaking, and you’ll see an example of the opposite.

Second, people already do things all of the time out of a sense of duty, or obligation, or love, or joy, without any thought about monetary reward. Every time that someone in your household cooks a meal for you, or cleans house, or folds laundry, or takes a dog for a walk, that’s an example. Some of the most meaningful and important work that people do every day is not motivated by the prospect of a paycheck or the threat of starvation.

Third, we know from history that there were societies based on cooperation and meeting everyone’s needs. Life may have been hard sometimes for these “primitive communist” societies, and they had their problems like everyone else, but they managed to survive and be happy without the need to coerce people to get them to work. People worked hard, and worked together, because it was their way of life, not because of threats or incentives.

So the notion that once our basic human needs are met that we would all just put our feet up on the couch and watch Netflix all day has no basis in fact, except for the cruel facts of life under capitalism. We dare to imagine a better world.

But socialism never works. It always ends up with people standing in line for hours just to get a loaf of bread. And it also always ends up with horrible monster dictators like Stalin and Mao, and they kill millions of people. Nobody is ever free under socialism.

Attempts at establishing socialist societies have definitely failed. And some of the boldest and most promising experiments have turned out the worst. But this does not mean that all attempts at socialism are doomed. The failures of the past have had their roots in the conditions of a particular time and place. There’s nothing baked in to socialism that makes it more vulnerable to social problems or murderous tyrants than other systems.

We shouldn’t dismiss the criticisms or make excuses for failures and atrocities, but we also shouldn’t allow the dream of socialism to be defined by those failures and atrocities. Early attempts at difficult and complicated things often fail. We can learn from those mistakes and begin again.

When someone brings up the issue of “freedom” under socialism, there are several questions that should be asked. Freedom for who? For everybody? Is everybody really free under capitalism? Are people free to leave a job that they hate? A job that stresses them out? I suppose so, at least in theory. And they are free to starve too. In theory we’re free, but in reality not so much.

Under socialism the goal would be a society where people are truly free to develop themselves to the limits of their potential. Is that even possible? Frankly, we don’t know, but we do dare to imagine a world where, in the words of the Communist Manifesto “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

The goal of developing a truly democratic global socialist society is daunting, there is no doubt. Karl Marx believed that it is through the process of struggle, the process of revolution, that we will become “fit to rule.”

So let us begin.

Notes on the Question of the State

· ·

A dear friend and correspondent of mine, Alan Hodge, sent me some food for thought this weekend. It was essentially a criticism of the orthodox Marxist notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

As a person with a deeply ingrained anti-authoritarian bent, I have studied this question for quite awhile, and continue to struggle with it. Here are some notes outlining my current reasoning of the matter.

Is the establishment of a workers’ state necessary to the project of human liberation?

First, let’s be clear about what we mean by “the state.” It is essentially an institution which uses force or the threat of force, implicit or explicit, to coerce people into obedience. This sounds inherently evil to a lot of us, and we’ve certainly witnessed real life evil perpetrated by the state throughout history and in our own lifetimes. No wonder that it is tempting to simply dismiss any approach to revolution which advocates seizing and wielding state power as part of the plan.

Here’s why we must not only resist, but reject that temptation. The current ruling class already has these means of coercion at their disposal, and time and again have shown no hesitation to employ them. They will not give up their position voluntarily. They will cling to power down to the last tooth and nail.

Imagine what would have happened if, after the October revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks had said “Okay, we’re all free now. Everybody cooperate with each other. The state no longer exists.” The old ruling class or another aspiring ruling class would have immediately asserted themselves and seized power. In fact, even with the (albeit deformed) workers’ state in place to act as a bulwark, this is precisely what the reactionary forces, Russian and international, set out to do.

It would be nice to believe, as the anarchists do, that we can establish purely voluntary associations, free of any coercion, to govern society, and that once these organizations are established and federated, an ideal socialist society would take root and flourish without the need for a state. It would be nice to believe in the efficacy of any number of other approaches to worker ascendence, be they cooperatives, or plans to vest workers’ pension funds with control of existing companies’ stocks, or whatever. The fact remains that under any such arrangement there will still be a wealthy and powerful ruling class with which to contend all along the way – a ruling class which enjoys their position of privilege, and will do whatever is in their power to keep it.

Whether we like the idea of a coercive state or we don’t, if we’re going to abandon it as part of the quest for liberty and equality, then we have a responsibility to solve the problem of how to otherwise mitigate the forces of reaction. I’ve not seen a feasible alternative solution proposed to this problem, and, frankly, cannot imagine one.

For those of us who believe that the power of a state will be needed, at least temporarily, in order to achieve human liberation, how can we best ensure against the emergence and entrenchment of new ruling elites?

The notion that Stalin was inevitable has been a part of ruling class ideology and propaganda for three-quarters of a century or more. It is important to reject the inevitability of Stalinism, while at the same time recognizing the danger of Stalinism. The challenge involved in creating deeply democratic structures of power and governance which prevent a new ruling class from putting down roots is daunting. But it begins with how we configure our own organizations of resistance and struggle today. We mustn’t fetishize the models of the Paris Commune or the Russian workers’ councils (“soviets”), but I do think that we can look to them for inspiration. We also need to continue to look at the lessons of history, examine where revolutionaries went wrong in the past, and do our best to create not only structures but cultures of democracy right from the beginning.

Marx believed that it was through the revolutionary struggle itself that the working class would become fit to rule. This may well be the case. It’s not a question to which we yet have a fully satisfactory answer. But unlike the question of the need for a state, there remain, at least, possibilities.

For Every Light That Shines

· ·

Shadow Falls

When I was 16 years old, I went to work as a broadcast engineer at WSOY Radio in my hometown of Decatur, Illinois. I was just completing my freshman year of college, and had gotten my Third Class Endorsed Radiotelephone license from the FCC through a Winter Term course in conjunction with the campus station at Millikin, WJMU. I’d been captivated by radio and by audio technology from a young age, and was elated to be working at “The Sound of Decatur” and to meet the people whose voices I had heard in my home for so many years growing up.

One of the very cool things about WSOY in those days was that the station was a CBS affiliate, so we carried newscasts and other programming from the CBS Radio Network. When I worked evening shifts, I had the pleasure of listening to the CBS Radio Mystery Theater at 9 o’clock each night. I grew to love these spooky radio dramas, and the way they created such vivid images in my head through a well crafted collection of sounds.

I worked at the station all through college before deciding that a career in radio was not for me, though I would continue to work there occasionally on a part-time basis even after moving on to another profession. To this day recording and broadcasting still holds a great deal of fascination for me.

In early 2005, I learned that people were beginning to create and distribute audio content via RSS (the technology behind blogging). I soon joined the ranks of independent media producers all over the world who gave birth to the “podcasting” craze. One of the exceptionally talented visionaries who came to my attention in those early days was named Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff. Eventually he and I would both come to work for a company that was attempting to monetize the nascent medium. Although I wasn’t directly involved with his groundbreaking production Shadow Falls, I was able to watch his creative process from a fairly near vantage point, occasionally receiving clips of episodes prior to their release to the general public. The series hearkened back to the CRMT that I so loved. The program was especially compelling, knowing the care that Mark took with the production, often recording the foley effects himself, for instance.

For several years, I had been searching the Internet for archives of the show to no avail. A few days ago Mark popped up by chance in my Twitter stream with a post about the follow up production Badlands, and I reached out to see if the original series was available. To my delight, he replied that he had recently posted all six episodes to his weblog.

My daughter is a creative who writes fan fiction and is perpetually obsessed with one or another series of books or teen television programs. It’s fun sharing Shadow Falls with her, and I have to say that the production still holds up well all these years later. Take a listen yourself and see what you think.

On The Party We Need

· ·

Each year at the annual Socialism Conference in Chicago, a sort of personal theme seems to develop early on for me. This year, questions around the topic of “the party” bubbled up on the first night. Paul D’Amato spoke about developing “infrastructures of dissent” in a session titled What kind of party do we need?

I posted this comment the next morning on Facebook.

It seems to me that once you say the word “party” people in the United States immediately think “ballot line.” I’m still not clear in my own mind what “party” would mean in real world practice apart from that. Will be looking for some resources on that question while I’m here.

There was an excellent session the next morning called Prelude to Revolution: May of ’68 in France. Sherry Wolf said that the happenings of that May exposed “the limitations of spontaneity and political eclecticism.” The message is that a party of the workers will be needed to lead from radicalization to revolution. I tried to better envision that party. What does it look like? What does it do? Does it participate in elections? If so, how does an organization committed to revolution, not reform, compete within the framework of a system that is reformist (at best) by its very nature? What is the role of the party right here and now? What should be its organizing principles?

I was able to catch up with D’Amato that afternoon and bend his ear for a bit on the topic. As he described the party as he saw it, I asked if it would compete in elections. He didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely!”

He recommended this article on Marxists and Elections from nearly twenty years ago, and I did find a lot of it helpful. Still, there was one question that nagged me. If the electoral activities of the independent party of the working class would be mainly aimed at raising working class demands, challenging and exposing the current government and political economy, and winning over workers to the need for revolution – how is that posed to constituents when seeking office? “We want your vote so we can become part of this system of government, because this system of government is so fundamentally corrupt that it has to be dismantled.” It seemed to me sort of like speaking to a mechanic who wants your business, and the mechanic saying “This car is really irreparable. You need a new car. It can’t be fixed. But you should bring it in to me anyway.”

If the end goal of the party is revolution, and that’s not being hidden, why should a worker who is not yet convinced of the need for revolution support the candidate of such a party? What would that party pledge to do once in office?

Todd Chretien’s Saturday session on the Vanguard Party, Democratic Centralism and Workers’ Revolution was a helpful review of theory and history, and the discussion that followed highlighted the distinction between the more or less orthodox Marxist view (as described in Todd’s talk and Paul’s article linked above) and the view of socialists (including many in DSA) who take a more flexible approach when it comes to the question of how to participate in elections.

I continued to read and ponder after returning home from the conference. Eric Blanc’s article about the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party was intriguing. The history he outlined is being cited by many who oppose (or who are rethinking) the need for a “clean break” from the Democrats. This essay from Joe Allen presented some helpful perspective, as did the entire series at Socialist Worker discussing and debating the relationship of socialists to the Democratic Party in the wake of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory in New York.

So I read and thought, and asked friends for their ideas, but really couldn’t come up with a satisfactory answer to the Catch-22 outlined above – until it finally came to me during a meeting of local activists from Connect Kankakee as they were planning a rally to end ICE expansion in our county. A lot of the organizing effort was aimed at encouraging turnout for the event. It occurred to me that we don’t simply work for large numbers at events like this because we enjoy the company of a crowd. It’s a demonstration of power, represented in numbers. The size of the gathering is a representation to office holders in our county that our goals are priorities for the community. It’s also a message of comfort and confidence to those who are endangered by ICE, and to those of us who are organizing resistance.

One can look at elections in the same way. They are an opportunity to measure the proportion of strength for socialist ideas, and, as Engels put it, to “gauge of the maturity of the working class.” This seems to me a purpose that even those who have not yet been won to revolutionary consciousness could support. “We want your vote in order to stand up fearlessly to the powers that be, and to bring your voice, loud and clear, to the very halls of government.”

If you’ve read thus far and are now thinking “duhr,” please accept my apology. This seems like an obvious point in the present moment, but it truly did confound me until recently.

We’ll be discussing this issue at some length on the night of August 15th at our monthly Jacobin Reading Group meeting. Come join us!

Quick Thoughts on the “Dirty Break”

· ·

The historical precedent for this strategy presumes that there must first be an independent organization of the working class. One that is cohesive, disciplined, powerful, and ready to guard its independence with ferocity. If such an organization were to exist today, then perhaps that organization could use a major party ballot line to further build power and momentum for a few years prior to a pre-planned break.

It is silly, in my view, to try to shoehorn any of the current crop of folks who are using the Democratic Party ballot line, into a strategy which requires conditions that don’t currently exist.

In other words, if you’re citing the prospect of an eventual break from the Dems as part of your justification for supporting a candidate with a D beside their name, thinking that power will be built first within the two-party system and then lopped-off in a way that it will accrue to an independent party of the working class, I think that you have it precisely backwards.

People Get Ready

· ·

Here is what won last night in New York’s 14th District:

  • Medicare for all (including medicine, vision, dental and mental health care)
  • A universal jobs guarantee
  • Fully funded public schools and taxing Wall Street to support tuition-free public universities and trade schools
  • Housing as a human right
  • Ending the War on Drugs, demilitarizing the police, abolishing for-profit incarceration
  • Abolishing ICE, protecting DREAMers, simplifying the path to citizenship
  • Investing in 100% renewable green industry
  • Clean campaign finance
  • Peace

This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‘ platform. She walloped a long-tenured, establishment Democrat who spent $3 million dollars to try to stave her off. She did it on a shoestring, running openly as a socialist, and a “card-carrying member” of the DSA.

The lesson here is not that “progressives” can “run to the left” in Democratic primary elections and win. The lesson is that more and more people are ready to abandon the politics of “let’s be reasonable.”

Medicare for all? Yes, please. Guaranteed jobs? Why not? Abolish ICE? It’s high time, and don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out, fellas. Housing as a human right? Makes sense. Everybody needs a home. Good education for everybody? Green jobs? Stop putting an entire generation of young black men in prison? Of course.

Queue “Eli’s Comin'” and turn it up loud. Here’s to a new world.

Thoughts on the Rule of Law

· ·

If it weren’t so infuriating, it would be laughable when people talk about the law, and the sanctity of the law, and the rule of law, with regard to immigration. We have long since abandoned the rule of law in this country.

Let’s also not fool ourselves about “equality under the law.” Our entire legal framework, institutions and code have been established by a ruling class to protect their own interests.

To pretend otherwise is a cruel, macabre, sickening joke.