“A huge problem, up there at the top of the list, is that the history of efforts over the last many centuries to create truly just and democratic societies, run by organized people, not oligarchs, has at best yielded mixed results since the Russian Revolution of 1917.”

These words were part of the first column of this series of my Future Hope columns, planned to be at least 10 of them. I’m calling this series “21^st Century Common Sense.”

So what is my “common sense” about why the world is in the state it’s in?

-One very big reason is the fact that revolutions trying to bring into being much more egalitarian and just societies, societies improving the lives and gaining power over decision-making for working-class and low-income people, took place in countries, Russia and China in particular, which had just a small amount of industry and not much of an urban working class. They were overwhelmingly peasant-based societies. This meant there were limitations, both economically and as far as the experience of organization on the part of regular people, that led to very real distortions and much worse, when it came to how society was reorganized after the overthrow of the ruling powers by revolutionary organizations.

-Another very real reason has been the problem of male dominance, leadership of organizations avowedly about positive social change to benefit working-class people dominated by backwards and oppressive cultural practices where men are assumed to be the “natural” leaders.

Because of the impact, staying power and growth of the late 1960’s women’s movement growing, in large part, out of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, there has been not just a growth in various sectors of US society in the percentage of women in leadership but also a growth in an understanding of more and more men that this is good and right.

-Another reason is a similar process when it comes to the issue of racism. The victories of the civil rights/Black Freedom movement back then had lasting impacts in so many ways. Not only did it change racist US laws in 1964, 1965 and beyond, it undoubtedly inspired many other movements—Indigenous, Mexicans/Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, other Latinos/as/e, Asian Americans, lgbtq+ people, progressive trade unionism, immigrant rights, disability rights, student rights, family farmers, environmental and climate protection, for peace with justice, liberation theology and more.

At first, the proliferation of these movements led to overall movement difficulties. Which issue–class, race, gender or something else–was the most important, or the most strategic when it came to changing human society? There was competition over material resources to support all the different organizations which grew out of this new political milieu, a continuing issue.

Over time, over the past decades, I see positive changes as far as these and other challenges. There is, overall, a definite understanding on the part of many millions of us, the many millions of activists and organizers who are at work in our own particular vineyards, whether it be by geography, by issue, by specific tactics, or something else—there is an understanding that we absolutely must and are finding ways to join our struggles, all of which ultimately have a common enemy: the billionaire/multi-multi-millionaire class which literally dominates not just US society but much of the world.

But these difficulties in uniting aren’t the only reasons why the Trumpfascists are now in the positions of power they are.

US society is in need of a lot of change, but it is a fact that, so far, those in positions of governmental power, whether it be in the White House, in Congress, in state legislatures or in cities/towns/townships/villages, are chosen through a process of elections. This dynamic is deeply rooted among the U.S. American people. Yes, big corporate money has much influence, particularly at higher levels, and yes, there are various ways the US electoral system can become much more democratic, like through ranked choice, proportional representation and public financing of elections, but the key point in the context of this column is that social change movements, sooner or later, must contend within the electoral system for power.

Individual progressives and progressive organizations in the past and still today have fallen prey to one of two very real mistakes in working to win the votes of the masses of people who, through their voting, do actually decide who wins. One mistake is for candidates for office to articulate our approach to issues, create a platform, which does not take into account where the people we are trying to influence are as far as their consciousness on issues or in the language they can relate to, and as a result we can come across as too narrow, too dogmatic, not flexible enough, too ultra-left, etc. The other mistake is the opposite: to be TOO flexible, not firm enough on basic principles, too willing to bend too far toward one or another of the corporate class’s positions on issues, understanding that they are not monolithic but in general are primarily looking out for their own power and wealth.

“Purist” politics and “opportunistic” politics: these are two huge mistakes made in the past which have narrowed progressive possibilities for electoral and other victories.

How can we make progress on these weaknesses? The first step is to identify them as very real problems and to then talk about them, interact about them, to at least minimize these errors happening, moving toward their becoming, over time, mistakes that we have pretty much transcended.

Paulo Freire, in his must-read book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, has some very relevant input on the “how” question:

“The correct method for a revolutionary leadership to employ in the task of liberation is, therefore, not ‘libertarian propaganda.’ . . The correct method lies in dialogue. The conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their liberation is not a gift bestowed by the revolutionary leadership, but the result of their own conscientizacao [consciousness raising]. . . Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people. Love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself. Because love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to others. . . In dialogical theory, at no stage can revolutionary action forgo communion with the people, really human, empathetic, loving, communicative and humble, in order to be liberating.”  (1)

Wise words grounded in experience and commitment. Thank you, Paulo Freire.

•  Paulo Freire, 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, pps. 53-54, 77-78 and 171

  Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. He is the author of two books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution, published in 2020 and 2021 and both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.