Tag Archives: marxism

To Each According to Their Need

July 11, 2025Future Hopehistory, karl-marx, marxism, philosophy, politicstedglick

“To whatever extent we reach our potential in this world, my grandmother would be furious if I didn’t say that it was due to a combination of our individual talents and the societal conditions – the real existing material conditions, as a good Marxist might say – that have shaped our lives. But while she would probably not admit it, the faith in her eyes – the challenge to imagine with others a better world and actively move with them towards it, to engage in collective struggle to achieve a more humanistic society – that faith will always remain with us.”

–Dorothy Ray Healey remembrance, Jewish Women’s Archive

“Without vision, the people perish.” This famous quote from Proverbs 29:18 in the Old Testament is absolutely on target, based on my experiences over many years. A variation of this quote—if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there—underlines the danger of not having a vision. A road to nowhere is a dangerous road.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had a vision, summed up in the phrase, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Was this an original idea back then, 177 years ago? I don’t think so.

In his younger years Marx was connected to religion; he was baptized as a Lutheran at the age of six. He studied religion, ultimately leading him to develop his well-known critique of it as an “opiate of the people.”

The book of Acts is a religiously-oriented history of the first years and decades of the Christian church after Jesus of Nazareth was killed. In chapters two and four, it is made clear that in these early days of the Christian religion, the concept of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” was a central vision.

Here’s how it is described in Acts 2: 44-45: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all as any had need.” And similarly in Acts 4: 32 and 34: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. . . There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.”

I’m pretty sure that Dorothy Healey got this. She was the first socialist I ever heard quote Bible verses as she made her case from the podium speaking to hundreds of mostly young people at a national conference of the now-defunct New American Movement in 1974. I don’t remember exactly what she said, but I remember thinking that I wished I could do that. Why did I feel that way?

One reason is that I had generally positive experiences growing up in the church my parents took me to every Sunday, as well as with others in my extended family, especially my grandparents, who were devout Christians. But it was also because, as I became a peace and justice and impeach Nixon activist in my late teens and early 20’s, and as I was exposed to individuals who looked to Marx and Engels and “scientific socialism” as their “bible,” it seemed to me that one thing both had in common was a vision for a very different kind of society than the one dominating much of the world.

And let’s be real: what both also have in common is the corruption of the original vision of their founders as they grew politically stronger and more institutionalized. That is a reality that can never be forgotten, something those of us today need to study and learn from going forward.

Healey tried to put the two positive visions together. She believed in Christian/Marxist unity. She may or may not have been an atheist, I don’t know, but her life was grounded in the best of both those worlds.

All of us have a responsibility to “imagine with others a better world and actively move with them towards it, to engage in collective struggle to achieve a more humanistic society” with the long term goal, one many of us will not see, of human societies where the abilities of all are used to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of all. We must hold fast to this vision whatever the odds against us right now.

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

Progressive Comradeship During the Trump Times

July 6, 2025Future Hopefaith, history, marxism, politics, resistancetedglick

I’ve noticed over the last couple of years younger progressive/revolutionary organizers using the word, “comrade,” to refer to other organizers. Is this a good idea?

During the days of McCarthyism in the 1950’s, and probably before then, self-righteous conservatives used this word as a smear against people on the political Left. “Comrade” was a word used before and after the Russian Revolution in 1917 by members of the Bolshevik Party which led that revolution and dominated the USSR government for decades afterwards. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that members of the Communist Party in the USA from the 1920’s on, at least until McCarthyite repression in the 50’s, used that term also, given the CPUSA’s very close connection to the Soviet CP during that time.

George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” published in 1945, had a lot to do with the comrade word becoming much more widely discredited. Animal Farm is the story of a revolution gone bad, corruption of once-revolutionary and brave leadership upon gaining power, and even as those bad things happen and demoralization sets in among many of the animals, use of the word comrade is continued by those in power.

As a young person growing up in the 1950’s and 60’s, I absorbed much of the dominant conservative ideology of those days and as a result never used, and still don’t use, the comrade word in any way. To me, it has been seen as a problematic word.

But there are other-than-leftist groups in the USA that use the word. Doing some google searching I learned that it is in use in both the US military and among veterans groups, which is surprising. Why would that be the case?

In a Random House dictionary published in 1966, they give three definitions for the word: “1) a person who shares closely in one’s activities, occupation, interests, etc: intimate companion, associate, or friend. 2) a fellow member of a fraternal group, political party, etc. 3) a member of the Communist Party or someone with strongly leftist views.”

I think it’s telling that the US military and veterans groups apparently use the word. Clearly, their doing so would fall under definitions 1 and 2, not 3. There is something about the word, something about the idea of comradeship, that connects people who are working “closely” together in a shared task, shared “interests.”

Many of us today, literally millions, are standing up and taking action against the Trumpfascists. 5 million or more took part in 2,200 local actions in all 50 states on June 14, No Kings! Day. Probably millions are going to take part in local “Good Trouble Lives On” actions on July 17, the 5^th anniversary of the death of longtime freedom fighter John Lewis; there are already over 1,000 planned. And I feel a sense of comradeship, progressive comradeship, with this so-very-important mass political force, this popular resistance movement.

“Progressive comradeship:” that’s a phrase I’m comfortable with. It fits with definitions 1 and 2 above. It clarifies that this movement is broadly-based, representing tens of millions of people, going from “strong leftists,” including communists, on one pole to decent, concerned people on the other who believe in “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

During Hakeem Jeffries’ record-breaking, 8 hour and 44 minutes, impressive speech right before the Big Ugly Bill was narrowly passed in the House of Representatives on July 3rd, he quoted more than once a passage from the Bible that clearly resonated with the many Democratic Congresspeople sitting, and sometimes standing in loud applause, behind him. That passage? Matthew 25: 35-40. It’s one that should undergird all that we do as we keep building and strengthening the Resistance.

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

We must do all we can as long as we are alive to try to bring into existence a world motivated by these words in Matthew. It’s a certainty that the warped and twisted, pro-oligarch, obscene policies of the current federal government, combined with the day-to-day organizing of the millions of us, is going to lead to many more millions joining with us in this profoundly important task history has placed before us.

Our mass democracy movement is now and must continue to be characterized by progressive comradeship in the way we interact and a deep, abiding love for others and the natural world. Nothing can defeat that kind of movement, nothing. We really can change the world.

Revolution?

March 22, 2025Future Hopehistory, imperialism, marxism, philosophy, politicstedglick

I wonder how many people reading these words know the significance of April 19^th to US Americans, and others, to all of us worldwide who value democracy and justice for all.

What is April 19^th? It’s the 250th anniversary of the beginnings of the US American Revolution. On that day in 1775, in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, farmers and other working people stood their ground against redcoat British troops doing the bidding of King George III. It was the day of “the shot heard round the world” which eventually led to a victory in 1781 over the mighty British Empire after six years of war.

It also led to the expansion of European American settlement across the continent in the decades afterwards, a process which nearly wiped out the Indigenous peoples who have lived here for thousands of years. Estimates are that 90% or more were killed either by disease or violent military action to force the survivors onto reservations so that the Europeans could take the land and the resources underneath it.

Like so much else about this country, this 250^th anniversary of the beginnings of what became the United States is a decidedly mixed bag.

On balance, though, I see value to connecting the political uprising against the Trumpfascists with the uprising by revolutionary European Americans 250 years ago. Not by coincidence the success of this revolution was followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Bolivar-led South American Revolution and eventually, in the USA, the Civil War that led to the end of the legal enslavement of African people. It led to the success of the women’s suffrage movement over 100 years ago, the rise of trade unionism, the Black Freedom movement in the 60’s which forced an end to Jim Crow segregation, the rise of Indigenous resistance and societal leadership, the LGBTQ movement, an environmental protection movement and more.

Trump and his co-conspirators want to take us backwards at least 90 years, to the time before the rise of industrial unionism and the CIO in the 30s and the existence of programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Their agenda is truly and profoundly un-American, and the mushrooming popular resistance movement should begin saying that loudly and clearly. We, our broadly based movement of movements in all its political, racial, gender, age and other diversity, are the “next one up” in the never-ending struggle toward a more just, peaceful and ecologically-connected world.

Revolution or Reform?

As is the case with any authentic mass movement that has a chance of winning, there are differing views on a range of topics, even as we are united on many, many issues and a generally progressive worldview.

One very big one is whether what we are striving for should be viewed as defense of, as well as needed reforms to, the existing institutions of society or whether what we must be about should be viewed as revolutionary in its ambitions.

For myself it’s the latter.

A few days ago longtime progressive author and activist Michael Albert wrote about this issue of “reform or revolution.” He explored what his experiences have taught him about the difference between them. He called for a resistance movement today which had the maturity to appreciate that we need to develop a way of working so that all of us can join together in this existential battle for the future. Here’s how he summed up his main thoughts: “So, a reform and/or revolution bottom line: No to reformism. Yes to sustained reform struggles. No to mindless revolutionary posturing. Yes to wise, visionary long term commitment. As resistance grows and as views proliferate, stay together. We need each other.”

Several years ago I wrote a book with the title, 21^st Century Revolution: Through Higher Love, Racial Justice and Democratic Cooperation. In it I laid out what I saw as necessary to bring about the changes needed. As I concluded the book I quoted these words of a longtime friend and fighter for justice, the late Fr. Paul Mayer: “What history is calling for is nothing less than the creation of new human being. We must literally reinvent ourselves through the alchemy of the Spirit or perish. We are being divinely summoned to climb another rung on the evolutionary ladder, to another level of human consciousness.”

In the end, it all comes down to the personal, how each one of us does the best we can, as lovingly as we can, as resolutely as we can, as clearly as we can, day after day, to help create a world for our children and grandchildren and the seven generations coming after us very different than the one we are living through right now. We cannot let them down.