Tag Archives: philosophy

Trying to Dig Deeper, or 21st Century Common Sense, Part 4

Uncategorized, , , ,

“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 “21st 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 21st Century Revolution, published in 2020 and 2021 and both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.

Facing Up to Our Historical Tasks

Future Hope, , , ,

or, 21st Century Common Sense, Part 2

By Ted Glick

Rebellions against injustice and poverty go back centuries, millenia, throughout the world. People “on the bottom” of human societies, sooner or later, get themselves organized to put up a fight. Because of this historical reality, when it is combined with changes in consciousness and/or guilt among some middle- and even upper-class people, and despite our human weaknesses whatever our class, gender or color/culture, humanity has made some progress over these many decades and centuries. 

This column addresses some of what I see as happening since Karl Marx and Frederich Engels wrote and published the Communist Manifesto in the 1840’s, 180 years ago. This and other writings by them significantly impacted those in Europe, as well as elsewhere, who were trying to overthrow or change the oppressive and violent governments of that day.

One of their most famous sayings as far as what they were working for was human society governed by the principle, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” This was very similar to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth 1800 years before in Palestine, as written by and about the early Christians after he had been killed. This is what was said in the Bible Book of Acts, Chapter 2, verses 44 and 45: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.”

We in the US and the world have the great misfortune of being currently ruled by someone who would like to be the world’s Pharaoh. A big part of the reason for this is the control over US political life by the billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires (MMM’s). This has been true for both the dominant sector of the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, though different in the societal results. This, plus other aspects of the US electoral system, like winner-take-all (not proportional) elections and corporate control of mass media, have extremely stacked the deck against those of us who want society to be motivated not by greed and power-seeking but by justice and higher love.

However, things are changing for the better.

Rev. Jesse Jackson’s US President campaigns in 1984 and 1988 were an essential part of that change, followed 30 years later by Bernie Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 campaigns. Sanders’ campaigns showed visibly that broad masses of the US American people were ready for something very different. This independent socialist received over 13 million votes nationally in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Also responsible for our improving prospects are the myriad number of popular-based, visible, action campaigns and day-to-day organizing on a wide range of issues going back to historic impact of the South-based civil rights movement of the 1950’s: racial and economic justice, women’s rights, lgbtq+ rights, workplace and labor organizing, environmental protection and climate defense, actions for peace, new forms of progressive mass media, and more.

As a result of all of this, we are not without weapons as we fight the 21st century fascists. Inspiring, refuse-to-give-up, organized mass resistance against militaristic ICE over the last many months in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis and elsewhere has won important victories. It has shown us that when masses of people are organically connected with those of us with shared values and organizing skills, we can win.

What do we need to keep in mind as we continue onward?

From my activist and organizing experiences over the years I see these as continuing issues we must keep addressing:

A Third Force: In Part One of this planned series of articles, I wrote about the historical timeliness of a “third force” strategy. This isn’t something pulled out of the air, or someone’s lofty dreams. It is grounded in historical experience in the United States over the last 50 or so years. A “third force” that brings together those who see themselves as independents, who are critical of both the dominant sector of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, those who have a critique of “the system,” combined with those who may have a similar critique but who have decided for practical reasons to carry on that fight in part within the Democratic Party—this is what is needed right now to defeat fascism and lay the basis for more positive change going forward over coming years and decades.

Anti-racism among the masses: It is not enough to be anti-racist on a personal level or even, if you are a white person, to be in active solidarity with the struggles of people of color. Also essential, particularly in this critical election year, is conscious work among other white people who have been so infected with the ideas of white supremacy that they’ll support a white, corrupt, billionaire-loving fascist before they’ll support a Black, Brown or Indigenous, working-class fighter for justice for all. Breaking more white people away from, or beginning to question, MAGA ideology and practice is very strategic in 2026.

-Anti-sexism among the masses: The dominance of white, upper-class, backwards-thinking men over government or business is central to  Trumpfascist thinking and practice. They have set themselves against the so-needed, historical trend toward the liberation of women and societal change in so many ways. Progress in this area has been made on the part of human society over the last half-century that clearly threaten the rich, white, male ruling class. Upholding those changes and resisting Trumpist efforts to return society to 1950’s-style lifestyles is a potent issue in 2026.

-Class-consciousness: Throughout all of this on-going work must be an understanding that US society and human society worldwide has not made significant advances beyond the basic unfairness of an economic system that maintains differences in class for most people over many generations. It is true that, to some extent, life for more working-class people today is better than it was before FDR’s New Deal, the Chinese anti-colonial revolution, and other anti-colonial victories, but we still have a long way to go. Working-class people are a majority in US and most societies. A movement for positive change in which they are not significantly in leadership is a movement which will likely fail.

-Nonviolence as a tactic and a way of life, not necessarily our overall strategy: This could be the most controversial of all of these views of mine. I have never seen myself as a pacifist, have always believed that there have been and may be in the future situations which leave no choice but to use force, including armed force, to bring about much-needed change. However, the specific tactics I have used as part of the progressive movement in the USA since the 1960’s have always been nonviolent, and I have come to believe very strongly that a “nonviolent,” humane, loving way of living with other people, day after day, hour after hour, is the way we should all try to live. This isn’t just for personal reasons, my trying to be the best human being I can be. It is also because, very clearly, the use of overt violence can be used by those we are fighting against to try to discredit us with masses of people who do not know us on a personal level. I believe that this understanding must—and generally already does—pervade all of our collective work for social change.

Finally, a positive internal culture: This is not a new idea; far from it. For example, in 1996 a predominantly people of color, multi-racial group of people met in Jemez, NM and came up with a set of “Principles for Democratic Organizing.” Their staying power and adoption by many groups ever since reflect a growing understanding of the need for a more group-centered, loving and respectful way of organizing. There are six principles: Be Inclusive. Emphasis on Bottom-Up Organizing. Let People Speak for Themselves. Work Together in Solidarity and Mutuality. Build Just Relationships Among Ourselves. Commitment to Self-Transformation. The final three sentences are: “As we change societies, we must change from operating in the mode of individualism to community-centeredness. We must ‘walk our talk.’ We must be the values that we say we are struggling for and we must be justice, be peace, be community.”

There are many reasons to despair in today’s world, but there are more to maintain hope and resilience. Learning from the past, committed to helping to develop a new world for our children, grandchildren and the seven generations to come, let us make 2026 a turning point year in the USA toward that objective.

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

21st Century Common Sense, Part One

Future Hope, , , ,

A quarter of the way through this century, there is no doubt that the USA and the world are in deep trouble. This is true for everyone, even the families of those most responsible for this state of affairs, the “Epstein class” and those supporting them. Given the fact that the burning of fossils fuels and nukes, the continued reliance on destructive war as a way of determining who runs individual countries, and the growing disparity between the billionaire/multi-multi-millionaire (MMM) class and those who must work for a living, often barely making it—these and related injustices are what must be transcended, must be overcome, asap. The future of the world literally depends upon whether we can transcend them over the coming years.

For us in the United States of America, the immediate issue is the Trumpfascist efforts to impose dictatorial rule to the benefit of the billionaire class and those MMM’s hoping to become billionaires. As of the time of this writing a key next step in the resistance to these efforts is the November, 2026 federal elections, which should result in the Democrats, aligned with progressive Independents like Bernie Sanders, winning control of at least the House of Representatives, as things now appear is very likely.

But even if they take the House and Senate, and even if the percentage of House and Senate members who are strong and consistent progressives grows significantly, this alone will not yield the kind of changes the world desperately needs. For one thing, would-be dictator Trump will still be President, able to use his White House power in destructive ways, like unnecessary and brutal wars, rising economic, racial, gender and other inequality and hateful discrimination, and major attacks on wind, solar and electric vehicles.

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.

In a book I wrote and self-published in 2021, five years ago, here is what I put forward as the key aspect of a “winning strategy, the one that is the key link to the social transformation process so urgently needed: the building and deepening of a way of working together and developing organizations that is collaborative, respectful, democratic its core and which, as a result, is truly transformative, built to last.” 1) 21st Century Revolution: Through Higher Love, Racial Justice and Democratic Cooperation, p. 22

This has to be our starting point as we try to determine how we change the world. Also necessary is an understanding of the urgency of the climate crisis. More than any other issue, this is one which must always be seen as a top priority. The amount of damage already done and sure to be done in the future, particularly to low-income people, the vast majority of the world’s population, primarily people of color, cannot be underestimated. We are literally running out of time to transition away from fossil fuels and to be about much more community-building and collaborative approaches to solving problems as they escalate as ecosystems, food and water supplies become increasingly less dependable.

Indeed, this existential reality for the entire planet is a reason that change is not just necessary, not just possible, but very much on the agenda of humankind.

As stated by the late Father Paul Mayer, “What history is calling for is nothing less than the creation of a new human being. We must literally reinvent ourselves through the alchemy of the Spirit”—or however one describes that unseen, powerful force in the universe which, down through history, has inspired people to do things which seem impossible—“or perish. We are being divinely summoned to climb another rung on the evolutionary ladder, to another level of human consciousness.” (2)  Paul Mayer, “Wrestling with Angels”, back cover

To be frank, it is not enough to be against Donald Trump and MAGA, or against the control of both major parties in the USA, the Democrats and the Republicans, or even to be committed to hard work for the next eight and a half months here in the USA to defeat the billionaire-supporting, fascist President Donald Trump. Our problems are too deep to accept this essential next step as the ultimate goal. Short-term, essential goal yes, but looking at things historically, it can only be the first major step in a fundamental, revolutionary process that over time not just saves the planet and its people but, at long last, matches our desires as a species with the way that we organize ourselves, economically, politically, culturally and socially.

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

To Each According to Their Need

Future Hope, , , ,

“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 21st Century Revolution, both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.

Albert Einstein, Anti-Fascist

Future Hope, , , ,

There are two important anniversaries at the end of this week. Saturday, April 19th is the day the American Revolution against King George III and British colonialism began 250 years ago at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.

The American Revolution was a mixed bag, to be sure. The new United States of America which emerged from the successful defeat of England was an inspiration to other revolutions—in France, Haiti, South America and elsewhere—which advanced human society for the better. But US American independence, even as it birthed a Constitution which included the all-important Bill of Rights, allowed for the continuation and enslavement  of Africans, and it led to brutal, devastating wars visited upon the Indigenous peoples of the North American continent.

In 2025, building upon successful movements in the 19th and 20th centuries to end slavery, support Indigenous rights and sovereignty, the rights of women and more, there will be actions around the country in opposition to today’s would-be King George, fascist Donald Trump. Under the slogan, “No Kings!,” April 19, 2025 will see the latest in a series of massive and visible, coordinated national protests against the Trumpfascists

The day before the 19th is also an important day historically. On that day 70 years ago, April 18, the 20th century’s most prominent scientist, Albert Einstein, died. But Einstein was more than a scientist, the proponent of the theory of relativity. He was also a public opponent of Hitler and the rise of Nazi fascism.

A film which came out last year, Einstein and the Bomb, provides important historical information about this not so well known fact of Einstein’s life. Here is how it was explained in a review of this important movie last year in The Guardian publication:

“Einstein was public enemy No 1 in Germany. In May 1933, a brochure entitled Jews Are Watching You accused Einstein of ‘lying atrocity propaganda against Adolf Hitler’. Under his picture, it stated: ‘Not yet hanged.’

“In September, after German secret agents assassinated the Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing in Czechoslovakia, the Nazis – who had already stolen Einstein’s savings, raided his summerhouse, ransacked his Berlin apartment and taken his violin – offered a reward of at least £1,000 for his murder.

“The next day, Einstein yielded to his wife Elsa’s pleas to leave her in the holiday home they had been renting near Ostend in Belgium and flee to England by sea. He would never set foot on continental Europe again.

“Prior to that point, Einstein had been an avowed, passionate advocate for non-violence and pacifism. But at the end of that three weeks, he gave a speech to 10,000 people at the Royal Albert Hall in London where he effectively said there is an existential threat to European civilization, and we will have to fight it.”

For the next 12 years, until the military defeat of Naziism in 1945, Einstein spoke and wrote and took action as part of that worldwide resistance movement.

There can be no doubt that, were he alive today, Einstein would be outspoken and active against Trump and MAGA. This is a source of strength as we take actions and do the deep organizing which is the absolute bedrock of what can be a successful movement not just to defeat Trump and MAGA but to bring about the systemic changes needed in our wounded, struggling, but also beautiful world.

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

Revolution?

Future Hope, , , ,

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

What is April 19th? 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 250th 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, 21st 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.

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

The Problems with Purism and Reformism (not reforms)

Future Hope, , , ,

Over 20 years ago I wrote one of these columns examining the issue of “purism” versus “pragmatism” when it comes to organizing for systemic and desperately needed change in this world. I wrote about two essential ingredients that are sometimes in conflict.

One essential is conscious political organization motivated by principles and a genuine desire and plan for improving the lives of the disenfranchised and downtrodden, ending militarism and war, and stopping and reversing environmental devastation. But this alone won’t bring about change.

As a once-great revolutionary once said, “the masses make history.” It is only when large numbers of people identify with a movement for fundamental change and support it, verbally or actively, that we have any hope of winning political power and transforming society. In the USA that means not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions, but tens of millions of people.

Is this possible? Yes. One big example is the 15 million votes independent socialist Bernie Sanders got in 2016. Another is the NY Times report that 16-25 million people all over the country took demonstrative action in the spring of 2021 after George Floyd was murdered.

We need to go about our organizing work in a way which doesn’t undercut either, which avoids the temptation to be so committed to being principled that one becomes purist and narrow, on the one hand, or to be so committed to being with and interacting with “the masses” that problematic positions are taken and political relationships are built that end up deflecting energies into reformist and dead-end approaches to change. We need reforms, yes, but our broader objective must be to build upon successful struggles for major reforms in a way that leads to truly revolutionary, justice-grounded, social and economic transformation.

Purism versus reformism—the twin dangers of serious efforts to bring about the kind of change that is so, so needed today.

What can be done to lessen these dangers, to increase the possibilities that more of us will keep our eyes, minds and hearts on the prize?

One is the building of independent and progressive organizations that are truly democratic in the fullest sense of the term. As difficult as the process of democracy sometimes is, it is also a way to keep the group as a whole and the individuals within it centered on the stated objectives. Democratic process, sooner or later, frustrates individual power plays on the part of any person in leadership who lets power go to his/her/their head and who becomes either purist or reformist as a result. These things have happened much too much historically, but in this third decade of the 21st century, there is a growing consciousness of this danger increasingly expressed in how more and more of us are going about our organization-building.

Another necessity is an explicit commitment to the testing out of theories and ideas in practice and a process of constant evaluation based upon input from the people the ideas are being tried out on. If an independent candidate is running for office, for example, and has what they think is a great platform but the vote totals are very low, perhaps the problem is that the issues being addressed, or the way they’re being expressed, don’t connect with peoples’ understandings. Since just about any issue can be addressed from a progressive standpoint, a much better approach is to identify what the issues are to speak about because of day-to-day listening to and communicating with working-class people and people of the global majority.

The same with forms of direct action. It may feel good and righteous to some to stand up to the police during an action, but if that is done in a way which makes it easier for the government and the corporate-dominated press to call us violent, that will not generate sympathy for our cause among the wider public. Expressing our sense of urgency and anger is a good thing, if done wisely. Expressing it without political consideration of an action’s impacts is not a good thing.

Ultimately, our ability as a movement to navigate between the dangers of purism and reformism comes down to how each of us live our lives. Do we live in such a way that, on a day to day basis, we are in touch with working class people, regular folks, those in need of change? Do those of us who are white ensure that, in some way, we have regular communication and interaction with people of color so that we are constantly reminded about racism and its pernicious effects? Do we make time for meditation, allow our conscience to make itself heard over the daily demands on our time and energies? Do we interact with others in a way which prioritizes listening and objective consideration? Do we struggle to keep from responding defensively when others make constructive, or not so constructive, criticisms of us?

In the words of the late Rev. Paul Mayer, “What history is calling for is nothing less than the creation of a 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.”

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