Advertise on podcast: RevolutionZ

Episode 408 of RevollutionZ continues excerpting from the seven author book Liberating Theory. This time the episode is two chapters, one on the polity of society that follows those on kinship, cultural community, and economy, and the other on how all four together compose society as a whole.  How do political systems shape not only laws and policing, but also what feels “reasonable,” what counts as “responsible debate,” and which alternative possibilities will never even reach the table? We consider the idea of the “single correct line” across regime types, from overt dictatorships that rely on fear and censorship to U.S. style representative democracy that relies on media filters, and control of resources for communication, and especially the socialization of communicators as they rise to visible positions. Along the way, we connect the “crisis of democracy” argument to a long-running pattern: when popular movements start to organize effectively, elites answer with a mix of repression and co-optation that is designed to rebuild apathy and narrow participation. Then we widen the lens. Instead of treating society as driven by one master cause, we lay out the complementary holist view of society: economy, polity, kinship, and community are overlapping, entwined spheres that constantly interact. That approach leads to practical conceptual tools for activists, including “social moments,” "accommodation versus codefinition," and the idea of core characteristics that permeate everyday life. We finally push the framework to also include include ecology and international dynamics like imperialism, because any usable political theory has to match the real world we’re trying to change. Each of the two chapters in this episode has its own associated dialogue in which our familiar array of participants, each with their own priorities and beliefs, discuss the ideas raised. Can the emerging framework appeal sufficiently to marxist, feminist, nationalist, anarchist, and also not yet deeply involved activists to generate a conversation to seek shared theory, strategy, and vision? You decide and perhaps alert others to the need to relate. Support the show

Ep 407 of RevolutionZ takes up the question of socialism, what does it refer to? The label gets thrown around like it’s self-explanatory, but when you press for details, the conversation often collapses into a list of hopes: equity, freedom, health care, housing, dignity. I want those outcomes too. The question for this episode is tougher and more useful: what economic institutions could actually produce those results, and how do we avoid repeating the ugly failures that critics blame on socialism? The episode leans on historian Hal Draper’s classic argument about socialism from above versus socialism from below, then pushes it further. Even a totally well-meaning and wise grassroots movement can end up rebuilding hierarchy if its economic vision leaves the old power structures intact. Quotes about intentions are not evidence. Concepts and methods shape outcomes, “Anti-capitalist” is not the same as “classless.” There follows a critique of traditional Marxist class theory for ignoring a third class between capitalists and workers: the coordinator or professional managerial class. When that class monopolizes empowering work and decision-making, you can remove owners and elevate a new ruling group. So what's the alternative: participatory economics, also called participatory socialism by some. We talk through a productive commons, self-managing worker and consumer councils, balanced job complexes, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning as replacements forto both market and centrally planned socialism--better called coordinatorism. The episode also asks why clear socialist economic institutional vision is so rare in popular media, even among people who want deep change. You want economic democracy, workplace self-management, and a real alternative to capitalism? Here are proposals to argue with, improve, and share. What institutions do you think socialism must include--or avoid? Support the show

Episode 406 of RevolutionZ continues excerpting the seven author book, Liberating Theory, to take up the task of arriving at usefull economic concepts for winning fundamental social change. Markets set prices but also train our desires, narrow what we think is “normal,” and quietly shape the people we become at work and at home. From there the chapter from *Liberating Theory* goes presents a then new story about economics, class, and why I still think it matters forty years later. It starts with a simple but disruptive claim: every economic act consumes inputs and produces outputs, and those inputs and outputs include human beings. Jobs can produce exhaustion, passivity, confidence, resentment, solidarity, or dependence. Consumption can produce status shifts, isolation, or connections. This all affects thoughts and inclinations so any serious political economy has to include qualitative outcomes like skills, consciousness, and social relations, not only GDP-style totals. From there Liberating Theory builds a sharper class analysis of capitalism that goes beyond workers and owners. Alongside capitalists and the working class, we name a coordinator class of empowered managers, technocrats, and professionals who hold decision-making power through monopolies of information and organizational knowledge. We also dig into the “middle strata” tensions that shape organizing, then connect economic outcomes to race and gender dynamics rooted in patriarchy and white supremacy. The closing dialogue takes on Marxist economics, central planning, and the risk that a “socialist” transition can still produce a new ruling class. Forty years ago, twenty years on from the New Left of the Sixties the seen authors of Liberating Theory sought new ideas for new labor organizing, class politics, and conceiving and winning new institutions for real self-management. Did they have good reason? Did they make progress? Can what they thought be of use now, fighting Trump, fighting fascism, and seeking a new economy? I think so, but it is for you to decide. I hope you will share this episode with a friend who argues about class and leave a comment with the biggest questions you have about its merits or debits. Support the show

Episode 405 of RevolutionZ moves from Community and race last episode to Kinship, patriarchal sex gender relations, and feminism this episode. We start by noting, however, that after our What Is To Be Undone episodes that criticized long-standing left orthodoxies we got nearly no pushback at all--and none publicly--and wondering why that was while also hoping that soon reactions will appear.  Then this episode turns to ideas for a modified approach to gender, feminism, and the kinship sphere that greatly impacted revolutionary debate forty years ago and needs to do so now too. The material is excerpted from a book, Liberating Theory, that was co-authored by seven prominent activists and published in 1986. We authors tried to put forth positive proposals to later adapt and refine to arrive at a conceptual toolbox able to guide activism more successfully than the ideologies we employed in  earlier periods. Liberating Theory hoped to aid creation of a New New Left. Its third chapter, presented here, summarized how kinship institutions organize the human life cycle, define roles like mother, father, husband, wife, and child, and then attach status and power to those roles in ways that harden into and continually reproduce patriarchy..  The chapter argued and thus this episode argues that biology mainly sets the terms for child-birth and breastfeeding, while nearly all of what we call “masculine” and “feminine” is socially produced through role dictates, rewards, and repeated training. That’s where the episode investigate mothering vs fathering as social roles, and why to assign nurturance to women and public power to men doesn’t only shape families, but also spills into work, politics, and culture. The episode then considers sexuality as a related political battleground, and names heterosexism and homophobia as structural forces that can cost people safety, jobs, housing, and even custody, and life itself, even beyond molding “opinions” and personal biases.  From there, this episode takes up a problem our survey of social spheres keeps encountering: monist theories that treat one sphere at the base of everything. We credit radical feminism’s sharp insights while we also push back on reductionism that in this case obscures or even erases class, race, and political power. The idea was not merely to criticize but to prepare the way for concepts able to highlight how kinship helps define other spheres of life and is in turn part defined by them. The episode concludes, as do all others in this sequence, with a lively dialogue that puts diverse conflicts and issues on the table, including pornography, censorship, the fear that movements will splinter into endless faction fights, and more. The book's dialogues each include a diverse array of characters ranging from Marxist Leninist to Anarchist, Feminist to Nationalist, Socialist Feminist to Council Communist, and downright Cynical (who wants everyone to go home) to Complementary Holist (who represents and advocates the book's preferred stance). The idea this and indeed all the dialogues is for their human and sometimes pithy and sarcastic and other times impatient and funny exchanges to help us assess an emerging set of concepts and their connections to inform and also be informed by concepts and views addressing other defining spheres of social life all on the road to a new view of history and struggle to help us win a new world. The seven authors of Liberating Theory were Michael Albert, Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hahnel, Mel King, Lydia Sargent, and Holly Sklar. Support the show

Episode 404 of RevolutionZ continues the excerpted materials from  the seven author work,Liberating Theory, this time with a chapter that insists we need to address a “community sphere” to understand society, not as a feel-good add-on, but as a core part of how society persists or changes. Community affiliation is shaped by social relations, history, and culture, and it follows us into every other arena of life, from economics to family roles to political conflict. To attain durable solidarity and transcend oppressive structures, we have to understand what communities are, why they form, and how they can nurture people while also being pulled into hierarchy, hostility, and domination. We also tackle a stubborn myth head-on: race as biology. The argument is clear that racial categories are biologically arbitrary even while racism is brutally real, because racism is the hierarchical ordering of culturally defined communities. Drawing from Frantz Fanon and Paulo Freire, we explore how oppression doesn’t just restrict material life, it can reshape selfhood through internalized control, and why liberation requires more than policy changes or abstract moral opposition. Then, like with other excerpted chapters, the tone shifts into an unscripted-style dialogue where different left traditions collide: Marxist Leninist, council communist, anarchist, nationalist, radical feminist, socialist feminist, and some others too to debate issues of religion, assimilation, cultural autonomy and more. Have you encountered excahnges broadly like these? Where do you stand? How can we criticize harmful practices and assert personal priorities without sliding into defensive and even hostile erasure of others. The tension is the point: single-cause theories miss how community, class, gender, and the state continually shape each other. The Liberating Theory sequence as a whole presents the shared views of seven authors who worked together to offer ideas for new theory, vision, and strategy forty years ago. Were they on a good track then? Are their ideas worth pursuing now? These episodes put those two questions. Will you assess and decide your answers? Should we now return to old ideologies or seek something new ala Liberating Theory? Support the show

Episode 403 of RevolutionZ takes a side trip away from our current ideology sequence to revisit the issues surrounding the development of Artificial Intelligence. Media is full of smart sober folks saying the end is near but also with smart sober folks saying utopia is near. Are we on a deadly trajectory to hell? Or is heaven on earth the next stop on the technology express? Or maybe it is just two-headed hype. Just another shiny new technology but barely more than that? More immediately, what has happened of late? What is likely to happen next? What should we ourselves work to cause to happen? AI is getting “better” so fast that arguing about today’s mistakes can miss the main fact that matters most: the slope of the curve. We consider what happens when large language models evolve into agentic systems. When being able to spit out "the next word" so effectively that passing the Turing Test is a lark, to being able to plan, to autonomously act, even to recruit other AIs, and to self-improve in ways even their creators can’t predict not only impinges on what used to be how humans earn and live, but also, how we manifest our humanity. We ask a simple question with big implications: if you had a three-position switch, would you let AI continue full speed, pause it until strict enforceable rules exist, or shut it down forever?  We dig into the motives behind AI's trajectory. The story involves innovations; but the crux is motivations and incentives. When CEOs believe the first country and company to reach artificial super intelligence, or ASI, wins everything, for them to seek safety becomes in their eyes a competitive handicap. The public becomes collateral. We consider how the emerging "who is going to win, it better be me" emphasis means for AI safety, regulation, data centers and "compute," and why “trust the companies” and "trust the government," is not a plan.  We also get specific about real-world impacts: deepfakes that shred shared reality, AI-enabled fraud that scales without limit, surveillance that tightens lives, and job displacement that turns productivity into pink slips. And then we step outside the box of familiar AI discussion to ask even if we imagine perfect intentions--no nefarious apocalypse of greed and hate--we still have to wrestle with the impact of unintended consequences like outsourced reading, outsourced care, and the slow erosion of the skills and bonds that make us human.  This episode is unsettling. Share it with a friend who thinks AI is just another tool, all that matters is who owns it, and ask yourself and others: do we need fast, faster, and fastest development, as now, or do we need a moratorium, a full shutdown, or something else entirely? Data centers are certainly horrible. To oppose them is more than warranted. But if the companies were to find a way to ASI without data centers, would that suddenly be something to celebrate--or to terminate? Is AI an existential danger? Is it a path to civilized living at last? Or is it just a lot of hype? Support the show

Episode 402 of RevolutionZ moves from part one of a sequence about ideology to part two of it, from critique of an old ideology to transcend to offering a  a new one to consider and extend.   Too often activists agree on outrage but fracture over the explanation,  strategy, root cause, and solution. The last few episodes have argued that Marxism Leninism not only doesn't preclude such divisions, but  to elicit them. So this time we begin a new sequence of episodes to propose an alternative for your consideration.  The new series works off of Liberating Theory, a collectively written book that Michael Albert co-authored with Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hahnel, Mel King, Lydia Sargent, and Holly Sklar, built around what we took to be a pressing need for a shared conceptual toolbox that would help movements understand society well enough to collectively change it. Albert and Hahnel generated a first draft but then all seven corrected, appended, and refined our way through subsequent drafts.  At the very outset, we each individually offered a brief statement of our advocacy of the finished book, our hopes and motives for it, including of the tension we all felt between winning immediate relief from oppression and building a future worth fighting for. From there the book digs right into method: for example, why activist theory has to be accurate but also usable in trying circumstances, why it has to confront race, gender, class, and authority without turning any one of them into the only story, and how without effective concepts movements can unintentionally reproduce the very biases and even hierarchies they oppose. That takes us into a critique of using a toolbox that elevates one or another sphere of social life as the primary key to social change, the limits of eclectic pluralism that mechanically combines two or more spheres without addressing how their intersections can alter even the defining attributes of each, and the authors attempt to build a more integrated framework that the book calls "complementary holism."  We also introduce the book’s fictional and informal dialogues that we designed to provoke debate even as they offer some humor. A Marxist Leninist, a radical feminist, a nationalist, an anarchist, an advocate of Liberating Theory and others argue over what belongs at the center of analysis, who gets erased in coalitions, and the “stew” problem of mixing perspectives without one flavor swallowing the rest.  The authors were all deeply involved in movement life, organizing, writing, etc. They felt a pressing need for shared vision and strategy and to achieve it they felt movements needed to share an underlying conceptual framework as well. They came together to all work on the resulting framework that they called Liberating Theory. I, Michael, am taking a liberty in presenting it to you as an episode a full forty years after we collectively settled on and signed our names to its words. What Liberating Theory tells us about the mid eighties and more important about whether its insights live up to present needs and potentials is for you to determine.  Support the show

Episode 401 of RevolutionZ addresses our Trump Problem and, to finish out a sequence, our Marxism Leninism problem. Trump doesn’t need everyone to love him to become even more deadly dangerous. He only needs enough of us to look away, stay tired, or treat politics like a bad weather system that will pass on its own. What is we refuse that comfort story and ask the harder question: What can we each actually do to help stop authoritarian power before it hardens into something even worse? If you’re a teacher, we talk about telling the truth in the classroom and turning schools into real community hubs after hours. If you’re a worker, we dig into the first steps of organizing with coworkers, raising demands, and using collective leverage instead of private despair. If you’re a soldier, a police officer, or close to someone who is, we wrestle with the ethics of “just following orders” and what it means to build solidarity that can collectively refuse unjust commands. We also look at how students, athletes, health workers, parents, and faith leaders can use the space they already occupy to raise the social cost of repression. Then we pivot to a deeper, longer-term issue summarizing and topping off the past: three episodes again addressing what ideology should guide movements that want a new world? We close our series assessing Marxism Leninism, rejecting its narrowness, its fetish of hierarchy and discipline, and the historical failures of Bolshevik practice. If revolution needs hope, vision, and human growth, we ask, what concepts and strategies can actually get us there? Then, to conclude, we ask contemporary Marxist Leninists some serious questions in hopes they will take some time to contest or to agree with what we have offered. Resurect Marxism Leninism--or Marxism Leninism RIP. Support the show

Episode 400 of RevolutionZ assesses Classical Marxism are a conceptual framework for guiding political activism. A revolutionary theory can feel powerful precisely because it is big, elegant, and confident. The problem is, big and elegant or not, what does the theory help with or hinder when you try to use it on Monday morning. This episode takes a hard look at classical Marxism as a practical guide for organizers, and lays out why its standard “core toolbox” often misses, inadequately understands, or even denies many things that actually drive people: racism, sexism, authority, fear, dignity, identity, the everyday pressures that shape consciousness and behavior, and even the dynamics of class relations and class struggle.  The episode walks through nine specific weaknesses that many Sixties New Leftists felt as the Seventies unfoded, from abstractions that work better on decades than on daily movement decisions, to thin accounts of organizational dynamics, bureaucracy, violence, and severe discipline. We  dig into how classical dialectics over-focuses on one dominant contradiction and trains attention away from smaller-scale relations and the stubborn persistence of stability. If you’ve ever watched a movement mechanically repeat worn out arguments, rhetorically polarize, and turn theory into a loyalty test, we seek the conceptual foundations that make or at the least permit that to happen.  The episode then turns to human nature and psychology and argues that you can’t build effective revolutionary strategy without a usable theory of consciousness formation, motivation, and subjectivity. Claims that “material interest automatically produces revolutionary consciousness” is a dangerous over-simplified shortcut that misses why that often doesn't happen much less why sometimes the reverse occurs so that, for example, workers become reactionary or blind to attacks on their own interests. We discuss as well modern reactionary politics, confirmation bias, and the question that won’t go away: What kind of updated left political theory can be both complex enough to be true and clear and concise enough to be usable by real people in real world time conflicted and crisis-moved situations?  Please, if you disagree with what this episode--and the past few--present, please leave a critical comment, or write a rebuttal, or at least send me an email. Am I mired in a flawed past, or is advocacy of Marxism Leninism mired in a flawed past? For that matter, what would you put in a modern organizing toolbox that classical Marxist's leave out of theirs? Would your inclusions prevent or propel familiar Leninist and Bolshevik tendencies?  Support the show

Episode 399 of RevolutionZ continues the "Ideology Sequence," this time criticizing Leninism based largely on last episode's presentation of Bolshevik practice. Why do revolutions that promise liberation so often end up with new bosses? Leninist strategy is a living set of assumptions about leadership, discipline, “efficiency,” compromise, and more and about how to think about and apply each. The question driving the whole sequence is simple to ask and hard to face: should the left still advocate Marxism Leninism, or do we need to collectively transcend it? Marxism Leninism claims to provide a suitable and for some even an alone suitable framework for analysis, adopting a long term goal, and creating and utilizing a disciplined party to win. But will centralized decision making, information hoarded at the top, members directed instead of developed, and leaders who slowly confuse their own survival with the revolution’s future, deliver what it claims to seek? The episode leans on sharp critics like Rosa Luxembourg, plus insights from Bookchin and others, plus Lenin's own words to argue that freedom is not a luxury to add later. Creativity, learning, and real socialist democracy depend on movement relations now and not just proposed social relations later. This episode also addresses tactics and their hidden internal costs, including the way reforms, parliamentary work, and practical compromises can reshape cadre and culture. And we tackle a big claim embedded in Lenin’s praise for factory discipline and Taylorism: Leninism's view that capitalist organization is neutral if the right people hold state power. The episode argues instead that capitalism and authoritarianism are contagious, and unless we change all significant everyday power and system preserving relations not only in the economy and at work, but also in daily life in homes, schools, health, and the polity, we risk rebuilding the very dynamics we say we oppose. Does this approach raise your hackles or resonate positively for you? Either way, shouldn't you consider it?  I hope you will do so and that you will comment your views of it. Mainly, does it affect your answer to the question: should the left still advocate Marxism Leninism, or do we need to collectively transcend it? Support the show

Episode 398 of RevolutionZ discusses how a revolution that topples a targeted regime can nonetheless fail to meet its grass roots aims even while celebrating victory. It continues a sequence of episodes aimed to assess Marxism Leninism as an ideology that might or might not usefully guide contemporary revolutionary practice. Having presented Classical Marxism and Leninism in the prior two episodes, this time we look hard at Bolshevik practice in Russia not as an academic exercise, but as a stress test for Marxism-Leninist revolutionary strategy, and for what working-class power is supposed to mean in real workplaces and communities. We start with a simple problem: if the goal is liberation, what counts as “winning”? Using voices from Volin, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Goldman, Castoriadis, and of course Lenin and Trotsky among others, we track how the 1917 upheaval surged from below and how the Bolsheviks, in the words of their own chroniclers, scrambled to catch up. Then we see how the trajectory  intentionally, self consciously bent until Soviets and factory committees that expressed mass initiative became subordinated, workers’ control was absorbed into centralized state machinery, and even leftist dissent was treated as sabotage rather than feedback. From militarization of labor and one-man management to the destruction of internal factions, and again in the words of Lenin and Trotsky, the pattern became steadily clearer: discipline replaced solidarity, bureaucracy replaced self-management, and “party dictatorship” was justified as the only path to socialism. The episode finally culminates with the Makhnovist challenge and the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, where demands for free Soviets, free speech for left currents, and an end to party privilege were met with force and a tightening of repression. At the close of the Sixties many who participated cared about the Russian Revolution, socialism, anarchism, worker self-management, and particularly the recurring problem of revolutions reproducing hierarchy. Responding to those concerns I wrote What Is To Be Undone, the book which this episode's chapter was excepted from. Some will hear this episode and feel it is too critical. Some others will feel it is too gentle. Is it one, the other, or neither? I hope it will appear as an article shortly to facilitate in depth reactions. People will also feel such emotions, perhaps even more so, about the next two episodes that will assess Leninism and then Classical Marxism in light of this episode's account of Marxist Leninist practice. I hope advocates of the Marxist Leninist ideology will engage with the material, leave comments, and perhaps even write articles in reply.  Support the show

Episode 397 of RevoluionZ takes a careful walk through classical Leninist strategy, presenting it as sympathetically as we can so that the real strengths and real weaknesses show themselves without caricature. The context is Marxism-Leninism as an ideology--Classical ideologies as a way to read social conditions, determine goals, choose strategy, and treat organization as a complex revolutionary weapon rather than a neutral container.  We start with Lenin the strategist: theory guides him, but he fits his tactics to concrete conditions. That means as Lenin urges, learning to retreat when needed, combining legal and illegal work, and being willing to maneuver, compromise, and even participate in reactionary parliaments when it helps reach workers and expose the system’s limits. We ask the uncomfortable question hidden inside his famous “zigzags” offense: who decides on what basis which compromises are smart and which ones corrode the project from the inside?  From there we track how the vanguard party, democratic centralism, and “iron discipline” emerged, then moved through 1905, imperialism and World War I, and the 1917 crisis of peace, bread, land, and liberty. We look at what was advocated for after power is taken, consider the turn toward state capitalism as a transitional tactic, consider the tightening of centralized rule, the resolution of debates around worker democracy, and the export of the Bolshevik model through the Third International. All of this is considered using the actual words and choices of Lenin, Trotsky, and a few supporters and critics. If these questions feel relevant right now, that’s the point. After resisting authoritarianism, what ideology and organizing methods can help us build something better than a return to business as usual?  Last episode presented Classical Marxist theory. This episode presents Leninist strategy. Next episode will assess Bolshevik practice and then we will go back to strategy and finally to its roots in theory and finally consider a couple of alternatives. It is a long sequence and each episode is itself long but also accessible. Each is also offered a bit later as an article for further consideration. Then again choosing one's tools for a profound task is not a trivial task. These episodes are not tweets. I hope you will have time for them and thus for carefully thinking through the tasks we now face.  Support the show

Episode 396 of RevolutionZ presents Classical Marxism as Marxist Leninists typically utilize it. It is part of a sequence of episodes aimed at  helping to assess classical ideologies to determine whether activists should opt for one or reject them all and move on to something better.  Marxism can feel like a master key: one theory that explains why society is stuck, who holds power, and how history finally breaks open. We put that promise on the table as we read classical Marxist theory including long eloquent and revealing quotations from Marx and Engels all at an intentionally modestly academic pace, because the details matter if we want an ideology that can guide effective day to day, month to month, and year to year strategy rather than only inspire slogans. We walk through the classic building blocks: scarcity and the 19th-century context that shaped Marx’s project, dialectics as change driven by internal contradictions, and historical materialism’s insistence that social life rests on production and reproduction. From there we trace how classical Marxism connects human nature to social relations, treats consciousness as rooted in practice, and argues that knowledge proves itself in action. We also name a tension between the narrower “classical” picture and the richer humanist strain in Marx that centers alienation and human potential. Then we apply the classical Marxist conceptual framework to capitalism: exploitation and surplus, the corporation and the state working in tandem, imperial expansion, and recurring crises of overproduction. Classical Marxism claims these pressures forge the working class into a revolutionary force, culminating in a transition through proletarian rule toward a classless communist society where freedom expands and alienation ends. That Marxist storyline is attractive, but we end this presentation where the real work starts: are Classical Marxism's concepts and claims accurate and complete enough to guide us through changing the world around us. What strategy and practice does this theory actually produce? How do we assess it all? What comes after Trump-era politics? After we erase the stain of his imprint, what follows? Do we continue on to  not only stop fascism but also fundamentally change current societies and history? If we should, and I hope we agree on that, do we have concepts, methods, and aims sufficient to guide that journey without imposing new failures and without allowing our baggage from having been twisted and fed for all our lives by living under capitalist, misogynist, racist. and authoritarian, conditions? Do we have at hand an ideology sufficient to that admittedly immense task?  Next up will be to present Leninist strategy as propounded by, well, Lenin and Trotsky, and used by Leninist parties over and over and over, as yet another episode precursor to evaluating and resolving where to look for viable and worthy theory, strategy, tactics, and aims for current movements that seek to win a fundamentally better future. The label WITBU in this episode's title, refers to the book the content was excerpted from, What Is To Be Undone? This episode and those to follow in this "WITBU sequence" seek to discover whether what we need to undo is past deviations from Marxism Leninism, as some claim, or redoubled advocacy for for Marxism Leninism as some urge. Support the show

Episode 395 of RevolutionZ continues our What Is To Be Undone sequence of excerpts to this time discuss ideology in general, not yet specific ones. Ideology decides what we pay attention to and what we miss. It tells us what we should call realistic and what we should instead consider impossible. It guides us concerning what and how to win. And that means that whether consciously or not ideology steers every plan we make. I (Michael Albert) step back from our frequent immediate concrete context to ask an abstract but nonetheless important question: what is ideology, what is it for, and when does it start producing the very failures it claims to prevent?  To get started, I borrow Thomas Kuhn’s famous idea of paradigms in science and their long stretches of “normal” puzzle-solving inside a shared framework, followed by times of crisis when anomalies pile up and the framework can’t handle them. Then I apply that model to revolutionary politics, where paradigm becomes revolutionary ideology which is theory, strategy, and practice working together to understand society to change it. The shift from natural science to social change matters because the end goal of the latter is not just knowledge but transformation, so the loop between understanding and action has to be always self-correcting instead of sometimes self-protecting.  The episode discusses how theory is built through abstraction, why narrow theories can look complete due to hiding what they leave out, and how that type blindness can distort left organizing just as easily as it distorts capitalist “common sense.” We also walk through how strategy should be judged, how strategy, tactics, and practice should inform each other, and why movements need built-in ways to learn from reality rather than defend a fixed line. We then close with a sharp set of questions for our current moment and a pointed song lyric that skewers vanguard certainty and sectarian habits.  If you care about revolutionary strategy, political ideology, and building effective movements, I hope you will listen through to the end and let me know your reaction. Next week we will present Classical Marxism in what I hope is a fair and even an inspiring manner.  Support the show

Episode 394 of RevolutionZ continues the evaluation of the New Left from within begun last episode. This time the focus is the Anti war movement, Weatherman, the Yippees, the Black movement, and the womens movement. The fastest way to break a movement is to let “being technically right” replace getting stronger. Starting with the Vietnam War antiwar movement we ask a painful question: how did a cause with massive public support still end up with thin commitment, divisive splits, and a core that felt unreachable? We talk about the double-bind that shows up in so many protest movements that make opposition easy enough to attract crowds, but make real participation depend on an expanding list of correct positions. That “credentials” culture can turn organizing into a status system that leaves most people peripheral between demonstrations and sets everyone up for demoralization when the standard becomes “did we win now?” We also dig into why the "raise domestic-costs" strategy made sense, and how drama, manipulation, and weak political education kept it from building durable power. From there, we move through Weatherman and the lure of extremist identity, to the Yippies’ early creativity and later hardening, the Black Panthers’ extraordinary early contributions and how authoritarianism and macho militarism hurt their further development, and the women’s movement’s historic breakthroughs alongside the reappearance of hierarchy under pressure. The through-line is practical: if we want lasting effective organizations, we need empathy, realistic metrics of progress, a culture of participation, and especially a shared ideology that helps people deal with their baggage and current conditions and that propels learning instead of burning out. Support the show