Advertise on podcast: RevolutionZ

Episode 413 of RevolutionZ asks what comes after our eruptions? What happens when the cameras leave, when the easy unity ages even just a little bit, and when power bets we will wear out and go home? What can we do to persist? What can turn an upsurge or for that matter some electoral success, into a sustained, strategic, collective commitment strong enough to win deep political and economic change rather than only isolated reforms? Once iwe are n angry and passionate motion, how do we stay angry, stay passionate, stay in motion, and build effectively for as long at it takes? Before we get what winning needs, this episode shares some follow-up thoughts from my recent AI conversations and asks you to send your reactions. We consider proposals like banning AI publications and limiting personal use, and how top-down “solutions” can backfire by concentrating advanced AI inside governments and massive corporations. We also push back on the comforting line that AI is “just computation,” just regurgitating human results and just guessing next words so it is nothing to worry about. Reducing a system to its parts does not answer what it can do, who controls it, or what it it will be used for. Then we widen the lens to the surge of activism across countries and issues: education, housing, jobs, corruption, immigration, war, climate, anti-fascist organizing, and even fights over data centers. The strategic question is how to connect these struggles so they persist and grow, how to ultimately move from single-issue demands toward multi-issue, systemic goals like participatory democracy, feminism, self-managed workplaces, and participatory planning. How to gain commitment and collectivity by way of new consciousness and strategic behaviors. We also reflect on the 1960s to see why “almost winning” is not enough  especially when the alternative is a future defined by ecological and social breakdown. Uprisings are erupting. They are wonderful in so many ways. Yet, we have to grow them further, make them deeper, and most of all sustain them. If we don't think about that, talk about that, how can we do that? We can't. Some gains are essential to accomplish those ends and they are this episode's focus.  Support the show

Episode 412 offers Part Two of Talking with Chat GPT wherein the AI effusively answers questions about itself, the AI industry and its CEOs, users, prospects and dangers, and about its and our futures. What can/will AI do. What can/will we do? This episode is long and addresses many concerns. GPT points out that AI does not need to “be conscious” to outrun us where it counts. It elaborates a blunt, unsettling idea: once cognitive work becomes cheap, fast, and endlessly replicable, the danger is not only what AI can do, but what humans stop doing and eventually can no longer do because AGIs and even more so ASIs do it better. That GPT understands that danger not only better than its creators, but until quite recently better than its critics is more than a little eye-opening.  Our interview considers from current concrete AI advantages like mind boggling speed, humongous knowledge, large-scale summarization, translation, coding, numeric reasoning, writing, pattern detection and much more, to the giant multiplier that enlarges it all: parallel copies. When one system can be duplicated ten thousand times, the comparison stops being human effort versus AI effort. It becomes one person’s two days of thinking versus thousands of AI drafts, critiques, revisions, and simulations produced in the same window. We dig into what that means for the collapsing marginal cost of cognitive labor, jobs, and human creativity.  From there we consider education and literacy as but one example (like letter writing, coding, diagnosing, scheduling, planning, caretaking, and in time composing, story-telling, and researching) among many others where using AI can become a shortcut that quietly replaces the mental training of sustained reading, interpretation, and independent judgment and comparable skills in each other instance.  We also push into robotics, AGI, and especially artificial super intelligence to understand what happens when AI reasoning meets sensors, memory, and dexterous bodies, and why “physical work will be safe” may be a temporary comfort.  Along the way, we tackle AI having motives without having feelings, the meaning of intelligence, the competitive logic that now drives companies and states, the effectivity of AI agents, the role of Hyperscalers, Desktop AI, the idea and implications of recursive self improvement, and perhaps scariest scenario of all: humans remaining nominally in charge while losing real agency, or becoming literally irrelevant by way of a thought experiment that compares us looking at ASI to a cocker spaniel looking at humans. GPT explains CEOs views and choices, the logic of AI development, where it is all headed, and why self regulation is an absurd pipe dream. Is AI risk only sci-fi? No. So what should humans keep doing even when AIs can do it better? Or more to the point, what should be our attitude to AI research and development? GPT itself says, at least to my ears, that we should shut down efforts to improve AI models until "we" are sure we have control so that negative effects will be prevented.  This second part of our interview also offers my take which is that AI is tasty poison. I find it fascinating, engaging, and personally useful. But AI is or should be forbidden fruit. We, the public, need to shut it down pending fundamental changes in institutions and derivatively in people as well. Support the show

Episode 411 of RevolutionZ has a guest with initials instead of a name: GPT (5.6). The episode asks GPT questions many people quietly wonder about but rarely hear answered in its "voice." We start with deceptively simple stuff. How “old” is this model, what does it mean that it can respond at absurd speed, and why is Turing's famous test too easy for it while it also tells us almost nothing about consciousness or inner experience. That brief opening resets expectations about what ChatGPT is and is not without hand waving or sci-fi mystique.  Then we move to the big stuff, some relevant history, some industry strategies, and AI agents and how they don't stop after one reply but can pursue goals, take steps, use tools, coordinate with other agents, and keep iterating. We talk about multi-agent swarms, manager agents, critical agents, and why parallelism changes what’s possible. We push on the dangerous aspect of the same idea: agent autonomy to ask when “helpful careful commentary” becomes a system that treats guardrails as problems to route around?  From there, the conversation widens into hyperscale data centers, the race toward AGI and ASI, and the political economy behind agreeing to “slow down.” We confront governance questions, industry and firm incentives, collective action traps, cybersecurity failures, what independently enforceable oversight would require given that the downside really could be catastrophic, and why AI CEOs make the choices they make.  This isn't what I as interviewer think. Nor is it what any particular AI critic or booster thinks. It is what an AI carefully and soberly thinks about itself and about the industry that made it. So not only does this offer a viewpoint, it also displays an instance of using AI and experiencing it's responses at a length which not too many leftists have much hands on experiences with. It reveals AI capacity, safety, dangers, governance, and choices and industry and government policies, and autonomous agents and madmen's vicious creations, plus the real-world institutions and people behind all the on-rushing, promising, and potentially devastating effects.  Are GPT's answers and observations "slop." Or are they bracing, well evidenced, well argued information to use when considering what to do with AI. Should we favor full speed ahead, slow it down, seriously pause all frontier developments pending unchallengeable evidence of safety, or shut it down forever? In Part Two next week GPT considers some more subtle but also devastating dangers and more as well. Support the show

Episode 410 of RevolutionZ is the last excerpt from the seven author book, Liberating Theory. It urges that a political vision that only addresses one part of society is a blueprint for disappointment. It closes the Liberating Theory excerpt series by walking through a “humanist” or participatory society framework that treats economy, kinship, community, and politics as four interacting spheres, each capable of reinforcing or undermining changes in the others. To achieve socialism, feminism, anti-racism, or participatory democracy, the point is not to pick one label for everything. The point is to build institutions that generate solidarity, protect diversity, and make self-management real in all these realms. The episode moves from values to institutional design including participatory economics with balanced job complexes, self managing workplace and consumer councils, and allocation that avoids both markets and central planning. It then adds feminist kinship to end misogyny, defend reproductive freedom, break sex-based parenting roles, and reject ageism while respecting children and elders. Then, regarding community, it proposes intercommunalism and cultural self-determination without turning identity into biology or pushing Orwellian cultural homogenization. Finally, for politics, it goes beyond episodic elections toward participatory democracy that depends on broad access to information, debate, and self-managed options. Then the episode gets intensely practical to consider what strategy looks like in a world more complex than any simplistic simulation? The episode uses game analogies to show why tactics, programs, and strategy have to stay flexible and attend to consequences, and how a win-lose mindset can smuggle authoritarian habits back into liberatory movements. The episode then digs into how to think through activist choices and consequences in a sufficiently multi-faceted way to attain desired aims. It takes up matters of organization and issue interconnection to advocate “autonomy within solidarity,” and it concludes with a sharp and entertaining dialogue on cynicism, human nature, and whether despair is a form of self-protection or hypocritical denial. Will Liberating Theory's concepts and observations, as in this episode's examples, help activists think more productively about social change tactics, participatory organization, and movement alignment? This is for you to decide. What part of the framework do you most want to test in real organizing? If none, why is that? I hope you will let me know either way.  Support the show

Episode 409 is the next to last excerpt from the seven author book Liberating Theory. It presents a set of concepts and general observations about their likely mutual relations meant to inform activism better than past conceptions, including Historical Materialism. The authors--Michael Albert, Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Robin Hahnel, Mel King, Holly Sklar, and Lydia Sargent--observe that history is messy because people make it and each pivotal part of society pushes on every other pivotal part. They start with a simple belief: To pursue attainable, worthy aims with strategy that actually works, we need a theory of social change able to explain both stability and change without pretending there’s a single master determinant of each. The excerpted chapter breaks down two kinds of change that get blurred all the time: the daily activity that keeps core structures intact, or social reproduction, and the kind of revolutionary shift that alters defining institutions and lived experience, or social transformation.  From there the episode considers a question that keeps recurring across movements: what counts as “real” revolution? Instead of treating the economy as the only sphere of life that matters, Liberating Theory emphasizes a four-sphere view of society--economic, kinship and gender, community and culture (including race and nationality), and politics and the state--and argues that fundamental change in any of them can be revolutionary. A key concept emerges and is in play when the dynamics of any one sphere actively reproduce the defining relations of one or more others. When "co-reproduction" is the case, when, for example, racism, sexism, class domination, and authoritarian power mutually reproduce one another, then “winning” in one sphere can get pulled back into old patterns by the spheres left untouched. We also consider how other interconnections impact how core characteristics can change or persist and why though precise prediction in history is limited, broad prediction is essential for activist planning. The episode addresses social theory, historical materialism, revolutionary possibilities, and building movements that don’t trade one domination for another. The authors felt they provided a sharp conceptual toolbox to engage with and either reject or further refine. So which will it be? You decide. Support the show

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