Saturday, March 11, 2023

America's Best Allies Against ISIS Are Inspired By A Bronx-Born Libertarian Socialist - Huffpost

 

America's Best Allies Against ISIS Are Inspired By A Bronx-Born Libertarian Socialist

Syrian Kurds have launched an unlikely radical experiment in governance without hierarchy, patriarchy or capitalism.
|


ISTANBUL -- Last fall, Islamic State fighters launched a coordinated, large-scale assault on the Kurdish town of Kobani on Syria's northern border with Turkey. Fresh from victories that granted them an aura of invincibility, the extremists were about to remove the single irritant on a wide swath of the border they otherwise controlled.

The world watched in resignation. The lone superpower said it would not help. U.S. officials grimly predicted the city would fall. Yet the small band of Kurds held on for days, then weeks. The U.S.-led coalition against the self-described Islamic State began to help, first with a smattering of airstrikes then with daily assaults. And by January, in a stunning turnabout that has been called a contemporary Stalingrad, the Kurds won.

In succeeding, the Syrian Kurds defended not just a strategic outpost in the Middle East, but also a utopian idea of government they're putting into practice -- what they talk about as a space where decisions are made at the neighborhood level, where gender equity and ethnic inclusion are legally mandated, and where barter is becoming more important than currency.

The Kurds' inspiration? Survival, sure. But also the ideas of one specific Bronx-born, Vermont-based philosopher. Their leaders developed their guiding philosophy out of a long engagement with Murray Bookchin, who fused Marxist and anarchist ideals into a vision of a world where citizens' assemblies supplant state bureaucracy and environmentalism is king. A contemporary of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders, Bookchin considered the socialist politician far too conservative.

Bookchin, who described himself as a libertarian socialist, died nearly a decade ago. His passing sparked a celebration of his life in the Kurdish regions. And now, Syrian Kurds have -- at the urging of Abdullah Ocalan, an imprisoned Kurdish icon -- built a Bookchin-inspired society that is the antithesis of the Islamic State.

The territory where the 1.5 million or so Syrian Kurds have launched this social experiment, carved out of the wreck of Bashar Assad's police state, includes Kobani and two other small "cantons," or regions. They call it all Rojava -- "Western Kurdistan" in Kurdish, the language the Syrian Kurds have only been able to use freely since Assad's control loosened a handful of years ago.

Washington sees the Syrian Kurds' success defending Kobani -- and other parts of Rojava -- as the chief example of how U.S.-led air power and partnerships with forces on the ground can effectively defeat the Islamic State.

But this is an especially odd partnership. The Syrian Kurds' ties to Ocalan and the PKK, the designated terrorist organization he leads, enrage Turkey, the most important U.S. ally in the region. And the Rojava vision is dramatically at odds with the more feudal nationalism of another group of Kurds who are used to being Washington's favorites -- those in Iraq. The Syrian Kurds' growing autonomy and unwillingness to launch an all-out offensive against Assad has also upset the Syrian Arab nationalist rebels that the U.S. has courted for years.

A quarter century after the fall of the Berlin Wall suggested the taming of the left, the U.S. is providing air cover for radical Marxist-inspired militants its closest allies can't stand.

Welcome to Rojava.

[This story is part of a series exploring the U.S.'s relationship with the Syrian Kurds. Go here for the other story, which chronicles how Washington's other alliances in the region make the most important relationship in the Islamic State fight also the most precarious.]

Bookchin, who died in Burlington, Vermont, in 2006, grew up speaking Russian. His parents were Russian Jews who were active in the movement against the Tsar -- "Russian revolutionaries," he called them in a 2001 interview. "I learned English in the streets" of a multi-ethnic New York, Bookchin said.

Bookchin was a young communist, but he knew early that he would not be following any party line. He left the Young Communist League in his teens because he was worried that his fellow leftists were collaborating with the bourgeoisie and becoming less militant. Bookchin remained involved in the U.S. Communist Party through the end of the Spanish Civil War, which he later said he would have participated in personally had he been older. But he left the party again before he graduated from high school, adopting Leon Trotsky's view that the Soviets had the right idea but were implementing it wrong, and got a job as a foundryman in New Jersey.

After 10 years as a labor organizer, Bookchin ditched orthodox Marxism altogether after the World War II -- disappointed, he explained in the 2001 interview, that "the war ended without a revolution." Bookchin set out to "rethink everything," he said, as he watched fellow workers in the auto industry become too passively middle class for his taste and labor's role in post-war America shift rapidly.

Bookchin began to dream of a future in which machines could replace most human effort and free individuals could develop themselves as they saw fit. But he believed that in the interim, social problems -- the biggest among them the struggle between amoral corporate power and humanity's best interests -- would lay waste to the natural world. "The notion of progress, once regarded as faith in the evolution of greater human cooperation and care, is now identified with ever greater competition and reckless economic growth," Bookchin argued.

So he began to pioneer a brand of thinking called social ecology that advocated using human innovation to serve populations and the planet rather than capital.

"I wrote about alternative technology, arguing that technology should be as humanly scaled as possible," Bookchin recalled in the later interview.

In Bookchin's view, "utopia was no longer just an idle dream, but something that could happen," according to his biographer and longtime companion, Janet Biehl.

"Murray's contribution to that was to figure what is going to be the institution," she said.

Bookchin proposed reshaping a capitalist world by setting up micro-level systems of local popular assemblies. Such a political structure would, he believed, marry the best of both the intellectual traditions he valued. "We have to go beyond the economism of Marx and beyond the individualism that is sometimes latent, sometimes explicit in anarchism," Bookchin said in 2001. He argued that true freedom and economic equity could only exist as products of democratically run, self-governing and non-hierarchical communities. Bookchin highlighted societies that he said enabled both freedom for the individual and social cooperation without relying on hierarchy.

"He's trying to do with hierarchy what Marx did with class," Biehl said. "It's no mistake that he ended up living here in Vermont, the land of the New England town meeting."

Debbie Bookchin, his daughter, told HuffPost her father insisted "we could only heal our relationship with the natural world when all forms of hierarchy were abolished."

The political structure Bookchin foresaw -- his approach to the revolutionary dream of establishing communalism or a "commune of communes" -- had little to do with the nation-state.

Perhaps that's what made it so appealing to the Syrian Kurds -- a people who have never had their own country.

Murray Bookchin, photographed in 1992 by Ludwig Rauch. Image used with permission from the Murray Bookchin Trust.

The Syrian Kurds owe their Bookchin obsession to their chief guide: Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the PKK, a Kurdish revolutionary group in Turkey that has fought the Turkish government on and off since the early 1980s.

The European Union and the U.S. consider the PKK, which has killed thousands of Turkish security personnel and civilians, a terrorist organization. They support their NATO ally Turkey in its anti-PKK actions.

Unlike Iraqi Kurds ― partners of the West since 1991 who are skeptical of the PKK and are content for now with an autonomous region inside the nation-state of Iraq ―Syrian and Turkish Kurds take their ideological cues from Ocalan. So when he argued that longstanding Kurdish aspirations for political structures and societies of their own would be best fulfilled if Kurds adopted the philosophy of a mustachioed Russian-American Jew from the Bronx in New York City, they listened.

Ocalan was once a Marxist-Leninist true believer. But by 1999, when the U.S. and Syria helped Turkey capture him, he was signaling his doubts about the continued viability of orthodox communist thought. The PKK had abandoned the goal of establishing a Kurdish nation-state by 1995, according to Reimar Heider of Freedom for Abdullah Ocalan, a Germany-based nonprofit. By the time of what Ocalan supporters call the “abduction,” the Kurdish movement was trying to identify its next steps.

Turkey imprisoned Ocalan in 1999 on an island 35 miles south of Istanbul, the same T-shaped speck where soldiers who took over in a 1960 coup executed the prime minister they replaced. It built a courthouse for the express purpose of hosting Ocalan’s trial. It arrested fisherfolk who it believed got dangerously close. And then it left Ocalan alone for years in a 140-square-foot cell as the only inmate in a jail that once housed the American author of Midnight Express. A military base loomed nearby.

In prison, Ocalan dove into radical, post-communist literature, looking for a new way forward. A famously voracious reader whose book selections were regularly leaked in the Turkish and Kurdish press, he began to devour Murray Bookchin. By 2004, Heider and others advocating for Ocalan’s cause felt the time had come to connect him with the aging Vermonter. Establishing some form of dialogue was critical to them, Heider told HuffPost, because conservatives in Kurdish circles were pushing for the movement to completely abandon leftist thought.

They wrote to Biehl.

On April 11, five days after he received Ocalan’s missive, Bookchin wrote back with Biehl’s help.

Then 83, Bookchin had long been curious about the Kurds and written about their struggle in his personal journals, his daughter said. He told Ocalan he wasn’t familiar with all aspects of the PKK’s fight ― he blamed the U.S.’s “parochial press” ― and he was so old that writing was a struggle, but he was happy to be in touch.

“I am a walking history of the twentieth century in my own way and have always tried to look beyond ideas that people freeze into dogmas,” Bookchin wrote to Ocalan. “I ask you to please be patient with an old radical.”

The existence of Bookchin’s correspondence with Ocalan has been previously reported, but HuffPost obtained the full cache of preserved documents and is publishing them for the first time with permission from the Murray Bookchin Trust, Biehl and Heider.

Heider passed Bookchin’s message to Ocalan’s lawyers. The jailed Kurdish leader sent a response on May 5. In the new missive, Ocalan’s intermediaries mentioned that “he spoke of himself as a good student of yours.”

Ocalan conveyed that he disagreed with Bookchin on a few points and wanted non-Western philosophy to shape his vision as well. But he told his intermediary to tell Bookchin that “the Kurdish freedom movement was determined to successfully implement your ideas.”

Bookchin wrote back on May 9. “I am not in a position to carry on an extensive theoretical dialogue with Mr. Ocalan,” he told the intermediary. But the Kurds were “fortunate indeed” to have Ocalan as a leader, Bookchin wrote.

Ocalan became, Biehl later wrote to the intermediary, “a beacon for [Bookchin] in his declining years.”

"I can't believe how much [Ocalan] thinks like Murray," she told HuffPost recently as she re-read their letters to one another.

From jail, Ocalan moved quickly to implement the new ideas he developed as he read Bookchin. In 2005, he shaped a PKK declaration that Kurdish liberation would not be achieved by setting up a new nation-state along ethnic lines. The nation-state itself entailed oppression, the declaration argued -- there had to be another, less centralized way for the Kurds to eventually govern themselves. It was a stunning indictment of socialism's past coming from one of the 20th century's most hardcore Marxists.

The announcement enshrined Ocalan's central idea for the Kurds and other communities living in Kurdish majority areas: "democratic confederalism," a major devolution of power intended to resemble Bookchin's communalism.

Kurdish areas in southeastern Turkey took advantage of a period of relative peace between the PKK and the state to put the Ocalan-Bookchin philosophy into practice, setting up "assembly democracy" at the neighborhood and village level. Because women had long been active fighters in the left-wing PKK and because Ocalan extended Bookchin's talk of abolishing hierarchies to smashing the patriarchy, these assemblies took the even more radical step of making women's inclusion a non-negotiable requirement.

When Bookchin died in 2006, a PKK assembly lauded him in a resolution Biehl shared with HuffPost. "We undertake to make Bookchin live in our struggle" the assembly vowed.

But it took the actual collapse of one of the most centralized nation-states in the region -- Assad's Syria -- for Ocalan and Bookchin's anti-state vision to fully manifest.

The Assad regime had banned Kurds from speaking their language, arbitrarily stripped thousands of them of Syrian citizenship and changed Kurdish names to their Arabic equivalents. Syria was (and it remains) an Arab Republic.

But in the summer of 2012, Assad pulled his forces from three Kurdish-majority areas near the border of Turkey to focus on fighting Arab rebels elsewhere. The Syrian Kurds' chief political party, an Ocalan-inspired organization called the PYD that is a Syrian affiliate of the PKK, filled the power vacuum.

Today, four years into Syria's civil war, the Islamic State uses eastern Syria as the core of its caliphate. Western-backed nationalist rebels maintain holdouts in the northwest and southwest of the country. Assad controls Damascus and the western Mediterranean coast.

But in northern Syria, in the three Kurdish enclaves that make up Rojava, the PYD holds sway.

There, Syrian Kurds have achieved Ocalan's goals with unexpected speed.

"The nation-state proved that it is bankrupt," Senem Mohammed, a Syrian Kurdish leader in Rojava, told HuffPost earlier this year. "We witnessed that ... there will always be problems, conflict between people in the nation-state." 

Rojava supports the effort to free Syria from Assad, Mohammed said, but it wants to be sure that any replacement for the dictator does not simply end up resembling him. "The point is to change the system, not just to change the person," she added. "This is what we want."

"The Kurds already have made major strides in their quest for greater rights by being masters of their own areas for the first time in the history of modern Syria," the nonprofit International Crisis Group wrote in a report on Rojava published one year after the territory's establishment.

Rojava is now Ocalan's chief focus, according to Bejan Matur, a Kurdish poet and author in Turkey who has written about the PKK for years.

"He finds Rojava as his dream land," Matur told HuffPost in January. "All his dreams are coming true."

Rojava is among the most diverse regions of the Middle East. Mohammed, the PYD leader who serves as the Rojava emissary in Europe, served on a Kurdish commission that reached out to Arabs, Christian Assyrians, Armenians, Chechens and other residents of the areas newly free of Assad to work out a new form of government.

Non-Kurds were willing to work with the dominant Kurds and embrace their ideas, Mohammed argued. It didn't hurt, she noted, that all of them faced the existential threat of extremist militants tied to the Islamic State and the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra.

"Everybody threatened in the area asked, 'Who will protect us?'" Mohammed said. "When they realize that only [Kurdish] forces would protect them and defend the area, they joined our administration."

Mohammed and other politicians in Rojava, among them non-PYD activists and non-Kurds, declared their democratic self-administration in January 2014. Its central principles are outlined in a document that is described not as a constitution -- given that concept's connection to the institution of the state -- but as the "Social Contract." It prioritizes "ecological balance," Bookchin-style, and equality, and explicitly rejects state, religious or military nationalism.

Today, Rojava has evolved its own understanding of Bookchin's face-to-face democracy. Each of its neighborhood communes selects delegates to send to higher assemblies -- three layers of smaller and smaller councils that each cover wider regions. Those neighborhoods can recall their assembly representatives at any time. Each assembly must include Arabs, Kurds and members of other minority groups, like the Christian Syriac community, Mohammed told HuffPost. At the highest level of governance, each of the three cantons is led by two co-presidents, a man and a woman. Elected by these popular assemblies, the co-presidents are meant to be accountable through them to each Rojava resident in the neighborhood communes.

"They are living the ideals of human freedom and democratic decision-making that exemplify the highest aspirations of democracy-loving people, a feat all the more remarkable because they are doing it in the middle of a war," Debbie Bookchin wrote of the Syrian Kurds last year in The Huffington Post. She told HuffPost recently that Rojava's determination to establish a society like this was especially striking to her because her father thought of such change being implemented gradually during peacetime.

The task facing the PYD's decision-makers -- women and men, Kurds and Arabs -- is a staggering one. Rojava has lost thousands of residents as refugees and victims of war, and it is effectively cut off from the rest of the world. Only limited supplies enter through the borders with Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. And trade with the rest of the country is nearly impossible because of Western embargoes on Syria and the Islamic State's grip on the areas surrounding the cantons. So devising a radical new economy isn't only ideologically necessary -- it's the only way the region can survive.

Rojava's economy relies on agricultural cooperatives, industrialists who fled from the besieged Syrian industrial capital of Aleppo, and the portion of Syria's oil reserves that the Kurds now control -- which they cannot sell abroad but can use for necessities like diesel generators. The local councils direct farms in their areas to be sustainable and socially conscious, providing what the Rojava residents around them need rather than focusing on cash crops. It's a Syrian Kurdish version of what high-end restaurants in the U.S. call "farm-to-table."

"We will develop an economy based on agriculture, that is to say production. We will base this mode of production on a foundation by which all the peoples of the region will be included and benefit from it," one Rojava official from the Afrin canton, Dr. Ahmet Yusuf, told the PKK-linked Kurdish outlet ANF News last December. "We will encourage everyone to work their own lands based on the needs of the community."

Rojava's economy should be based on small cooperatives that mirror Ocalan's descriptions of ideal societies of the past, Yusuf said. Wealthy investors are welcome to contribute by putting capital into various citizens' efforts to live off the land, he added, since private enterprise is still part of the economy. But he wants them to know that "we will not allow them the opportunity to exploit the community and people or monopolize."

"We will succeed in this," Yusuf said. "Because there is no other model left to try on Earth. Because this model is the model by which the history of humanity will be brought back to life."

Much day-to-day business is done using a barter system. It's a necessity, given the fact that Syria's currency is now largely worthless.

Shaky as Rojava's economy and political system are, they have a key advantage. Unlike most social structures around the world, they take full advantage of their entire population rather than largely excluding half of it. Gender equity is central to how Rojava works, in large part because Ocalan's ideology has convinced the PYD of its importance.

To the PKK offshoot, "Kurds are oppressed, but Kurdish women are oppressed twice. And without empowering women ... society will not be free," said Mutlu Civiroglu, a Kurdish affairs analyst who closely monitors the PYD and YPG, the PYD's armed counterpart

Rojava mandates that women comprise at least 40 percent of all governing bodies, multiple observers of the region said. The senior leader in the Afrin canton is a woman, and 35 percent of the Syrian Kurdish forces battling the Islamic State on Rojava's behalf are women, Civiroglu told HuffPost earlier this year.

The radical experiment has a built-in safety valve to ensure that centuries-old misogyny won't prevent the spread of the new ideas: It has set up parallel women's bodies at every level of political organization. These structures are composed entirely of women and have the final say on issues regarding women, Biehl reported after talking to Rojava politicians. The final say on any of those issues -- among them still-prevalent problems like domestic violence -- is that of the women's council.

Utopian or no, revolutions are often not pretty up close. Rojava is no exception. Asked about the Syrian Kurds last year, just as the U.S. began to support Kobani, an Obama administration official hesitated before gingerly mentioning their militia's use of child soldiers.

"Hopefully all that stuff's in the past," he said.

It doesn't look like it, Human Rights Watch warned this summer. The organization said the YPG demobilized 149 fighters younger than 18 in July 2014 after promising to do so, but then accepted child recruits over the next year -- including some who apparently died in combat in June 2015. "The Kurdish forces are fighting groups like the Islamic State that flout the laws of war, but that’s no excuse to tolerate abuses by its own forces," said Human Rights Watch's Fred Abrahams. The YPG's response: It would work on the problem.

Nor does direct democracy necessarily mean that competing political parties, with competing ideologies, are welcome. The Syrian Kurdish area is "the best place you as a journalist can be today in Syria," according to Sirwan Berko, the head of a U.S.-supported independent radio station called ARTA FM. But that's relative, he noted -- this is a country where 86 journalists have been killed since the revolution began in 2011, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Berko's outlet broadcasts in Kurdish and in the languages of the main minority communities that live in Rojava: Assyrians and Arabs. "We are not a Kurdish radio station," he told HuffPost. "We are the radio station of the components of society in Rojava. That means everybody: supporters of the [Assad] regime, Muslims, Christians, Yazidis ... we don't believe in a Kurdish region or an Arab region, and we don't think it's useful to say 'majority' or 'minority.'"

Rojava's rulers underestimate the value of an independent media, Berko argued. The YPG raided one of his stations in March 2014. In August of this year, the PYD suspended the licenses of Rudaw, a leading Kurdish network that broadcasts around the region, and Orient TV, a station associated with the anti-Assad Arab media.

Meanwhile, political opponents of the PYD have disappeared or been killed as the party has solidified its control, Human Rights Watch reported in the summer of 2014. The group cast doubt on the investigations into those cases and also highlighted arbitrary detentions and a 2013 instance in which YPG forces shot at and beat anti-PYD protesters. (Rojava officials said the responsible fighters had been disciplined for their excesses.)

Many activists and journalists have left Rojava out of fear since the PYD takeover, Berko said. And even international allies of the Kurdish party's radical ideology have turned skeptical: In December 2014, the U.K.-based Anarchist Federation criticized the PYD's dominance in its representative assemblies and the power of the personality cult around Abdullah Ocalan, the PYD's icon.

"The dilemma is that Syrian Kurds don't have an alternative to the PYD," Berko argued. The Islamic State's rise has ensured the PYD's dominance, he said -- other parties in the region lost the faith of locals once the PYD and the YPG took the lead in defending Rojava against extremists.

Daryus al-Darwish, an independent activist and journalist from Rojava's capital of Qamishli, said one-party rule undercuts the PYD's rhetoric about building the most radically open society in the Middle East through what they call direct democracy.

"Their control over the administrative authorities, over the parliaments and the executive authorities and the judicial authorities, that's not any kind of democracy -- not direct or indirect democracy," Darwish told HuffPost this fall from Paris, where he lives now, writing about Kurdish issues for U.S. and Arab outlets.

These accusations, largely ignored in the West, could mean trouble for Washington because of how closely it's now linked with the PYD.

An October Amnesty International report on the brutal treatment some Arabs faced after the Kurdish militia retook their areas from the Islamic State was released under the headline "U.S. Ally's Razing Of Villages Amounts To War Crimes." Among Amnesty's findings was the discovery that some Kurdish fighters had told Arab civilians that if they did not move when they were commanded to, they would be hit by U.S. airstrikes.

Lama Fakih, a researcher involved with the report, told HuffPost her group had raised its allegations with the State Department. She indicated that the U.S. would be the primary point of contact -- other than PYD officials themselves -- about the potential war crimes because of its role in supporting the Kurds.

"I'd be lying if I said I'm not worried about the U.S. empowering the PYD," Darwish said. "I cannot stand against my people's interest in the American support. What I think, with the Americans and any other international actor who wants to support the PYD and the YPG, is that after saying thank you to them, I want them to know that this support must be accompanied with pressure to achieve democracy -- otherwise their support will be meaningless."

When Mohammed, the Rojava leader, came to Washington in March, she won her party its first high-level meetings at the State Department and with key analysts here who help shape strategic thinking.

But despite Rojava's importance to the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State, the visit didn't make headlines. In fact, even as she met with top U.S. officials, Mohammed did so knowing that her party's top leader's visa application had been rejected just weeks earlier. To the U.S. government, many of Rojava's leading lights could be considered terrorists because of their ties to the PKK.

Those ties partly explain why Washington has been loathe to fully embrace the Syrian Kurds. That move risks alienating Turkey, which has only just agreed to ramp up efforts against the Islamic State group -- with an apparent green light to hit the Kurds as well. Support for the group is also unpopular among Arabs fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraqi Kurds, who are not eager to share their favored status as U.S. partners with their pinko cousins to their West. (Iraqi Kurds are represented by three political parties, of which two -- those that are not in charge -- strongly support Rojava).

But the Kurds say they won't surrender their ideology just to please Washington."They call us terrorists. It's because the United States knows we won't follow their orders," one PKK fighter calling herself Tamara told HuffPost contributor Khazar Fatemi. "If they say something, we won't simply obey."

The State Department's terror designation and regional politics have not stopped some Americans from making up their minds about the Syrian Kurds and traveling to fight alongside them -- even if they are sometimes doing so without fully understanding what Rojava stands for. One American volunteer said he left after he realized the Syrian Kurds are "damn reds," Middle East Eye reported this spring. He got it wrong, according to Dean Parker, another American who journeyed to the region and trained with PYD-linked militants. Parker told HuffPost this summer that he didn't want the U.S. public to fear supporting the Syrian Kurds because of worries about Rojava's ideology. "They're not a bunch of communists, they're not a bunch of socialists," Parker said. "It's a different type of democracy, a new concept."

Some Europeans, like the leftist intellectuals associated with the New World Summit who inaugurated a Rojava parliament this October and the fighters who've followed the same path as some Americans, share a respect for the Kurds' thinking. Recently returned Swedish volunteer Jesper Söder and a Dutchman who asked to remain anonymous because of worries that his family in the Netherlands might be targeted by Islamic State cells told HuffPost in November they would like NATO to delist the PKK and be tougher on Turkey. "Get Turkey out of NATO," the Dutchman said.

Ultimately, persistent doubt over how much the U.S. is willing to support a group its other allies hate cannot diminish what the Kurds have already accomplished. Henri Barkey, a Woodrow Wilson International Center scholar and former State Department official who has written extensively on the Kurds, told HuffPost that while it was difficult to expect a fully democratic, liberal administration to be established in the midst of a civil war, the Syrian Kurds appear to have "put their money where their mouth is."

Rojava's defense of Kobani against the Islamic State was "a larger-than-life moment," Barkey added. The radical experiment has secured its place in Middle Eastern history -- and shown the viability of a different way for Kurds and others in the region to live.

"The hard way, the old-fashioned way, they have won," Barkey told HuffPost.

Last December, Biehl saw Rojava for herself for the first time. She flew to Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. Unimpressed with the oil-rich city’sapparent aspirations to emulate Dubai,” she and the group of academics and activists she was traveling with soon journeyed to the Tigris River, at the western edge of Iraqi Kurdistan, to cross into Rojava. One day, the delegation visited an academy for security officers to get a grasp of the education the democratic self-administration was providing. Minutes into what she described as an initially awkward encounter, she asked her translator to tell the students and their teacher that she had a friend called Murray back in the U.S. who would have been very pleased to hear about the ideas they were putting into practice. Biehl knew about his influence on Ocalan and other top activists, but had no idea that it had gone much further.

“I just threw it out there,” Biehl said. “And it turned out they had been reading Bookchin that morning.”

UPDATED 1/12/17: This story has been updated to include the original message from Reimar Heidar of Freedom for Abdullah Ocalan to Murray Bookchin.

 





 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 07, 2023

New York City, MLC Heads Try Going Nuclear on Retirees…Work-Bites

 

https://www.work-bites.com/view-all/hl0gnvh7omda5ju38bamt3hd1j5rek

 

New York City, MLC Heads Try Going Nuclear on Retirees…

By Joe Maniscalco

To no one’s surprise, but to the absolute horror of many — Mayor Eric Adams’ administration and the heads of the Municipal Labor Committee [MLC] have gone ahead and thrown back the blast doors on the nukes pointed at traditional Medicare health insurance in New York City and started the countdown to launch.

“It is the nuclear option,” Dr. Leonard Rodberg, professor emeritus of Urban Studies at Queens College/CUNY, tells Work-Bites. “If you don’t want Medicare Advantage you have to waive all of your city health benefits — the city has told Aetna that it won’t have any competition; they can count on a very large amount of warm bodies to insure.”

This is the way municipal retirees — former first-responders, educators, administrative staffers and others who spent their entire working lives helping to run this city — are reacting to the newly-released “summary agreement” between the MLC and Aetna — a pact aimed at foisting a privatized, profit-driven health insurance plan on hundreds of thousands of workers and their families.

Outright disgust.

“I’m just at my wit’s end,” NYC DOHMH retiree and cancer survivor Roberta Gonzalez tells Work-Bites. “The way these powerful men [in the MLC] have dug in their heels to make sure that the inconsequential retirees would not get their way — I feel like it’s a push-pull situation with these big babies not wanting to hear anything but what they deem is the right thing. The conversation’s closed — it’s very infuriating.”

Despite lots of talk to the contrary, the five-year contract the newly-released “summary agreement” supposedly represents, is chock full of the same types of stipulations, conditions and prior authorizations that have delayed and denied care to Medicare Advantage subscribers throughout the nation.

Many active city workers find the summary agreement between the MLC and Aetna appalling as well.

NYC Public Education teacher and @EducatorsofNYC organizer Dan Alicea calls the newly-released summary agreement “unconscionable and immoral.”

“Clearly, the union bosses of the two leading unions in the MLC continue their reckless agenda to not listen to members and retirees and to pursue their designs to achieve ‘savings’ by partnering with the City to privatize public healthcare,” Alicea told Work-Bites in an email. "This new Medicare Advantage plan iteration is really not any different from what has been proposed in the beginning."

On the contrary, Alicea says it is based on “a scarcity model that plays the ‘Hunger Games’ with the lives of retirees with many of its pre-authorizations (much more than traditional), limited networks, ever-increasing co-pays, and threats to continuity of care with our existing doctors. All while undermining the original labor goals of traditional Medicare.”

Gonzalez finds the following section contained in the summary agreement particularly alarming:

“Non-contracted providers are not required to seek prior authorization for services from Aetna; however, Aetna reserves the right to retrospectively review claims submitted by non-contracted providers and may deny coverage if the services are not medically necessary and/or not covered under the MA plan.”

“May deny coverage” — what does that mean exactly?

”I’m not really feeling confident about it because of the arrogance and almost unprofessional attitudes these union leaders and higher-ups in government are taking towards a group of retirees,” Gonzalez says. “Who’s the most vulnerable part of the population? The sick, disabled, and elderly. They are not considering what’s best for us — they’re considering what’s best for them.”

Before retiring in 2017, Dr. Rodberg, 90, taught public health policy and other topics for more than 20 years. He estimates anyone attempting to escape the Medicare Advantage plan can expect a “$5,000 to $6,000 hit per person” because “it means you not only have to buy your own supplemental Medigap [Medicare Supplemental Insurance] policy, but you don’t get reimbursed for your Part B premiums  — and you lose your drug benefit, and your other hearing and vision benefits a lot of us get through our welfare funds.”

“Basically,” Dr. Rodberg says, “you’re on your own if you want to stay in Medicare.”

According to Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees and head of the FDNY EMS Retirees Association, the only thing that will be available to retirees are Aetna’s Medicare Advantage plan, “and if you live in the five boroughs — you have the option of using HIP/VIP” — which is also Medicare Advantage plan.

“They told a couple of our retirees in writing and emails if they don’t choose one of those two plans, HIP/VIP or Aetna MA — they will have to waive their city healthcare benefits and good luck out on the marketplace,” Pizzitola tells Work-Bites. “Claire Levitt [deputy commissioner at the Office of Labor Relations] even acknowledges retirees will have a problem getting Medigap coverage on the outside because if you’re not in one of four states — New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts or Maine — you are subject to enrolling in a Medigap only during open enrollment periods.”

And it gets worse.

“If you have a preexisting condition, you can be denied a Medigap or you can be charged an exorbitant premium,” Pizzitola says. “If they do purchase on the outside and waive city healthcare benefits, they also lose their Medicare B reimbursements or IRMAA [Medicare Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount], if they qualify.”

The whole point, Pizzitola continues, “is to get as many people off the health care obligation by the city as possible — by making it as unpalatable as possible.”

Dr. Rodberg further argues that the federal subsidies city officials are so hot to get their hands on are evaporating fast — down from the 20 percent Adams and the MLC heads have claimed — to just 2 percent. 

“Then there are doctors who don’t accept Medicare Advantage,” Dr. Rodberg says. “The city is forcing you to give up your doctor or spend money you don’t have. Eric Adams, when he was running as a candidate, said this was all a ‘bait and switch’ — and now he’s switched.”

An MLC steering committee has reportedly already fast-tracked a vote on the Aetna contract based solely on the newly-released "summary agreement” alone. The larger membership is expected to endorse it as soon as Thursday, March 9 — despite all the ongoing opposition, and not having reviewed the actual contract in its final form. 

“They keep wanting to say, ‘we’ll give you out of network benefits’ — but they’re not explaining what that means — what burden that puts on the retirees,” Pizzitola adds. “You’re older, and you’re sick, and you have to go through this appeals process? Where we don’t have appeals processes to go through now — you have networks to use — prior-authorizations. They’re saying all these things will be wonderful and they’ll fix it; Aetna will assign you a liaison ‘specifically for your union to help you with any issues.’ We don’t have any issues right now — we don’t need liaisons!”

Opponents of privatization are now anticipating a very well-financed media blitz across all social media platforms touting the glories of Medicare Advantage.

“There are many people who do believe anything they’re told by [UFT President Michael] Mulgrew and company — and then there’s a small contingent who maybe don’t but want to keep their positions of power and jobs,” retired teacher and Cross-Union Retirees Organizing Committee [CROC] member Gloria Brandman tells Work-Bites.

New York City municipal retirees are being denied a seat at the table, but they are pumping out lots of challenging questions nonetheless. Why, for example, doesn’t the newly-released “summary agreement” between the MLC and Aetna say anything about prior approval for drugs?

As Work-Bites previously reported, Municipal retirees in Delaware wondered about prescription drugs too, and when they finally got hold of the Medicare Advantage contract being forced on them they discovered it contained 340 pre-authorizations for medications.

Other nagging questions revolve around medical procedures — which ones, specifically, will require pre-authorization? What is the appeal process? How long will it take? What happens if things don’t work out?

On January 8, a day ahead of a marathon public hearing on the future of retiree healthcare, a 79-year-old DC37 retiree living in Florida wrote a letter that was emailed to members of the New York City Council. It reads as follows:

Like many other retirees I have some medical problems, Gout, Crohns disease and STAGE 4 PROSTATE CANCER. Yes I am dying. Not one, yes not one of my doctors or any other doctors here will accept the [Medicare] Advantage plans you want to force me to take. That is the same as having no insurance at all. There is a good chance that one of you reading this knows someone who has died of this terrible disease.  Maybe you yourself has been lucky enough to survive a bout with cancer. I will not be that lucky. All I am asking is to please let me keep my Medicare and Ghi medical coverage and not force me into a plan no one will accept. Let me at least die with dignity. Years ago we, the union members bargained to have Medicare and Ghi senior care when we retired. It was to be paid for by the union reimbursing us. Now to save some money you feel it is ok to take this choice away from us. Again I am asking to let me keep Medicare and Ghi senior  care  and not force me into an Advantage plan that no doctor will accept.”

Work-Bites’ reached out to the MLC for comment, but was unsuccessful.

Editor’s Note: Retirees and active workers opposing the drive towards Medicare Advantage will rally on the steps of the Smithsonian Museum, just across from Battery Park in Manhattan, beginning at 11:30 a.m on Thursday, March 9. They will then march along Broadway before rallying again at City Hall Park at 1 p.m. For more information, contact crocnyc22@gmail.com.

 

Wednesday, March 01, 2023

Is the Left Fooling Itself By Overemphasizing Starbucks and Amazon organizing? You May Have Heard of the ‘Union Boom.’ The Numbers Tell a Different Story

 People I know on the left are often the most optimistic on earth - they have to be.


https://portside.org/2023-02-28/you-may-have-heard-union-boom-numbers-tell-different-story?utm_source=portside-labor&utm_medium=email


Portside Labor



Greg Rosalsky

NPR
Last year, the union membership rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 10.1% — the lowest on record. The absolute number of American workers in unions did grow in 2022 — by approximately 200,000. But the number of non-union jobs grew faster.

The union paradox: Why, despite their popularity, do unions continue to wither?, Sandior via flickr/Creative Commons

 

Last year, labor unions in America looked like they were turning a corner. Employees at more than 250 Starbucks stores voted to unionize. Workers at Amazon warehouses, Trader Joe's, and REI were joining the fight. Grad studentsUber and Lyft drivers. Even the knights, queens, and squires at Medieval Times were jousting to join a union.

Headline writers began declaring things like, "Employees everywhere are organizing" and that the United States was seeing a "union boom." In September, the White House asserted "Organized labor appears to be having a moment."

However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its union data for 2022. And their data shows that — far from a resurgence — the share of American workers in a union has continued to decline. Last year, the union membership rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 10.1% — the lowest on record. This was the second year in a row that the union rate fell. Only one in ten American workers is now in a union, down from nearly one in three workers during the heyday of unions back in the 1950s.

To be sure, various data makes clear that the hubbub over a union resurgence last year wasn't all hype. For one, the absolute number of American workers in unions did, in fact, grow in 2022 — by approximately 200,000. It's just that the number of non-union jobs grew faster. The National Labor Relations Board saw 2,510 union representation petitions filed in fiscal year 2022 — a 53% increase over the previous year. That's hardly a game-changer, but it's something.

Last week, researchers at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR School) released the school's annual report tracking labor actions across America. Alexander Colvin, the dean of the ILR school, says the data shows that something real was bubbling in the labor movement last year. They find that strikes, for example, were up 52% in 2022 over the previous year. However, considering we live in a nation with roughly 160 million workers, the absolute number of labor actions last year remains pretty small: 424 work stoppages (417 strikes and seven lockouts). Even the authors of the ILR School report note, "the level of strike activity is lower than earlier historical eras. The number of work stoppages and approximate number of workers involved in work stoppage is considerably less than the most recent comprehensive BLS data from the 1970s."

In short, while there was an uptick in labor organizing in 2022, we're hardly witnessing a rejuvenated movement strong enough to dramatically reverse unions' long-run decline. That's despite a historically tight labor market, worker dissatisfaction with their employers during the pandemic, a U.S. president who has proclaimed himself as "the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history," and the fact that unions are now more popularthan they've been at any time since the 1960s.

Call it the union paradox: near-record-high popularity, but record-low participation.

What Explains The Union Paradox?

Suresh Naidu, an economist at Columbia University, has emerged in recent years as a leading scholar of unions in America. He and his coauthors have found influential evidence showing, for example, that unions played a critical role in boosting wages for American workers and reducing income inequality in the early-to-mid 20th century.

Last fall, when much of the press was enraptured by the idea of a union comeback, Naidu published an essay in The Journal of Economic Perspectives that offered a more clear-eyed assessment. All those headline-grabbing unionization stories at places like Starbucks and Amazon? "These are all drops in the bucket of the overall American labor market, and may or may not be harbingers of a resurgent unionism," he wrote.

We wanted to get Naidu's perspective on the union paradox. Why, despite their popularity, do unions continue to wither?

"American labor law just puts an enormous barrier in the way of workers joining a union," Naidu says. "So you need to convince 50% plus one of your coworkers to join a union if you want a union." That alone can entail a difficult and time-intensive campaign process. Meanwhile, he says, our labor laws make it relatively easy for employers to short-circuit organizing efforts. And even when some of their tactics are technically illegal, Naidu says, companies are given wide latitude to thwart unionizing with minimal legal sanctions. Union organizers are forced to strategize and organize outside their workplace and figure out how to convince coworkers to join the fight without getting penalized or fired. "Workers basically have to be like a little Navy SEAL team in order to successfully unionize under the radar of an employer," Naidu says.

The obstacles to forming a union have only grown in recent decades. Around 27 states have passed "Right to Work" laws, which make forming a union more difficult in states with those laws and provide a refuge for companies looking to escape unions in states without those laws. Globalization, likewise, has given companies the option to close-up shop and move overseas. Automation has given companies the option to replace their workers with machines. Deregulation has increased industry competition and weakened unions' ability to extract concessions from monopolistic companies. Various changes to labor law, by the U.S. Congress, by state legislatures, and by the federal courts, have made it harder for unions to grow and thrive. Corporations now spend millions and millions on highly paid consultantsdeveloping effective tactics to suppress unionizing efforts and pressure their workers into submission. Even once workers form a union, it now takes an average of 465 days for the union to sign a contract with their employer.

Meanwhile, the economy continues to shift away from sectors that were traditionally union strongholds. As our economy grows and changes, the most unionized sectors in America — industries like manufacturing, transportation, and construction — represent an ever-shrinking share of the workforce. While this trend is more dramatic in the United States, Naidu says, it's also seen in countries with stronger labor movements and labor laws more friendly to unions.

Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. The service sector and other less-unionized sectors could theoretically jump on the union bandwagon. It's why union boosters were so excited when the labor movement seemed to be finally awakening at places like Starbucks and Amazon.

But unionization in the service sector is apparently harder than in historic union strongholds like manufacturing. Academics continue to debate why that is. Naidu says he believes that in America, it has a lot to do with outdated labor laws, which put the impetus on workers at individual businesses to collectively organize their specific workplace. This proved effective when hundreds of employees worked side by side at large manufacturing plants, each working for the same employer for long segments of their careers. However, Naidu says, workplaces in today's service sector tend to differ in at least two important ways.

First, turnover is much higher in the modern service sector than in the workplaces of the past, which may weaken worker solidarity and reduce the incentive to fight for a better working environment at a particular establishment (because workers don't expect to work there long-term).

Second, Naidu says, workplaces in the service sector tend to be much smaller, which increases the logistical difficulty and transaction costs for unions to organize workplaces because they have to be organized painstakingly one by one, or Starbucks by Starbucks. "Even when these businesses are big, they tend to have many, many establishments such that each individual establishment is kind of small," Naidu says. "And so it just makes it very, very hard to win a firm-wide union, which is the level at which American labor law protects."

More Successful Organized Labor Models Overseas

Many other industrialized nations, like France, Iceland, Belgium, and Austria, for instance, conduct their collective bargaining differently and, Naidu says, they have higher rates of union membership to show for it. Instead of putting the onus on workers to organize individual businesses at the "establishment level," these countries' labor laws and customs empower unions to make collective bargaining agreements that cover whole sectors of the economy, whole classes of workers, or even their entire nation.

Collectively organizing entire sectors makes joining a union or benefiting from a collective bargaining agreement much easier for a larger swath of the workforce, and helps buoy the share of workers in unions. If a new business forms in a sector with an overarching labor agreement that covers all employers, the default is that new jobs are covered by it. That helps keep union membership rates high even when the economy is growing and changing. In America, when a new business forms, the default is non-union.

The flow of new, non-unionized jobs in America continues to overwhelm the share of already-unionized ones. For example, as mentioned above, the absolute number of union jobs increased by about 200,000 last year. However, the share of American workers in unions fell because non-union jobs grew faster. Naidu compares the system in the U.S. to a "hamster wheel." "You have this natural business dynamism in the U.S., and unions need to be running to keep union density up," he says. "Every time there's a new employer, you've gotta be there trying to organize it. It's just an incredibly slow and costly process to be engaged in."

In his recent essay in The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Naidu argues that the labor laws of nations that encourage union agreements for entire industrial sectors, as opposed to the U.S.-style system of union agreements at individual establishments, creates an environment where unions are more able to flourish. In these countries, Naidu writes, "the hamster wheel of organizing every new shop is turned off, because new employers are automatically covered by the pre-existing agreement, and incumbent employers do not have to worry about cost competition from lower-wage employers in their sector."

When a collective bargaining agreement applies to a whole sector, all the businesses in that sector are subject to it. This, Naidu says, weakens the incentives of companies to fight unions because their competitors are on a more even playing field vis-a-vis their workers.

Furthermore, Naidu says, the countries with the highest union rates not only have more expansive union agreements covering wide sectors of the economy, they also run various benefits, like unemployment insurance, through their unions. This creates a strong incentive for workers to join unions. "That stops the freeriding that you sometimes have where workers are like, 'I don't need to join the union because I get the benefits anyway,'" Naidu says.

The Importance of "Social Capital" For Labor Organizing

Because American labor law creates big barriers to forming a union, Naidu says, workers who want to form unions need a lot of what social scientists call "social capital" with their co-workers to overcome them. Social capital refers to tightnight social networks, characterized by solidarity, trust in one another, and a willingness to work together for collective goals. But, as has been well-documented by scholars like Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, social capital in America has been plummeting since the mid-20th century. Putnam has found the decline reflected in, for instance, reduced participation in community organizations like churches and bowling leagues and surveys showing that Americans are more atomized and distrustful of each other than they were in the past.

"Union decline might be seen as yet another form of associational life that has declined for all the same reasons other forms have declined," Naidu writes. "In this sense, the decline of unions may be as akin to the decline of churches as the decline of heavy manufacturing." That worries him. "To the extent that you think American society could use a good dose of civil society and things like that, unions are one way to get that in the economy," he says.

Unions and progressive politicians are currently fighting for the Protecting The Right To Organize (PRO) Act in the U.S. Congress, which would amount to a major reform of American labor laws. It, amongst other measures, would impose larger penalties on employers who try to squash unionization drives. While Naidu thinks this legislation will help, he believes even stronger reforms and a widespread grassroots movement is needed to finally reverse the decades-long decline of unions.

"Between the employer-side advantages given by US labor law and diminished workplace social capital, it is difficult to see a path to a persistent increase in union density that is not concomitant with a rewiring of workplace networks and a transformation of American labor law," Naidu writes.

To really jumpstart unionization, Naidu believes, America needs big policy changes, including an embrace of sector-level bargaining, an increase in incentives for workers to join unions, and a reduction of incentives for companies to oppose unions. This might include awarding federal contracts only to companies that are pro-union, or imposing steeper penalties on companies that oppose unions.

Until then, Naidu suggests, the stream of stories about unionization drives at places like Starbucks and Amazon may just be that, anecdotes that amount to nothing more than a drop in the bucket. However, after years of witnessing a seemingly bottomless decline of unions, Naidu says, he is heartened that there are at least some signs of life. "I would have zero hope if it was not for the Starbucks and Amazon stories," Naidu says. "But now I have some hope."

 

The Empire Gives People The Illusion Of Fighting The Power Without Ever Endangering Real Power

 

The Empire Gives People The Illusion Of Fighting The Power Without Ever Endangering Real Power

Caitlin Johnstone

Feb 26

Listen to a reading of this article:

The one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine has seen countless emotional news segments and heartstring-plucking articles, wall-to-wall social media posts, and public demonstrations decrying the evils of Vladimir Putin throughout the western world.

For what's probably the first "anti-war" protest of most of their lives, American liberals gathered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC over the weekend to bravely condemn the leader of a foreign government thousands of miles away. There they were joined by empire managers like the virulent warmonger Samantha Power, who spoke at the rally opposing Russian warmongering at the capital of the most warlike nation on the planet.

For the last year, mainstream westerners have been using this war to act out their fantasies of being courageous up-punching anti-imperialists, fighting powerful bloodthirsty tyrants in defense of the needful, all while living directly under the thumb of the most tyrannical regime in the world. They mindlessly regurgitate the propaganda of the most powerful empire that has ever existed, parrot the same lines that are already being said all day long by all the most powerful institutions in the western world, all in service of the hegemonic agendas of the largest and most murderous power structure on earth, while pretending to be standing in opposition to the powerful.

The way the war in Ukraine allows mainstream liberals to play-act as rebellious anti-imperialists is a good illustration of how the empire gives people the illusion of fighting the power without their ever opposing the empire.

We saw this same trend take place in the US throughout the Trump administration, where mainstream liberals branded themselves "The Resistance" like they were socialist revolutionaries or insurgents opposing Hitler in Nazi-occupied France. In reality Trump's presidency had little actual impact on the comforts of their lives, because beneath all the narratives Trump was a fairly normal US president whose most heinous crimes were all of the customary variety we see in all US presidents — including his predecessor and his successor. Democrats just spent four years LARPing as brave revolutionaries, and then he left office and the game ended.

In exactly the same way, Trump's presidency allowed right wingers to pretend they were part of a movement against the establishment, despite Trump never actually challenging the establishment in any meaningful way. They believed he was fighting the Deep State even after he imprisoned Assange. They believed he was "ending the wars" even as he ramped up aggressions against Russia which helped bring us to where we are todaykilled tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, vetoed attempts to save Yemen from U.S.-backed genocide, worked to foment civil war in Iran using starvation sanctions and CIA ops with the stated goal of effecting regime change, occupied Syrian oil fields with the goal of preventing Syria’s reconstruction, greatly increased the number of troops in the Middle East and elsewhere, greatly increased the number of bombs dropped per day from the previous administration killing record numbers of civilians, and reduced military accountability for those airstrikes. They believed he was draining the swamp after packing his cabinet with establishment swamp monsters.

Trump supporters are just George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters. They role-play a fight against the empire that is never actually happening anywhere except in their imaginations.

Everyone Was Wrong About Trump

Trump's term has revealed that virtually everyone, all across the political spectrum, has been wrong about him. And it's a testament to the power of echo chambers that they remain just as wrong as they were four years ago.https://t.co/k35gZ1n8cd

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) December 23, 2020

For four years this went on, with Democrats acting like they were fighting the power because Trump was the power and Republicans acting like they were fighting the power because Trump's enemies were the power. And the entire time real power went completely unchallenged, because the empire always marches forward regardless of the imperial puppet who's sitting in the White House.

And as the war drums with China heat up we're seeing Trump supporters turn into the mirror image of the mindless Ukraine flag-waving liberals we're seeing today, swallowing every narrative their media feeds them right down their throats without the slightest twinge of critical thinking gag reflex. Now we're seeing the same people who used to spew vitriol about Muslims in the Middle East suddenly metamorphose into heroic human rights champions for Muslims in Xinjiang, and the same people who've been shining the bright light of truth on propaganda about Russia suddenly switch it off because they believe Biden is a Xi Jinping puppet.

Imperial narrative managers actively foster these delusions of revolution and up-punching among the mainstream herd because it's a great way to kill the possibility of any real revolutionary zeitgeist. If you can give people the illusion that they are fighting the power without their ever actually fighting the power, then you can always remain in power.

It doesn't take much. Just a few trusted voices in their ideological echo chamber posing as passionate opponents of tyranny and abuse, and people's natural desire to oppose those things does the rest. It naturally feels right to oppose the depravity of the powerful on behalf of the weak and defenseless; all they have to do is divert that healthy human impulse into something illusory.

Here's hoping enough of us learn to see through the illusion one day.

_________________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, or buying an issue of my monthly zine. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Feature image via Vladimir Yaitskiy (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic), altered for size.