RevolutionZ

Ep 391 of RevolutionZ has as its guest Vincent Emanuele to talk about the movement against data centers, the logic and methods of organizing, and movement culture. Your town’s next big fight might not be a highway or a stadium. It might be a windowless warehouse full of servers that power AI, cloud computing, and the apps you use every day, while quietly consuming electricity and water on a staggering scale. Combat veteran, writer, and organizer Vincent Emanuele  unpacks what data centers actually do, why communities are packing local meetings to stop them, and what this outpouring reveals about power in the tech economy and modes of resistance. 

We challenge the comforting idea that the fix is simply “using AI responsibly.” Vincent argues that without democratic decision-making, the people calling the shots are still tech oligarchs, investors, and politicians chasing profit and geopolitical advantage. That reality shapes how new technology gets deployed toward militarism, surveillance, and attention-harvesting platforms, not toward the public good. We also dig into the deeper human questions: how does AI and digital life  thin out our skills, our relationships, and even our sense of what it means to be human. 

From there, episode 391 move from critique to strategy. Data center fights often start organically and bring together people who don’t share politics, which makes them a rare chance to practice real organizing instead of only mobilizing the choir. We talk about democratizing knowledge so jargon can’t bully communities, identifying trusted “organic leaders,” learning from sports and military debrief culture, and building non-consumerist spaces where people can meet face-to-face and actually grow power. 
Support the show

Episode 390 of RevolutionZ asks would you rather speak to 2,000 people who already agree with you or 2,000 people who might vote for Trump? That choice sounds like a simple preference, but I argue it exposes something deeper: an entire theory of change. If we think a better world is unattainable, it’s rational to aim for narrow wins, entertain friendly audiences, and avoid the hard work of persuasion and unity. If we think systemic change is possible, then we have to communicate to grow our numbers, de-atomize our efforts, and build real solidarity across differences.

From there, I consider an engine of political paralysis: cynicism. I’m not interested in writing it off as laziness or moral weakness. More often than not, it is neither. Often it’s a rational judgment based on different premises than mine and I hope also yours. It believes either (a) better institutions can’t even exist, or (b) better institutions might exist but can’t be won. Extrapolate from those beliefs and you get resignation. Each kind of doubt requires a different response from someone like me, and both demand more than slogans. We collectively need credible compelling shared vision and credible compelling shared strategy that can link urgent immediate fights like stopping authoritarian drift and curbing ecological collapse to a longer trajectory of organizing. How do we most effectively convey that?

But what happens if we turn this observation on me, you, and Revolution Z? After almost 400 hundred episodes, what’s actually working and what’s just repetition or literally unheard? That question connects to the media environment we’re trapped in, where lies, scams, and algorithmic incentives push communicators toward clickbait and cheap degradation. If we reject  that route to communication, what do we emphasize instead? If we don't want to abet a "failure to communicate," if we don't want to contribute to a "communication breakdown," then to organize, how do we communicate?
To close the episode I offer some song lyrics and their approach to communication from John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Carcie Blanton, Joni Mitchell, and Leonard Cohen, as one  way to tell the truth without becoming part of the noise.

But when talking or writing, not songs but prose, what might work better than familiar well trod paths? Do you have ideas about that?
Support the show

Episode 389 of RevolutionZ has as guest Francine Mestrum, a longtime social justice researcher and organizer whose work spans globalization, poverty, inequality, social protection, public services, gender, and the “social commons” approach to economic and social rights. She has marched, organized, and built a campaigns and  organizations and yet felt like the world barely moved. And she has thought about why. Her experience in networks tied to the World Social Forum has given her a wide and deep view of what movements do well and what keeps failing. What obstacles impede winning.

She highlights two painful patterns. We show up, we do great work for a moment, but soon everything stops. And, when we show up we are not all together. We are atomized. Some are for this, some are for that, and we do not help each other with this and with that. So next time, we start as if from scratch. We struggle to have, and often even struggle against having unity.
Francine argues that without continuity between actions and real convergence across movements, we will stay trapped in atomized issue and time-bound silos. So we talk about why groups protect their identity, why alliances with trade unions are so often contested, and why cross border organizing still feels out of reach even as crises go global.

Then we go a layer deeper. We ask why the left often acts like winning is impossible and how that defeatism fuels sectarian fights, vague slogans, and refusal to define key terms. Francine calls it a crisis of imagination: thousands of small solutions exist, but we have no shared narrative for a better world able to inspire and orient. Pursuing answers we dig into working class politics and dignity, and why the right can offer belonging and a sense of efficacy even while failing materially and yet advance. We ask, what would it take for the left to reconnect through material demands, inspiring solidarity, and organized power?
Support the show

Episode 388 of RevolutionZ concludes the The Wind Cries Freedom Excerpts as Revolutionary Participatory Society (RPS)  wins state power and immediately insists that the real work is just beginning. This week Senator and then President Malcolm Mays, Governor then and then Vice President Celia Crowley, Lydia Lawrence, Bertrand Jagger, and Bill Hampton explain how Revolutionary Participatory Society approached elections, why they once avoided national races, and what changed when a presidential run became both possible and necessary.

A personal discussion reveals the hazards that swallow so many campaigns: the obsession with vote totals, the addictive pull of praise, the way inner circles filter bad news, and how fundraising quietly rewires what candidates say and what they start to believe. Then the frame flips to treat electoral politics as a tool for grassroots organizing: using campaigns to expand membership, build local chapters, strengthen assemblies, and keep pressure rooted in communities, workplaces, and schools rather than inside backrooms.

The discussion moves from a general strike to a dinner table debate about whether to run. It recounts a pivotal, tumultuous debate night and relives a massive Texas rally that signaled an oncoming landslide. It ends with the tone of “transition” after victory, including a new international posture and a blunt accounting of past harms alongside commitments to solidarity, self management, and peace.

Before and after this episodes's excerpt from the thirtieth and last chapter of The Wind Cries Freedom, the author answers why such an oral history was written, what it hopes to accomplish, fears for what might instead occur, and a request for support to attain the former rather than endure the latter.
Support the show

Episode 387 of RevolutionZ has as its guest Farah Mokhtareizadeh, an incredibly traveled and experienced Iranian American scholar and organizer who I first encountered via her article Vijay Prashad's Iran. She shows how if your politics begins and ends with “against the U.S.,” you can unintentionally end up defending the very forces that crush workers, feminists, and dissidents. We discuss what is sometimes called "campism," a mindset that organizes solidarity around geopolitical alignment rather than the conditions of people’s lives. Why do committed, courageous, activists fall into such damaging views? Why and how do concepts like anti-imperialism, resistance, and sovereignty often usefully clarify reality but sometimes obstructively conceal it? Is this personal psychologies at work? Is it ideological commitments? Or perhaps both? What can we do to further desirable outcomes and guard against harmful ones? 

From Iran to Syria to the broader SWANA region and beyond, Farah argues for a simple but demanding practice: separate the state from the people. Together we wrestle with the “primary contradiction” argument, the temptation to pick teams for uncritical support, and the way that what she calls binary thinking can erase the reality that many communities face U.S. aggression and also domestic authoritarianism at the same time. Along the way Farah draws lessons from Iranian trade unions, Kurdish feminist politics, and historical examples where left movements made catastrophic alliances by treating “anti-U.S.” as a moral lodestone.

We also dig into a controversial public letter signed by well-known anti-war and left figures, as well as by right wing and even fascist authoritarians which her article that caught my attention responded to. The letter, she urges, defends the Iranian state and even gestures toward targeting dissident Iranian journalists. Farah questions what the letter signals for the Iranian diaspora and for younger activists trying to find an ethical anchor. 
This episode discusses  anti-imperialism, U.S. foreign policy, Iranian history, and building movement solidarity that doesn’t excuse repression by opponents of the U.S. It is a discussion that disavows campism yet retains clarity about U.S. and other imperialisms.
Support the show