RevolutionZ

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