Hi, I am dropping a quick line reflecting on the First Monday Green Liberty National meeting. There were only a few of us since it was Labor Day.
In any case, we had a lively discussion, and I was left to wonder if advancing a liberation coalition was the wrong position to take.
In the meeting, I reminded people that the Green Liberty Caucus works to form a caucus within the Green Party and works outside the party; within or without, the goal is the same: to advance the demand for accountability for corruption and advance revolutionary possibilities.
I discussed the possibility for a Committee on Accountability at the Green Party and other projects that could be advanced within the Green Party. A lobbying effort is required to get this done.
Meanwhile, the chief mission of Green Liberty is to advance a liberation coalition, which amounts to an invitation to others concerned about freedom and democracy and ecology to join together to advance a revolutionary message for change, to actually consider building a revolutionary, egalitarian movement.
The radical egalitarian perspective advanced by John Spritzler matches the libertarian municipal vision, which is a foundational principle to Green Liberty, so Green Liberty is in solidarity with the call for an Egalitarian Revolution.
But before Green Liberty is revolutionary, it is a pragmatic demand for accountability for the state crimes and other corruption committed by the plutocrats. They do their wicked deeds through their deep state connections in the CIA and elsewhere, and this is wrong. Indignation at state crimes, and the elite impunity that drives the deeds, impels the Green Liberty Caucus.
The urgency to liberate from plutocracy comes from the immanent threat of more state crimes, which we need to understand as “omniwar,” a word that frames state crimes as events caused by the power elite to unsettle the people and bring about war and other events.
We need to say why the rich need to be removed from power.
Yes, plutocrats treat the masses like dirt, but this is not illegal; committing state crimes is illegal and provides the most compelling reason to advance the intention, call it the proposition, to remove the rich from power so we can have real and not fake democracy.
Meanwhile, on the matter of advancing a liberation coalition, John Spritzer disagrees with the stance, stating that the people who agree with the proposition are sufficient to build a liberation movement. They are the natural and actual coalition; we need look nowhere else, he suggests. The idea of, or need for a liberation coalition, is obviated by the mass of those who accept the proposition, he suggested. Therefore, the urgency is to awaken people to their shared desire to remove the rich from power and build a movement out of that shared awareness.
Consequently, I am grappling with the idea of a liberation coalition, the idea of a popular front that would be a unity of diversity and would drive a society-wide movement. Maybe John is right: sing to the choir and build our ranks among those who accept the proposition.
In a separate email, John explained that his theory for advancing an egalitarian movement is to reach out directly to people in his neighborhood and introduce the proposition and enable them to see that they are not alone in wanting to remove the rich from power and to have real democracy and thereby make a better society.
As more and more people come to see that they are not alone in wanting an end to plutocracy, then a natural, organic grassroots movement will emerge and grow, is the theory; there is no need to go asking non-egalitarians to join the revolution since the majority already agree to the egalitarian principle that we remove the rich from power and have real and not fake democracy.
Look no further than those who accept the proposition.
However, accepting the proposition does not make a revolution
In fact, each individual John meets and greets has his / her own unique perspective, whatever it is. It is not certain that an individual who accepts the radical egalitarian proposition to remove the rich from power wouldn’t break with the proposition over some other mundane, tribal issue that might arise. It doesn’t take much for someone to change their opinion
Accepting the proposition is one thing; doing something about the problem of the rich is a whole other matter. This is the hard nut to crack.
I think by arguing for a liberation coalition, I am telling others that Green Liberty wants to align in a liberation movement. I am also hedging my bets in case the radical egalitarians fall short in some way: don’t get enough buy-in, can’t make a strong enough case for an egalitarian society, or insufficiently answer any doubts moderates have about the aspiration of removing the rich from power.
Therefore, I think the idea of a liberation coalition is necessary for removing the rich from power because it will take all hands on deck from all ideological sectors of society to accomplish the task.
Even in Spain in 1936-1939, there was a mix of political ideologies: anarchist, syndicalist, socialist, communist, authoritarian, and libertarian. We can’t point to Spain as a revolutionary success story, but we can look to it as an example of the problems a revolutionary movement will face, but most significantly, we can look to Spain to see the possibilities for radical egalitarianism.
The Spanish Revolution was a liberation coalition, and it reveals the problem of being stabbed in the back. John Spritzler is acutely aware of this problem and has written about it. Infamously, the Russians/Soviet Union backed a Stalinist contingent of socialists in Spain who, in the end, worked against the revolution, possibly helping the fascists win. John has written about this, as did George Orwell in his Homage to Catalonia.
I raise the backstabbing issue because entering into a coalition makes any of the groups that enlist in the coalition vulnerable to being used, co-opted, or betrayed by others that may share the end goal of a free and democratic society but don’t accept the larger goal of removing the rich from power, believing only modest reform is possible.
So, while I accept the radical egalitarian possibility, I acknowledge that some people won’t subscribe to the simple proposition, for whatever reason, but would remain an egalitarian; that is, they want plutocracy diminished through Georgist economics, a public banking system, or a democratic money system, for example, or, in the case of the revolutionary socialists, want a centralized power structure since they are not confident the people can self-rule in democratic, libertarian municipal settings.
By taking a principled stance on the question of a revolution, John Spritzler looks to build a movement of people who are in agreement on the fundamentals, and this means taking a stand on the proposition, accepting the golden rule as a bedrock principle, and stating an intention to work for a society that liberates from plutocracy.
Meanwhile, there are the others: the moderate egalitarians. Should they be ignored? Would a radical egalitarian consider a moderate egalitarian counter-revolutionary on account of not subscribing to the proposition to remove the rich so we can have real and not fake democracy? I don’t believe they should be ignored but invited to participate.
I am inclined to retain the mission of Green Liberty to advance a liberation coalition, but be mindful that without a core body of radical egalitarians, the revolution will lose sight of its north star, a society free from plutocracy, an institution that has proved highly problematic and harmful to the welfare of all.
As radical egalitarians grow our ranks, we should assert our vision for the better society, make arguments that make sense on practical levels, and seek to convert the moderate egalitarians to our radical vision for a society where there are no rich and no poor, and we are free of plutocracy.
A liberation coalition is an invitation to all who value freedom to join forces; I am confident we can figure out our differences along the way, but we will be watching our backs as we move forward.
Follow John Spritzler at his substack: https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/yes-it-is-difficult-to-remove-the?r=1iggn&triedRedirect=truehttps://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/yes-it-is-difficult-to-remove-the?r=1iggn&triedRedirect=true