Once seen through the prism of the billionaires v the poor, most narratives become crystal clear to those who look. John Spritzler is the only writer who consistently exposes this truth.
It is a great article but I do not think it is accurate. It Mamdani had run on an egalitarian platform and addressed class issues, he would have been blocked from the media and unable to raise money in the Democratic Party, or any party. I know from my own experience I ran against Cornel West in the Green Party and many people did not even know that we were running against each other because no media source would report on it. Now if we had journalism that was able to address real class issues in the US, it would be a different story
True, if Mamdani were an egalitarian revolutionary the rich would have denied him media and money as you say. The paragraph in my article that reads:
"The rich—the ruling billionaire plutocracy—were never elected and hence cannot be un-elected. The rich won’t let us, the have-nots, take control of their Democratic (or Republican) party. So what? We can remove the rich from power anyway."
But as I say in my article about this sabotage by the rich, "So what?" Support for egalitarian revolution is greater than support for NOT making an egalitarian revolution and only aiming for bandaid reforms. Winning the Democratic Party primary is not the goal. Building the egalitarian revolutionary movement is the goal.
Elections can be helpful for getting the word out but at this point I think we need citizens committees which eventually are able to take over local and then national administration. Avoid the election cult like the plague
Sure. The question is how to persuade lots of people to seriously go about doing this. THAT is the question we need to answer. I have been talking to literally thousands of people on the street in my neighborhood about removing the rich from power and almost all say that would be wonderful. But persuading these people to become activists with this goal is the problem. I think the root of the problem is that they think it is impossible to remove the rich from power because too few other people want to do that. What do YOU think is the root of this problem?
But if "national administration" means voluntary federation of sovereign local assemblies of egalitarians, then it is how genuine democracy creates order on a larger-than-local scale, which is a good thing. (Note that the international postal system today is based on voluntary federation of sovereign nations, and not based on any sovereign global organization.)
I’m glad that I didn’t vote for you dude. Supporting the status quo—your hope—is synthetic, not reason, not reality. Hope is submitting to that which provides you with your privileged endearments (values): patriarchy, speciesism, faith and racism; and, your self fulfilling Rapture or Messiah if you prefer.
I just saw an interview with him.... and what was VERY interesting ... was reading the comments.. My feeling is, THINGS HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE....and while many starts are contrivances, lies, manipulations from the power elite to distract, etc, and essentially - to remain - in power... I ALSO believe that SOME starts... are a REAL "start"... for things to change. It's not a black and white reality, in my thinking... ( Egalitarian or no Egalitarian ).... Yes, his campaign is not Egalitarianism... and yes, he might have gotten more votes... but... he IS providing a very huge platform for people to see that , indeed, they are NOT alone !!!... Here for example, is one comment ... and there were so far almost 4,000 "likes " to the one comment.. ( I will send the link to the video interview so you can read more of them )... But... here is one:
@michaelwillett7564
23 hours ago
As someone who's never been open to left politics like this in my life - Conservatives passively watching lower and middle-class families struggling to afford groceries for their kids, while wildly supporting people who make 700 times the average weekly grocery budget (everyday) will definitely be the thing that pushes me and greater America in that direction.
... ie. he just got 3.6 likes... in a few hours.... that took you, on the street, how long?.... I say this is a good start... to people seeing they are NOT ALONE....
In a sense, things are always "starting somewhere" and have been "starting somewhere" for eons. The question re "starts" such as Mamdani's campaign is, "What lesson can we learn from it about what to do at the starting line we are now on?"
Is the lesson that we should do what Mamdani is doing? Or is the lesson that we should do something different? I have written extensively on Substack about what I am doing and what I urge others to do. It is not what Mamdani is doing.
What I have been urging people to do (talk to your neighbors about the need for and the possibility of egalitarian revolution and try to make that conversation take place on as large a scale as possible) is based on the premise that most people already would love an egalitarian revolution but think it is impossible because too few other people want it. I think that the election victory of Mamdani is consistent with (is evidence for, if not proof of) that premise. To me, that is the main significance of Mamdani's victory.
Just to be clear: you do not ...when you ask people to like your button: "No Rich and No Poor, Genuine Democracy".. ask them " Do you want to have a revolution to have an Egalitarian society .a society .with no money at all....happen?" This is not what you say. Why don't you ? And by not saying/asking this explicitly, it is your assumption, that they are agreeing to that... ( Just about everyone, wants a FAIR society... But an EGALITARIAN one is a whole new idea....). Just sayin....
My conversations on the street have been far too brief to get into the question of how a moneyless society can work and why it is better than one based on money. I am working on getting to the point where I am having such conversations with my neighbors.
Then for all intent and purpose.. your conversations are no more powerful than the platform speeches are of the new mayor... And he has gotten likes by the thousands, every minute...
And.... as i ponder more about how changes happen... from fractal to global... from the "big bang" to microscopic....from absolutely everything in the cosmos... it is never ONE thing... that makes something happen/change.. It is absolutely always... a COMBINATION of things... Think about it. And this, is precisely .... ......my point. I think what you are doing... is essential to the combination of making a change. But, I think also, it is a mistake, ... to dismiss other parts contributing to the gestalt. Even illness.. is not one germ... but an environment of circumstances, creating it...
1) My website, which I tell every person on the street they will love, talks about abolishing money, with a link to that article at the top of the home page.
2. Abolishing money is merely a way to have no rich and no poor. In Spain, where there was an egalitarian revolution, some regions abolished money altogether and other regions kept different kinds of "money" and used it for purposes different from how it is used in a capitalist society; for example they had what they called a "family wage" which meant that a worker would be paid what he/she needed to support his/her family (of whatever size) and would not be paid just according to the actual job he/she did.
3. Having no rich and no poor is the fundamental egalitarian principle. Abolishing money is merely a way of making that happen. In a very short conversation on the street, the fundamental egalitarian principle is the important thing to express.
Karin, I assume by "the new mayor" you mean mayoral candidate Mamdani.
Here's what my conversations on the street with people about egalitarian revolution do that Mamdani's speeches do not do:
1. They provide me with hard cold evidence that most people would love an egalitarian revolution. And if others did what I do on the street then they too would have this hard cold evidence; until they do it they won't have that evidence and they won't have the confidence required to seriously work to build the EXPLICITLY egalitarian revolutionary movement. Mamdani's speeches do not do this.
2. They let people on the street learn that there is somebody who takes seriously the idea of removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor. They just promote the idea that this is a serious aim, namely the aim to have an egalitarian society instead of merely making bandaid reforms to our class inequality society.
Whether or not my conversations are what you call "powerful," the fact is that they are important in a way that Mamdani's speeches are not.
And by the way, when you say in a different comment that I "dismissed" Mamdani's election victory, I am perplexed. I wrote about it twice. The first time was to celebrate it as evidence that people wanted egalitarian revolution. The second time was to point out that Mamdani would have gotten more votes (barring ruling class sabotage of his campaign) if he had advocated egalitarian revolution. Where is the "dismissal" in that?
Since the idea of having a society that is not based on money is 100% censored, it is unlikely that people on the street will think that 'no rich and no poor' means abolishing the use of money. Having this kind of conversation is one key purpose of an egalitarian revolutionary movement. At this stage I am simply trying to persuade people that it makes sense even to try to build such a movement and hence to engage in conversation (more than a brief one on the street) with others about doing it. I am dealing with the nuts and bolts practical issue of ACTUALLY building an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. Who else is doing that?
Stop people from cooperating and to dumb them down and addict them to sex food and thrills. Interestingly, not a single anti establishment revolutionary covered in the media, like Chris Hedges, or Larry Johnson, or even Edward Snowden, says that we must first run search engines and social media as cooperative public monopolies run by scientific principles. And yet this is step one towards our goal. We are living in a Disneyland of progressive delusions
Also part of the problem. Facebook google TikTok etc are rigged up to encourage superficial two dimensional thinking and compulsive behavior. The internet boom was the privatization of the public commons and massive theft. It could have been a means to allow people around the world no cooperate but it had to be done through multi national corporations whose job is to stop
My comment in response to John's question is that media and technology is the primary barrier. The popular media induces a popular culture that is narcissistic that worships wealth and possession, that promotes fashion and appearances and the denigrates solidarity with the poor, commitment to ideals, and organized resistance. Batman is most representative of this. A masked man from the elite who helps out on specific things but does not challenge the system and promotes narcissist indulgence. But technology is
Given what you say about the harmful effect of the media, the question is what can we do that overcomes it? I think that when we talk to our neighbors about the need for and possibility of revolution we quite effectively counter the media's opposite message. The fact that we meet with such overwhelming support when we do this indicates that the media is not all-powerful. I think the worst effect of the media is that it persuades revolutionaries to fear regular people and NOT talk with them about egalitarian revolution.
That is most certainly true. Many people do not get any opinion at all except that given by corporate media. And we are taught that somehow it is impolite to talk to people about politics. If it is life and death, it is impolite not to talk about politics.
Once seen through the prism of the billionaires v the poor, most narratives become crystal clear to those who look. John Spritzler is the only writer who consistently exposes this truth.
It is a great article but I do not think it is accurate. It Mamdani had run on an egalitarian platform and addressed class issues, he would have been blocked from the media and unable to raise money in the Democratic Party, or any party. I know from my own experience I ran against Cornel West in the Green Party and many people did not even know that we were running against each other because no media source would report on it. Now if we had journalism that was able to address real class issues in the US, it would be a different story
True, if Mamdani were an egalitarian revolutionary the rich would have denied him media and money as you say. The paragraph in my article that reads:
"The rich—the ruling billionaire plutocracy—were never elected and hence cannot be un-elected. The rich won’t let us, the have-nots, take control of their Democratic (or Republican) party. So what? We can remove the rich from power anyway."
addresses this and links to my article about the role of voting in the revolutionary movement building: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/can-we-vote-the-rich-out-of-power?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false .
But as I say in my article about this sabotage by the rich, "So what?" Support for egalitarian revolution is greater than support for NOT making an egalitarian revolution and only aiming for bandaid reforms. Winning the Democratic Party primary is not the goal. Building the egalitarian revolutionary movement is the goal.
Elections can be helpful for getting the word out but at this point I think we need citizens committees which eventually are able to take over local and then national administration. Avoid the election cult like the plague
Sure. The question is how to persuade lots of people to seriously go about doing this. THAT is the question we need to answer. I have been talking to literally thousands of people on the street in my neighborhood about removing the rich from power and almost all say that would be wonderful. But persuading these people to become activists with this goal is the problem. I think the root of the problem is that they think it is impossible to remove the rich from power because too few other people want to do that. What do YOU think is the root of this problem?
Isn’t “national administration” the inverse to democracy?
If "national administration" means having a sovereign national government, then yes, it is the inverse of genuine democracy (which I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it.
But if "national administration" means voluntary federation of sovereign local assemblies of egalitarians, then it is how genuine democracy creates order on a larger-than-local scale, which is a good thing. (Note that the international postal system today is based on voluntary federation of sovereign nations, and not based on any sovereign global organization.)
I’m glad that I didn’t vote for you dude. Supporting the status quo—your hope—is synthetic, not reason, not reality. Hope is submitting to that which provides you with your privileged endearments (values): patriarchy, speciesism, faith and racism; and, your self fulfilling Rapture or Messiah if you prefer.
Here is the Link to the interview... my comment below refers to it... where i read the comments.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczuvHEMH58
Very nice article. You’re right, the reformist compromises just divides us pitting working people against each other.
I just saw an interview with him.... and what was VERY interesting ... was reading the comments.. My feeling is, THINGS HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE....and while many starts are contrivances, lies, manipulations from the power elite to distract, etc, and essentially - to remain - in power... I ALSO believe that SOME starts... are a REAL "start"... for things to change. It's not a black and white reality, in my thinking... ( Egalitarian or no Egalitarian ).... Yes, his campaign is not Egalitarianism... and yes, he might have gotten more votes... but... he IS providing a very huge platform for people to see that , indeed, they are NOT alone !!!... Here for example, is one comment ... and there were so far almost 4,000 "likes " to the one comment.. ( I will send the link to the video interview so you can read more of them )... But... here is one:
@michaelwillett7564
23 hours ago
As someone who's never been open to left politics like this in my life - Conservatives passively watching lower and middle-class families struggling to afford groceries for their kids, while wildly supporting people who make 700 times the average weekly grocery budget (everyday) will definitely be the thing that pushes me and greater America in that direction.
3.6K
... ie. he just got 3.6 likes... in a few hours.... that took you, on the street, how long?.... I say this is a good start... to people seeing they are NOT ALONE....
In a sense, things are always "starting somewhere" and have been "starting somewhere" for eons. The question re "starts" such as Mamdani's campaign is, "What lesson can we learn from it about what to do at the starting line we are now on?"
Is the lesson that we should do what Mamdani is doing? Or is the lesson that we should do something different? I have written extensively on Substack about what I am doing and what I urge others to do. It is not what Mamdani is doing.
What I have been urging people to do (talk to your neighbors about the need for and the possibility of egalitarian revolution and try to make that conversation take place on as large a scale as possible) is based on the premise that most people already would love an egalitarian revolution but think it is impossible because too few other people want it. I think that the election victory of Mamdani is consistent with (is evidence for, if not proof of) that premise. To me, that is the main significance of Mamdani's victory.
Just to be clear: you do not ...when you ask people to like your button: "No Rich and No Poor, Genuine Democracy".. ask them " Do you want to have a revolution to have an Egalitarian society .a society .with no money at all....happen?" This is not what you say. Why don't you ? And by not saying/asking this explicitly, it is your assumption, that they are agreeing to that... ( Just about everyone, wants a FAIR society... But an EGALITARIAN one is a whole new idea....). Just sayin....
My conversations on the street have been far too brief to get into the question of how a moneyless society can work and why it is better than one based on money. I am working on getting to the point where I am having such conversations with my neighbors.
Then for all intent and purpose.. your conversations are no more powerful than the platform speeches are of the new mayor... And he has gotten likes by the thousands, every minute...
And.... as i ponder more about how changes happen... from fractal to global... from the "big bang" to microscopic....from absolutely everything in the cosmos... it is never ONE thing... that makes something happen/change.. It is absolutely always... a COMBINATION of things... Think about it. And this, is precisely .... ......my point. I think what you are doing... is essential to the combination of making a change. But, I think also, it is a mistake, ... to dismiss other parts contributing to the gestalt. Even illness.. is not one germ... but an environment of circumstances, creating it...
Re money:
1) My website, which I tell every person on the street they will love, talks about abolishing money, with a link to that article at the top of the home page.
2. Abolishing money is merely a way to have no rich and no poor. In Spain, where there was an egalitarian revolution, some regions abolished money altogether and other regions kept different kinds of "money" and used it for purposes different from how it is used in a capitalist society; for example they had what they called a "family wage" which meant that a worker would be paid what he/she needed to support his/her family (of whatever size) and would not be paid just according to the actual job he/she did.
3. Having no rich and no poor is the fundamental egalitarian principle. Abolishing money is merely a way of making that happen. In a very short conversation on the street, the fundamental egalitarian principle is the important thing to express.
Karin, I assume by "the new mayor" you mean mayoral candidate Mamdani.
Here's what my conversations on the street with people about egalitarian revolution do that Mamdani's speeches do not do:
1. They provide me with hard cold evidence that most people would love an egalitarian revolution. And if others did what I do on the street then they too would have this hard cold evidence; until they do it they won't have that evidence and they won't have the confidence required to seriously work to build the EXPLICITLY egalitarian revolutionary movement. Mamdani's speeches do not do this.
2. They let people on the street learn that there is somebody who takes seriously the idea of removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor. They just promote the idea that this is a serious aim, namely the aim to have an egalitarian society instead of merely making bandaid reforms to our class inequality society.
Whether or not my conversations are what you call "powerful," the fact is that they are important in a way that Mamdani's speeches are not.
And by the way, when you say in a different comment that I "dismissed" Mamdani's election victory, I am perplexed. I wrote about it twice. The first time was to celebrate it as evidence that people wanted egalitarian revolution. The second time was to point out that Mamdani would have gotten more votes (barring ruling class sabotage of his campaign) if he had advocated egalitarian revolution. Where is the "dismissal" in that?
Since the idea of having a society that is not based on money is 100% censored, it is unlikely that people on the street will think that 'no rich and no poor' means abolishing the use of money. Having this kind of conversation is one key purpose of an egalitarian revolutionary movement. At this stage I am simply trying to persuade people that it makes sense even to try to build such a movement and hence to engage in conversation (more than a brief one on the street) with others about doing it. I am dealing with the nuts and bolts practical issue of ACTUALLY building an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. Who else is doing that?
Stop people from cooperating and to dumb them down and addict them to sex food and thrills. Interestingly, not a single anti establishment revolutionary covered in the media, like Chris Hedges, or Larry Johnson, or even Edward Snowden, says that we must first run search engines and social media as cooperative public monopolies run by scientific principles. And yet this is step one towards our goal. We are living in a Disneyland of progressive delusions
Also part of the problem. Facebook google TikTok etc are rigged up to encourage superficial two dimensional thinking and compulsive behavior. The internet boom was the privatization of the public commons and massive theft. It could have been a means to allow people around the world no cooperate but it had to be done through multi national corporations whose job is to stop
My comment in response to John's question is that media and technology is the primary barrier. The popular media induces a popular culture that is narcissistic that worships wealth and possession, that promotes fashion and appearances and the denigrates solidarity with the poor, commitment to ideals, and organized resistance. Batman is most representative of this. A masked man from the elite who helps out on specific things but does not challenge the system and promotes narcissist indulgence. But technology is
Given what you say about the harmful effect of the media, the question is what can we do that overcomes it? I think that when we talk to our neighbors about the need for and possibility of revolution we quite effectively counter the media's opposite message. The fact that we meet with such overwhelming support when we do this indicates that the media is not all-powerful. I think the worst effect of the media is that it persuades revolutionaries to fear regular people and NOT talk with them about egalitarian revolution.
That is most certainly true. Many people do not get any opinion at all except that given by corporate media. And we are taught that somehow it is impolite to talk to people about politics. If it is life and death, it is impolite not to talk about politics.
My comment disappeared
Substack comments often seem to disappear for a bit right after being typed and then they appear again.