Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Ratify the R-Word—Bruce, Minneapolis, Revolution, and Us

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Twenty four years ago I wrote an essay titled “Resurrect the R Word.” To many people back then revolution meant chaos, violence, and death. Disagree? Me too. But should we resurrect the R-Word? My answer back then was that we should and I have the same answer now. But now we should Resurrect and also Ratify the R-Word. 

Talking about the U.S., where I live, a quarter century along history’s timeline Fascist thuggery, authoritarian, racist, and misogynist regimentation, war, and ecological dissolution threaten everything. Though the R-Word appears everywhere, what does it convey? Why should the R-Word re-enter our hearts and minds? Our Revolution? Not breakfast cereal revolution. Not cyber revolution. Our Political, Economic, Cultural and Social Revolution.

Seven and a half million people in the U.S. are unemployed. Forty million are poor. Forty seven million intermittently go hungry. Seven hundred and seventy five thousand have no material home. How many have no emotional, spiritual home? Even those who are not materially desperate largely lack personal say over their own lives. Trump is a disaster unfolding. But beneath Trump, indeed birthing and nourishing and elevating Trump, all manner of billionaire bosses rule here in what some like to call: USA, USA! 

Employees sell their ability to produce and as a reward about 8 out of 10 of them suffer abject subordination, lurid lies, vile chicanery, and massive manipulation. All of it backed by force. Dignity is denied. Ambulance-chasing is a professional pastime. And with whatever means available, from bare minimum poor to vapidly rich, to fetishize and accumulate whatever commodities you can grab is a socially respected way of life. 

To score high on the “I own” meter requires that you inherit or you accumulate and debauch without a care. However it is not capitalists’ genes, but the institutional byways that they traverse that exterminates their humane sentiments. The problem is not our genes. The problem is the institutions that channel our choices. 

In our economies garbage rises. To profit, owners become social garbage. We all know it’s true. The idea that capitalists will freely forsake economic violence is delusional. We know that too. Capitalism doesn’t sincerely gift us fine schools, excellent health care, equitable incomes, solidarity among workers, people before profit, empathy over greed, self management beyond democracy, and an environment suitable for human habitation. To the extent we get any of that it is due to struggles undertaken against capitalism. Capitalism, of its own accord, exploits and alienates those who it does not elevate. Its pliers warp even those who it does elevate. 

Humane pursuits and collective self-management require in place of capitalism collective ownership, equitable income and circumstances, balanced jobs that incorporate comparable access to information, responsibility, and skilled work for all, and decentralized participatory planning to replace rat race competition and top down coercion. Humane pursuits and collective self-management require classlessness.

It turns out that we endure economic violence but we want economic liberty. More, to go from economic violence to economic liberty is what economic revolution is all about. No old boss. No new boss. Instead new institutions. Ratify the R-Word. But is economics all we suffer? No, of course it isn’t. Consider what some call kinship.

Feminists teach that gender is social; women and men are each worthy; girls and boys, mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, daters and datees are not anatomic roles but historically contingent outcomes. We are what we do. But we can do other than what nuclear families, contemporary sex roles, courting and parenting roles demand, and what fashion, Hollywood, religion, and bosses celebrate.

A sexual assault occurs in the U.S. nearly every minute. Upward of one out of five women suffer rape or attempted rape at least once in a lifetime. Eighty percent of all women suffer sexual assault or harassment at some time. Women earn just under eighty percent for comparable work as men. On the other hand, women do get considerable pay for modeling, acting, homemaking in mansions, and street-walking in Manhattan. Women do more housework than men and shoulder most responsibility for child-rearing. Women hold up half the sky and much more. But still women still suffer. U.S.A., U.S.A. Chant it proud?

U.S. teenage pregnancy is highest in the developed world while the multi-billion-dollar U.S. pornography industry evidences and elicits mind-staggering manufactured sexist perversion. Child-rearing and education relegate to young women who aren’t being trafficked the freedom to be “feminine” and obey, and relegate to young men who aren’t trafficking the freedom to be “manly” and rule. Society’s preponderant roles distort all genders, albeit quite differently. Billion dollar diets mutilate millions of human psyches and hundreds of thousands of human bodies. Tens of millions of men and women suffer indignity, brutality, and even death for their homosexual or trans lives, while the elderly suffer isolated poverty even as productive tasks they could do go undone. 

Macho doesn’t presuppose male genes. It is not inscribed in DNA that men should objectify and batter women. Kinship violence stems not from genes gone bad, but from damaged families, from men fathering and women mothering, from pseudo-sexuality, reductive education, competitive courting, and sexist economics, politics, and culture.

To transcend gender violence we need sex-blind roles; support for single, coupled, and multi-parenting arrangements; plus easy access to high-quality daycare, flexible work hours, and parental-leave options. To produce gender peace we need freedom for children to develop views with their peers without excessive adult supervision. To produce gender liberation we need retirement guided by personal inclination and not age; liberated sexuality that respects all free choices and inclinations; and norms of courting, child-rearing, law, religion and work free from gender bias. In short, we need a transformation that replaces this country’s patriarchal misogyny with gender equality and sexual freedom. The R-Word needs ratification for kinship, too.

What about the ethnic, racial, and religious ways by which we understand ourselves and our place in society? Slavery, apartheid, separate but equal, racism, religious bigotry, ethnocentrism, and colonialism are all systems in which one community subordinates another or in which two communities wage endless conflict that deadens the cultural prospects, souls, and bodies of all concerned. 

In the U.S., median family income, infant mortality, criminal prosecution, allocation of educational resources, and distorted and distorting mass media images all track race to ensure that nonwhite communities settle beneath white ones. These dynamics subjugate whole peoples. These dynamics deny whole peoples’ cultures and whole peoples’ potentials for developing and fulfilling themselves. They pervert ruler and ruled alike.

As a result, the U.S. is far from being a compendium of diverse free communities, each enabled to develop in harmony with others, each respecting and learning from answers that others offer, and each protecting the rights of all. To collapse all cultures into the norms of a dominant few via “integration” is no solution. The needed transformative change is revolution. The R-Word applies again.

U.S. politics features media-reinforced apathy, financial bribes and scams, police repression, regressive taxation, choices between candidate clones, massive corruption, aid to dictators abroad and at home, and wars. And of late it also includes a drive toward Fascism, which is Trump’s version of political revolution. Real participatory democracy will instead need to feature collective self-management including plebiscites, honest plentiful information, informed public debate, popular assemblies, maximum respectful accountability, reconstructed adjudication, and no possibility for accruing excessive political power.

To transition from spectator ruler-versus-ruled politics to participatory politics will therefore require new political aims and institutional means to debate them, refine them, dispute them, fight for them, and enact them, as well as to deal with violations. We the people need both information and power. Popular resistance campaigns to redress grievances can ease immediate suffering and nowadays forestall a slide to dictatorship, but they will not alone create new institutions able to propel informed participation. New polity will need revolution. The R-Word needs ratification here too.

Nations fight nations. Torture and war ravage human potential. Hunger afflicts billions. Chemical wastes infect us. Air pollution congests us. The seed-base depletes us and temperatures keep climbing toward ecological debacle. Forests diminish. Wastelands spread. People, animals, and plants drown, starve, and burn. Neither the world as a social system nor the world as an ecosphere can withstand much more, more, more. Without international equity plus new means for care-taking the earth, all will go to hell in a turbo-cart. In a dirty world, the R-Word is not a dirty word. Ratify it.

To feel embarrassed or afraid on hearing the R-Word makes liberated human history seem impossible. To equate revolution with blood-lust accepts that struggle for change can yield only minimal gains or, if we get too ambitious, worse than what we already have. To debate the wisdom of revolution reflects timidity about truth. We must no longer debate the wisdom of fundamental change as if humanity may after all be able to flourish or even just survive within the permanent dictates of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, and authoritarianism. Fundamental change is not only possible, it is essential. But a host of related issues do warrant continued and expanded debate.

For example, what new institutions would desirable economic, kinship, cultural, political, international, and ecological revolution create? We need to at least broadly know because we won’t get where we want to wind up if we have no clarity about at least the defining features of where we want to wind up. Do we now have that? Ratify the R-Word.

And how do we win immediate reforms while we strengthen our ability to fight for long-run aims? We need reforms to reduce pain now but also so the fight for them teaches and propels relevant lessons and so that winning them expands our confidence and develops our means to win more. That is R-Word logic.

And what kind of organization, ideology, and tactics do we need to reach our full goals? Since priority attention to economics, gender, culture, politics, international relations, and ecology yields contrasting socialist, feminist, nationalist, anarchist, anti-imperialist, and green agendas, including different views within each, how can a new movement retain the integrity, wisdom and autonomy of each of these orientations, correct whatever faults they may have, and simultaneously realize solidarity among them all? That is the R-Word’s call to action.

Debating these and related strategic questions while we raise consciousness, demonstrate, and organize to expand and enrich resistance isn’t “utopian.” It is the only comprehensive approach that can win immediate social change and also keep winning more change on the path to fulfilling R-Word mandates. 

To win a new world, and even to significantly improve this one, we must know what we want. To journey from here to there we need to know where “there” is. What new institutions will establish real a participatory economy and in particular what steps can lead to those new institutions? What new institutions would establish a feminist kinship sphere, a culturally intercommunal community sphere, and a participatory political sphere? In each case, what steps can take us from what we have to what we need? 

As we endure current horrors, it does not evidence maturity, pragmatism, or wisdom to dismiss revolutionary desire as strange, to see it as off base, or call it impossible. To dismiss what is in fact essential and desirable instead evidences ignorance, defeatism, or even lack of humanity. Don’t whisper the R-Word. Loudly ratify it. 

But even as we do all that, we need to also remember that to win fulfilling freedom doesn’t require adopting arrogant postures that alienate potential allies. It doesn’t require dismissing that which isn’t yet where we are. Instead, to win fulfilling freedom requires sober yet comprehensive desire plus careful yet unrelenting forward movement. It requires that we listen, converse with, and respect people who disagree with us. 

Liberalism’s half-way programs and temperate rhetoric, when unaccompanied by revolutionary insights, tend to strengthen the two greatest obstacles to justice in the U.S.: The widespread belief that you can’t beat City Hall and that even if you do beat the bastards, it won’t mean overly much because new bosses will be as bad as old ones. Isn’t it obvious that the left won’t arouse hope and deserve commitment until its morality, tone, and spirit transcend band-aid bureaucratic fixes even as it necessarily struggles to win those limited gains on the way to winning fundamental change in the longer run? Isn’t it obvious that we ultimately have to get to the institutional heart of the matter? Ratify the R-Word.

We can’t win what we won’t even name. We can’t orient today’s reforms to further tomorrow’s victories if we refuse to define what we want tomorrow’s victories to include. Blind strategy is no strategy at all. Resistance is good, but to undo lethargy and cynicism and attain liberation, we ultimately need to ratify the R-Word in our speaking, writing, thought, and action. 

And so what does to ratify revolution mean right now, while ICE runs rampant, RFK Jr. sickens the country, Hegseth macho-man’s the media, and Trump twists the very fabric of reality to pursue his own maniacal brand of Fascism? 

Just a few days ago I logged on to a collective call about resistance in Minneapolis—which city is now central to Trump’s violence and thus also to the resistance’s prospects. The online gathering was inspiring and hopeful in many respects and especially in its call for no work, no consuming, and no school in Minneapolis this Friday January 23rd (with the call now expanded to the whole of Minnesota, I believe), plus lots of accompanying activism against ICE and its abettor corporations and politicians conducted all week and especially on the 23rd. But beyond even the Minneapolis movement’s exemplary courage, commitment, and competency, to bring the R-Word back means that the movement in Minneapolis should work to begin to challenge not just ICE, the only focus during the call, but also tariffs, imperial bullying, police repression, racism, misogyny, rising prices, booming income and wealth differences and authoritarian governance. Resistance events and struggles everywhere need to begin to go from great on one issue to great on all issues. They need to appeal to and empower not mainly one constituency but all those with an interest in immediate and ultimately also in fundamental change. That will start to ratify the R-Word for this moment and also for the long march toward winning fulfilling freedom for all.

If young people stay home from school and consumers don’t consume and workers don’t work this Friday even just in Minneapolis much less throughout Minnesota it will be a huge step toward resurrecting and ratifying the R-Word there and toward inspiring other locales to do so elsewhere as well. Trump and Co. and their followers will hear that loud and clear. Our fear will decline. Their fear will rise.

Afterword: My last article, “Three Strategic Issues: What to Say or Write? What to Do? and Who to Do it With? Plus Taylor, Steph, and Caitlin…”, concluded with some entreaties to citizens with large audiences and ample media means to address them. It mentioned a number of such personalities by name and noted that while grass roots participants are the heart and soul of the now growing resistance, contributions from notable singers, actors, athletes, labor leaders, and more, and in high school and college classrooms from teachers and professors, can help create room for and inspire many more people to stand tall. And wouldn’t you know it, the man called The Boss with love and respect, not derision, last night previewed how to do it and today his words are all over. Look it up. At a New Jersey festival Bruce Springsteen introduced his song “The Promised Land” with these words:

“This next song is probably one of my greatest songs. And I don’t want to be out of water tonight, but I wrote this song as an ode to American possibility … both to the beautiful but flawed country that we are, and to the country that we could be. Now, right now, we are living through incredibly critical times. The United States, the ideals and the values for which it stood for the past 250 years, is being tested as it has never been in modern times. Those values and those ideals have never been as endangered as they are right now. So as we gather tonight in this beautiful display of love and care and thoughtfulness and community … if you believe in democracy, in liberty … if you believe that truth still matters, and that it’s worth speaking out, and it’s worth fighting for … if you believe in the power of the law and that no one stands above it … if you stand against heavily armed masked federal troops invading American cities, and using Gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens … if you believe you don’t deserve to be murdered for exercising your American right to protest … then send a message to this President. And as the Mayor of that city has said, ICE should get the fuck out of Minneapolis. So this one is for you, and the memory of the mother of three and American citizen Renee Good.”

Gestapo indeed. Ratify the R-Word.Email

avatar

Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork.

Friday, January 16, 2026

Source: Hammer and Hope

Hammer & Hope co-founder Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has written a new introduction for an expanded second edition of How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective, which includes the groundbreaking statement, along with interviews and essays reflecting on its impact, among them a new interview with Angela Y. Davis. In this excerpt from the introduction, Taylor describes the emergence in the early 1970s of a distinct current of Black feminism, contending with multiple concerns, that would give rise to the Combahee collective.

Black feminism never developed into a mass movement in the way that the mostly white women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s did. Most Black women remained in the Black liberation movement, even as they tried to make the movement address their concerns about women’s oppression. By the early 1970s, for example, it’s likely that a majority of members of the Black Panther Party were women, as the organization began to focus less on armed confrontation with police and more on mutual aid organizing and community-based activism, like the free breakfast program, which reflected the kinds of concerns that animated Black feminist consciousness and politics. Black women already had prominent roles in community organizing without forming new organizations, which would have been regarded with the hostility typical among men in the Black liberation movement at that time. Historian Premilla Nadasen has argued that Black women’s struggles for greater access to welfare rights should be understood as a critical part of Black feminist organizing, which would deepen our understanding of Black feminism as an organizing project. She argues that “the welfare rights movement was one of the most important organizational expressions of the needs and demands of poor Black women. Predating the outpouring of Black feminist literature in the 1970s, women in the welfare rights movement challenged some of the basic assumptions offered by other feminists — white and Black — and articulated their own version of Black feminism.”

But outside of the structures of a social movement or organization, the changing political economy of the 1960s meant that millions of ordinary Black women were radicalized by their economic marginalization and poverty amid American affluence. Meanwhile another cohort of Black women was rising into the middle class through the emergence of better jobs in government and the public sector, along with greater access to colleges and universities. In a note for a 1966 special issue on “The Negro Woman,” Ebony publisher John H. Johnson described the dual fortunes of Black women: “She still cleans the houses and cooks the food of Miss Anne but she also computes the figures for planned space shots and does cancer research in hospital laboratories. She is still the ‘mammy’ to many a wealthy white woman’s child but she has also seen her own son graduated magna cum laude from Ivy League colleges. While she is still arrested for prostitution on Chicago’s North Clark Street, she also sits as ambassador representing her country abroad.”

Thus, a “golden cohort” of Black women writers and artists — daughters of the Black poor and working class — helped to define the terms of Black women’s radicalization in broader terms, even as it was overlooked in the white feminist movement. The legal scholar, civil rights activist, and NOW co-founder Pauli Murray argued, “In the face of their multiple disadvantages, it seems clear that black women can neither postpone nor subordinate the fight against sex discrimination to the black evolution.” When the writer and educator Toni Cade Bambara edited a collection of Black women’s writing, The Black Woman: An Anthology, in 1970, she began the volume by declaring, “We are involved in a struggle for liberation: liberation from the exploitive and dehumanizing system of racism, from the manipulative control of a corporate society. … If we women are to get basic, then surely the first job is to find out what liberation for ourselves means, what work it entails, what benefits it will yield.” She asked what the “feminist literature,” including The Feminine Mystique, had to do with Black women: “How relevant are the truths, the experiences, the findings of white women to Black women? Are women after all simply women? I don’t know that our priorities are the same, that our concerns and methods are the same, or even similar enough so that we can afford to depend on this new field of experts (white, female).”

For other women, such as the rising political figures Shirley Chisholm of New York and Barbara Jordan of Texas, the world of Democratic Party politics opened new opportunities for political change. But the entry into mainstream politics further revealed the hostility experienced by Black women, especially from Black men. One Black man opposing Chisholm’s feminist agenda commented, “You can’t equate the problems of women and the problems of blacks, whatever Shirley says,” adding, “Women simply aren’t exploited or denied opportunity on the same basis.” Even though Chisholm was running a left-wing, antiwar campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, the National Black Political Convention in Gary, Ind., in March 1972 did not endorse her candidacy.

In 1974, the Combahee River Collective, a group of Black lesbians based in Boston, organized themselves as a break to the left from a more conventional national organization called the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO), which itself had been formed as a Black-oriented version of the National Organization for Women. Murray, a co-founder of NOW, had left the group, feeling that it was overly focused on middle-class white women. The NBFO’s founding statement in 1973 explained that the group’s emergence was necessary to “strengthen the current efforts of the Black Liberation struggle in this country by encouraging all of the talents and creativities of black women to emerge, strong and beautiful, not to feel guilty or divisive, and assume positions of leadership and honor in the black community. … We will continue to remind the Black Liberation Movement that there can’t be liberation for half the race.”

Barbara Smith and her twin sister, Beverly, who helped to found the Combahee River Collective, were initially active in the NBFO chapter in Boston. But they broke away to form a new group “since we had serious disagreements with NBFO’s bourgeois-feminist stance and their lack of a clear political focus,” as the Combahee statement later explained.

The Combahee River Collective engaged in local campaigns across Boston, but it was never very large and mostly focused on internal consciousness-raising and political education. The collective is best known for its powerful statement, drafted in 1977 at the request of Zillah R. Eisenstein, who wanted to include it in her anthology Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.

As Barbara Smith, a co-author of the statement, said of its significance: “The concept of the simultaneity of oppression is still the crux of a Black feminist understanding of political reality and, I believe, one of the most significant ideological contributions of Black feminist thought. We examined our own lives and found that everything out there was kicking our behinds — race, class, sex, and homophobia. We saw no reason to rank oppressions or, as many forces in the Black community would have us do, to pretend that sexism, among all ‘isms,’ was not happening to us.”

The Combahee River Collective is also widely recognized for introducing the phrase identity politics to explain its orientation toward politics in the 1970s. Smith identified three main reasons why Black women began to organize separately and with their own agenda:

1. “The racism of white women in the women’s movement”;

2. Third world men who sought “to maintain power over ‘their women’ at all costs”; and

3. “White men and Third World men, ranging from conservatives to radicals,” who “pointed to the seeming lack of participation of women of color in the movement in order to discredit” feminism “and to undermine the efforts of the movement as a whole.”

For Smith and her contemporaries, these obstacles to the inclusion of Black women within movement spaces inevitably meant that Black women’s issues were not taken seriously and would be addressed only through their own organizing efforts — thus the centrality of identity. Yet Smith has repeatedly emphasized that the collective did not see this as necessarily hostile to coalition politics, something they, in fact, routinely practiced. While the historical context necessitated Combahee’s theorization of “identity politics,” the material pressures bearing down on Black women made alliances with others indispensable to their survival.

Pauli Murray recognized this need for coalition when she argued, “By asserting a leadership role in the growing feminist movement, the black woman can help to keep it allied to the objectives of black liberation while simultaneously advancing the interests of all women.” One year earlier, the Black feminist Mary Ann Weathers had described how to develop unity based on the mutual interests of women: “All women suffer oppression, even white women, particularly poor white women, and especially Indian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, [Asian], and black American women whose oppression is tripled by any of the above mentioned. But we do have female’s [sic] oppression in common. This means that we can begin to talk to other women with this common factor and start building links with them and thereby build and transform the revolutionary force we are now beginning to amass.”

But Fran Beal mapped out the obstacles to this kind of coalition: “If the white groups do not realize that they are in fact fighting capitalism and racism, we do not have common bonds. If they do not realize that the reasons for their condition lie in the system and not simply that men get a vicarious pleasure out of ‘consuming their bodies for exploitative reasons’ … then we cannot unite with them around common grievances or even discuss these groups in a serious manner because they’re completely irrelevant to the black struggle.” However, Beal did not spell out the means by which Black women could overcome their oppression — if a mass movement that included groups beyond Black or other third world women was necessary.

Years after the publication of the Combahee statement and greatly influenced by the observations of the writer Audre Lorde (who took part in Combahee Collective retreats), Barbara Smith noted the importance of respecting “difference” in politics: “I will never forget the period of Black nationalism, power, and pride that, despite its benefits, had a stranglehold on our identities. A blueprint was made for being Black and Lord help you if you deviated in the slightest way. … How relieved we were to find, as our awareness increased and our own Black women’s movement grew, that we were not crazy, that the brothers had in fact created a sex-biased definition of ‘Blackness’ that served only them.”

She went on to caution against a strain of thought then seeping into the Black women’s movement: “In finding each other, some of us have fallen into the same pattern. … I am not saying that any particular group of Black women does this more than others, because at times we can all fall prey to the ‘jugular vein’ mentality, as [Audre] Lorde terms it, and want to kill or erase from our universe anyone unlike us.” The movement would need to overcome differences, because our liberation “will not come about, as Bernice Johnson Reagon puts it, inside our ‘little barred rooms.’”

Smith emphasized the distinction between organizing autonomously to ensure that a political agenda is developed around a particular set of issues and making separatism a matter of principle. She quoted Cheryl Clarke’s observation that we “have to accept or reject allies on the basis of politics not on the specious basis of skin color. Have not black people suffered betrayal from our own people?” Even more consequently, Smith noted, “The worst effect of separatism is not upon whomever we define as ‘enemy,’ but upon ourselves as it isolates us from each other.”

Beyond recognizing that the differences existed, neither Lorde nor Smith clarified how to overcome these differences in political terms. The notion of identity politics and even coalition politics as a response are simply ways of negotiating and coexisting with those differences. Overcoming difference is not the same as washing it away. Instead, political solidarity is a recognition that we have a mutual interest in organizing together to create a political force that can change the conditions that we all suffer from, even if that suffering looks different based on social position.

Excerpted from the introduction to the second edition of How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective, edited by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor and published by Haymarket Books. Reprinted with permission.Email

avatar

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor is a co-founder of Hammer & Hope and the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University. She is a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “Genius Grant” and a Guggenheim fellowship. She is the author of Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership and From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation and the editor of How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective. Race for Profit was a semi-finalist for the 2019 National Book Award and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History in 2020.




 Dr. King’s Forgotten Warnings About “the Rise of a Fascist State in America”

January 16, 2026

Image by History in HD.

As Americans gather next Monday to celebrate the legacy of the great martyred civil rights and social justice leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a time of fascist rule in the United States, it is important to remember seven interrelated parts of King’s thought and activism that have been largely forgotten and deleted:

+1. The Dr. King who in 1963 (“Letter From a Birmingham Jail”) wrote that the primary obstacle to overcoming American racial oppression wasn’t the open racism of segregation’s brutal enforcers but the tepid incrementalism of white moderates who counseled excessive patience and discouraged the mass direct action required to overthrow the Jim Crow regime.

+2. The King who spoke out against American imperialism, most particularly against the US War on Vietnam, and who said (on April 4, 1967, in New York City’s Riverside Church) that a society that spent more money on military empire than on programs of social uplift was “approaching spiritual death.”

+3. The King who said that the defeat of de jure segregation and racist voter disenfranchisement in the Jim Crow South needed to be understood as an elementary prelude to the overcoming of deeply entrenched racism, de facto segregation, and economic inequality across the entire nation.

+4. The King who placed the primary blame for the US race riots of 1965-67 on a “white power structure…seeking to keep the walls of segregation and inequality intact” and a “white society, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change,” that told Black people “they must expect to remain permanently unequal and permanently poor.”

+5. The King who denounced what he called “the interrelated triple evils” of racism, economic injustice/poverty (capitalism) and war (militarism and imperialism, and who said that the “real issue to be faced” beyond “superficial” matters was “the radical reconstruction of society itself” – the King who argued that “only by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the roots are in the system rather in man or faulty operations.” ( “For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of the South, a little change here, a little change there,” King told the journalist David Halberstam April 1967. “Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values.”)

+6. The King who said that poor Black, white, and brown masses “must organize a revolution” that would be “more than a statement to the larger society” and more than periodic “street marches” – a movement that would employ regular “mass civil disobedience” to “dislocate the functioning of a society.” The “storm .. rising against the privileged minority of the earth,” King added, “will not abate until [there is a] just distribution of the fruits of the earth…”

+7. Last not but not least, the officially forgotten King omits his warnings on the “FASCISM” he expected to rise to power in the United States if it failed to undertake this revolution. In his final book, Where Do We Go From Here?: Chaos or Community (1967), King offered a sobering take on the white legal backlash to the racial progress achieved by the struggle for Black equality. Many white Americans, King wrote, “have declared that democracy isn’t worth having if it involves [racial] equality…[their] goal is the total reversal of all reforms with the reestablishment of naked oppression and if need be native form of fascism” whereby the law is wielded to guarantee white supremacy.

How haunting it is to re-read those words five years after January 6, when the fascist leader Donald Trump and his neo-Confederate backers tried to overthrow an election they viewed as illegitimate largely because its outcome depended on nonwhite voters and as the Trump47 fascist regime including the US Supreme Court’s rolls back one anti-racist civil and voting rights victory after another.

After his final national sermon in Washington DC 58 years ago, five days before his execution (which took place exactly one year to the day after he spoke out against the US War on Vietnam in Riverside Church in New York City), King stepped outside the National Cathedral and said that, on its current trajectory, the United States would become a “fascist state”:

“I am convinced we cannot stand two more summers like last,” King said during a post-sermon press conference, referring to the violent racial conflagrations that took place in US cities (most lethally in Detroit and Newark) in 1967. He predicted that more such violence would “bring only a rightist takeover of the government and eventually a fascist state in America.But I have to admit,” King added, “that the conditions that brought the violence into being last summer are still notoriously with us.”

That last sentence is important. Consistent with the enumerated points above (see especially #4), King did not blame the violence on American streets on Black rioters; he blamed it on “the triple evils that are interrelated,” that is on the racism, economic/class exploitation, and imperialism that reflected the perverse functioning and structures of a society that needed to be transformed by a great revolution “for the just distribution of the earth’s fruits.”

King’s April 4th 1968 extrajudicial racist execution triggered a Black uprising that may have helped fuel the 1968 presidential victory of the proto-fascistic war criminal Richard Nixon, who ran a white-supremacist “law and order” campaign and launched a vicious repression campaign targeting Blacks, the New Left, and antiwar protesters.

Fifty-eight years later, we are in the middle of the “rightist takeover of the government” that King prophesied – a coup driven largely by white racist backlash. We are on the whole too passively (see point #1 above) witnessing the attempted full-on consolidation of “a fascist state in America” under the command of Donald Trump (the genocidal racist son of a Queens Klansman) with Trump’s fellow arch-racist Hitler fan Stephen “We are the Storm” Miller running much of the sick show, and with the racist RepubliNazis JD Vance and Marco Rubio fighting in the wings to claim Mein Trumpf’s mantle. King’s “triple evils” must be expanded to (at least) five to include militant misogynist patriarchy and capitalogenic ecocide and these five evils must be understood as a malignant simultaneous equations system that has given rise to a fascist regime atop the most lethal superpower in world history — a supremely dangerous development that poses a grave existential menace to all humanity.

Paul Street’s latest book is This Happened Here: Amerikaners, Neoliberals, and the Trumping of America (London: Routledge, 2022).



Dr. King’s Warning Are More Prescient Than

Ever



January 16, 2026


Photo by Jimmy Woo

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “Beyond Vietnam” speech still ring true.

“When machines and computers, profit motives, and property rights are considered more important than people,” he warned, “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Those words, delivered in 1967, still summarize today’s political moment. Instead of putting the lives of working Americans first, our leaders in Congress and the White House have prioritized advancing corporate profits and wealth concentration, slashing government programs meant to advance upward mobility, and deploying military forces across the country, increasing distrust and tension.

This historic regression corresponds with a recessionary environment for Black America in particular. That’s what my organization, the Joint Center, found in our report, “State of the Dream 2026: From Regression to Signs of a Black Recession.”

The economic landscape for Black Americans in 2026 is troubling, with unemployment rates signaling a potential recession. By December 2025, Black unemployment had reached 7.5 percent — a stark contrast to the national rate of 4.4 percent. This disparity highlights the persistent economic inequalities faced by Black communities, which have only been exacerbated by policy shifts that have weakened the labor market. The volatility in Black youth unemployment, which fluctuated dramatically in the latter months of 2025, underscores the precariousness of the situation.

The Trump administration’s executive orders have systematically dismantled structures aimed at promoting racial equality. By targeting programs such as Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Equal Employment Opportunity executive order and defunding agencies like the Minority Business Development Agency, the administration has shifted federal support away from disadvantaged businesses.

As a result, Black-owned firms risk losing contracts and resources tied to federal programs, potentially resulting in job losses and reduced economic growth. These changes threaten billions in federal revenue for Black-owned firms and undermine efforts to move beyond racial inequality in the workforce.

The GOP’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in 2025, further entrenches inequality by providing tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high-income households and corporations — while simultaneously slashing investments in programs like Medicaid and SNAP, limiting access to essential services for low-income households.

The technology sector, a critical component of the American economy, is also affected by this disregard for civil rights. Executive orders like “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” have stripped away protections that could advance inclusion in this rapidly growing field. As a result, the future of the American economy risks reinforcing past inequalities.

Dr. King’s call for strong, aggressive federal leadership in addressing racial inequality remains highly relevant. However, instead of eradicating structures of inequality, our current leadership is implementing policies that destroy government jobs and dismantle agencies responsible for preventing predatory economic practices. These choices undermine longstanding efforts to combat racial and economic disparities — and exemplify the regressive economic policies that coincide with rising Black unemployment.

As Dr. King stated, “we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.” But urgent action is required. Unless we act deliberately, economic and racial inequalities will become entrenched, resulting in generational loss. The core question is whether we will move beyond our nation’s history of racism, materialism, and militarism, and — as Dr. King urged — embrace “the fierce urgency now” to advance equity.

Dedrick Asante-Muhammad is host of the Race and Wealth Podcast and Director of the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative at the Corporation for Economic Development.