Monday, November 13, 2023

Mike Davis on Fellow Legendary California Historian Kevin Starr

Historian Mike Davis was appalled by the horrors California had inflicted on itself, while Kevin Starr was awed by the Golden State's spirit of optimism. In this interview right before his death, Davis reflects on their mutual admiration and tender friendship.


The legendary socialist historian Mike Davis died on October 25, 2022.
(Verso Books)


BYMIKE DAVIS
 11.12.2023
JACOBIN

In 1994, the Los Angeles Times published an article contrasting Mike Davis and Kevin Starr, both widely read historians of California. “Mike Davis sees murky decay, while Kevin Starr embraces shiny optimism,” the paper said. The contrast was undeniable, especially to their own admiring readers. “Davis groupies scorned Starr’s boosterism as unfashionably chipper. Many Starr fans dismissed Davis as a left-wing lunatic.”

In reality, Davis and Starr shared a deep mutual admiration and longtime friendship. Starr died in 2017, and Mike Davis died in 2022. When the latter was in palliative care, Jason Sexton approached Davis to record his thoughts about Starr — many of which Davis had never shared publicly — for his book Redemptive Dreams: Engaging Kevin Starr’s California. Below is an edited transcript of that conversation between Davis and Sexton, which took place July 6, 2022, in San Diego.

Davis’s criticisms of Starr are astute and penetrating, but they are greatly outweighed in this conversation by his admiration for Starr as a scholar and a person. Reflecting on an exchange with Starr’s wife Sheila after his death, he said, “She told me after he died that Kevin loved me, and I was incredibly touched by that. But it’s hard to pin Kevin down.” Just shy of four months before his own death, Davis thanked Sexton for the opportunity to talk about his friend, saying, “We’ll never see the likes of him again.”

Ifirst met Kevin Starr when somebody set up a debate between the two of us at a Westside public affairs forum. I went in ready to be critical, but he was so disarmingly charming, so generous — there’s just no way I could debate him in a hostile way. It was confusing to me because I had this image of Kevin as a kind of spokesman for elite genealogy, but we never really dueled. Kevin agreed with so much of what I had to say, and I found too much of what he had to say challenging and fascinating. Besides, there’s nothing I hold in higher esteem than a great storyteller. When I was at another event at USC with Kevin, Mike “the Poet” Sonksen, who was a student of mine at UCLA, got up out of the audience and recited a poem about Kevin and me. And Kevin got up and shot right back at him with an even better rap. Kevin the rapper — a tour de force. I loved that.

On the matter of why Kevin never really addresses the ’60s and the ’70s, I think his silence was similar to Joan Didion’s revulsion. Los Angeles literally made her sick, and so she had to leave. I have a very different perspective on that period, having been a political activist in LA during those years. But I think I also don’t understand Kevin’s whole biography, because the Kevin in his heyday that Peter Richardson writes about, who wrote for the Hearst paper The Examiner, is not the Kevin I knew. Amid the bigotry, including spats over cultural values with San Francisco politicians like Harvey Milk in the late ’70s, there’s a big sea change, or perhaps “spiritual change” I think Kevin would prefer. It doesn’t grow out of his view of the ’60s, I think; it has to do with the research that would show up later in the Depression volume. So the more radical but always ecumenical Kevin that I knew corresponded to the writing of that volume and subsequent volumes. This was not just a result of the early progressives, but Kevin had this kind romantic attitude toward the wild boys, even the Communist Party in the ’60s.

Kevin’s methodology and mine are similar in that they’re modular. We’d take an eight- to twelve-thousand-word essay and then compile them together in a book. And certainly there were many things for Kevin to write about in that period, avoiding some of the subjects he found most distasteful. To me the surprising thing is that Kevin wrote nothing on the rise of LA mayor Tom Bradley. I don’t know what Kevin’s relationship to Bradley was later on. But if you want to find the kind of silver lining in this turbulent, sometimes violent period, you could do it through a narrative about the rise and fall and rise again of Tom Bradley. I am not sure why he had this particular aversion to what other people saw as the most heroic period, at least until ’69.

Kevin doesn’t really pick things up until the ’80s in his chronicle of California, leaving out Proposition 13 and issues that led to it. He does know that race is the American dilemma, and I think beginning with Americans and the California Dream, 1850-1915, race is present, and genocide is present. I never saw Kevin as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde because by the time I had met Kevin I think you’d have to describe him as a solid liberal. You can see this in his embrace of California’s progressive history.

There are two things, however, that are missing in Kevin’s opus. One is if you take Kevin as a kind of French Annales school historian, the deep geography is missing. Of course he talks about water, and of course he talks about subregionalism in the state. But the kind of hard natural-history framework is missing. The other thing that’s missing is economic history. He writes a lot about the economy, but for instance in the nineteenth century what made California distinctive was Montgomery Street. This was the only independent pool of capital west of the Mississippi River, west of Chicago. And this is such a vital thing in California’s nineteenth- and early twentieth-century history — the banks, finance, and the great banking empires.LA is just a branch of San Francisco until the twentieth century, when it becomes a kind of colony of Chicago.

I’m giving away a lot of books, and unfortunately that included all of my Kevin volumes. I don’t recall what he says about people like Harris Newmark or later [Amadeo] Giannini, who I’m sure is in there in some way. But banking and finance are missing, and it’s all important. LA was just a cow town totally dependent on investment, and it didn’t work — recycling, for instance, Comstock fortunes by the Flood family, the Irvines, the Lankershims, etc. in the 1860s. LA is just a branch of San Francisco until the twentieth century, when it becomes a kind of colony of Chicago. For instance, LA has the second scientifically designed industrial district in the country — the first was in Chicago. Chicago investors built a duplicate here, and that’s where you get people like the Wrigleys and so on.

It is in a way totally unfair to level against Kevin the charge that he didn’t do everything. Who can? Still, in Kevin’s own spirit of handing the mantle down to younger historians, these two things are important. A kind of deep environmental history is so necessary with San Diego, for instance. Why was San Diego such a backwater? Two reasons. There was no real route east of here. When [John D.] Spreckels finished the first railroad, it had to dip down into Baja, California. But even more importantly, there’s very little water. LA floats on water. The fundamental geographical fact is that condition, how interurban competition would take place. As for the economic/financial industry: Where did capital come from? Who had capital to dispose? In that sense, San Francisco was a colossus compared to Southern California taken as a whole.

But these are not so much criticisms. I think Kevin would say, “Yeah, you’re right Mike.” He celebrated and was enthusiastic about all the historical work being done by the gang around Bill Deverell at USC. I would say that probably more quality work on LA has come out of the [California] State University campuses than UCLA, for instance. That was the sort of critical school with Deverell, but black studies and Chicano studies among others have kind of moved back around to narrative and what Kevin was doing, which is, to me, a major point.

Kevin looks like simply a great storyteller, in traditional narrative history. But if you were to examine his work epistemologically, it’s far more sophisticated than that. He writes so much about how imagined environments and history were transformed into material facts that became part of a subsequent history. It’s a pretty sophisticated idea with a lot of implications. One of the ideas that I stole wholeheartedly from Kevin when I wrote City of Quartz is that there’s a lot more there.

Of course, he was philosophically well trained. You can’t go through sixteen years of Catholic and Jesuit education without being so. Kevin always considered me a lapsed Catholic. I studied at the University of Edinburgh for a while under the Irish historian Owen Dudley Edwards (not exactly an Irish name), and upon the minute I met him he said, “You’re a lapsed Catholic.” And I said, “No, I’m not. I have the same attitude toward the Church that Robespierre did.” And he said, “Then you’re really a typical lapsed Catholic.” And of course, that was the category that Kevin put me in.

One of the things Kevin did that I always found astonishing was his constant attempt to make connections between people who, if not enemies, were people you wouldn’t expect to be invited to the same dinner table. He even asked me one time, “Why don’t you come to Bohemian Grove with me?” I said, “What, to pee on Redwoods and run around in togas with George Shultz and so on?” He said, “No, you’ll find it utterly fascinating.” So I toyed with that, but then he told me, “You can’t write about it. You can’t document it in any way.” Which gave me an excuse not to go. I’m kind of notorious in that way. I got invited to the Vatican, but I didn’t go. To the consternation of all my far-left-wing friends, I got invited to the Naval War College to speak, and I didn’t go. I’m kind of bashful about rubbing shoulders with some people, even if the individuals turn out to be fascinating people with far different views than you’d stereotypically attribute to them. But this was just wild. Of course, I imagine myself going around with my spy camera at the Bohemia Club, unraveling the mysteries of California’s rulers. But it was typical of Kevin, the reconciliatory kind of vision.

He also had this thing, like Tom Hayden, of really accentuating Irishness. He had this kind of Irish gang, as many people know, that included figures like Robert McGuire — a self-identified Irish group that would meet in the Pacific Dining Car or wherever they all hung out. I was somewhat included on the periphery of this, which isn’t so strange in a way because my two older children are Irish citizens. I lived in Belfast during the Troubles for about a year and a half. But I always found it kind of amusing, because I grew up Irish Catholic in a town where everyone was a Southern Baptist, Mormon, or some form of Pentecostal. I was always fascinated by Irish Americans who came from real Irish-American backgrounds: those with grandfathers who ran bars on 42nd Street. I always found that interesting, and I have a green shirt that has “Unrepentant Irish Bastard” written on it that I put on for special occasions. My ethnic identification extends to stuff that I never heard Kevin talk about, the Troubles in Northern Ireland. He may have talked about it all the time, but I was never witness to it. And I never brought it up.

The frequency with which the adjective “baroque” is attached to Kevin is amusing, but in some ways appropriate. It’s not at all hard to see Kevin as a baroque pope. And he was progressive without, as far as I know, ever writing about, say, liberation theology. I never quite understood the religious stuff until Kevin died and I talked to his wife Sheila about how he had this high mass and how important that was to him. But I also saw Kevin somewhat through the eyes of my mother, who’s a Ryan and Mulligan. The most fundamental, primordial distinction she made was between the shanty Irish and the lace curtain Irish. My mother definitely hated the lace curtain Irish — she hated Jackie Kennedy. I’ll never forget: my mother comes in, I’m at my folks’ house in the ’70s and she says, “Could anything be more disgraceful?” I said, “What’s that?” “Onassis gives her $20,000 a year just to spend on lingerie,” my mother says, “Can you imagine that? $20,000 a year for undies and people are starving all over the world?”

When I first met Kevin, I thought he was most likely a son of privilege; in fact, he was shanty Irish to the core. Tom Reifer, who writes a chapter coauthored with Cid Martinez in this volume — I was struck by how similar of a background he has to Kevin, going through a series of orphanages and foster homes. Tom spent a lot of time on the street and had a really tough upbringing. But it was a revelation for me to discover Kevin’s background.

On the matter of whether Kevin told an accurate story of California, I think his story changed over time. Kevin evolved like any serious historian or writer would through writing and research, always in constant dialogue with Sheila. She told me after he died that Kevin loved me, and I was incredibly touched by that. But it’s hard to pin Kevin down. There’s certainly a huge contrast between the Kevin I met at the end of the ’80s and ’90s the Kevin of the ’70s whom Richardson writes about, which I thought was being a bit of a big-game hunter in that piece in this volume, and not seeing personal transformation, or the evolution of ideas. Richardson interprets Kevin as a reactionary, part of the elite, which seems to have been his aspiration at one time.

But the Kevin I remember above all is the librarian — the state librarian. Quite frankly, most historians and academics take librarians more or less for granted. Sure, you’ll put them in your acknowledgements, or mentions, or something. But they don’t understand, I think, what the real vocation of a librarian is. As a librarian, or as Kevin would put it, a “civil servant” — he was very proud of that term — he was a fighter for the public sphere and believed in public works. Basically, he saw the capacity of the public sphere for doing good.

It’s funny that I never talked to Kevin about [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt, but I assume he had some exposure to FDR. In my case my dad was a founding member of his meat cutters’ local — he was more trade union than he was a Democrat; but of course, he adored FDR. I understand that Kevin had admired one of FDR’s advisors, Father John Ryan, who was definitely a working-class hero. And considering this was the period of Father Coughlin, Ryan really was a progressive figure. It’s always confused me, because I didn’t know Kevin well enough to pull together all the different facets of Kevin, and how he squared his Catholic education with a lot of his beliefs. Now, of course, when you think of Jesuits you think of Greg Boyle and so on, and Jesuits being killed by juntas in Latin America. But in Kevin’s day, that wouldn’t be true. There were German Jesuits who ran the ratline, helping Nazis escape.

I left the Church on my own when I was about twelve because I was totally enthralled with science. I became an atheist without much external influence. Later on, I developed a great interest in religion, beginning with Pentecostals. I used to tell people if they asked, “What was the single most important event in twentieth century Los Angeles?” It would have to be Azusa Street. New religion among extremely poor Italian immigrants, Black people, Mexican track laborers, and so on. I would have loved to talk to Kevin more about that. But then, we’d all love to have another hundred hours with him.

He would often say that I called him a Whig, but I don’t think he is one. But does he practice a kind of Whiggish history? The answer has to be “Yeah,” but qualified by the fact that he also can see the darkness and is always fighting against the darkness of history, whereas I find so much of the truth of history precisely in that darkness. I’m notorious for saying hope is not a scientific term — people find it out of love and anger, not because of some promise that history will pay them.

For Kevin’s final volumes, he turned attention to the Catholic Church, and was deeply affected by its scandals. For working-class Catholics in many parts of the world, the scandals that rocked the Church have been an utter catastrophe. I see that most in the case of Ireland. I remember riding to the airport one time while there, and I started talking to the taxi driver about this. The guy said, “Do you mind if I pull off the road for two minutes?” He just started weeping. He said it just tore his heart out, and that we’re all guilty in a way because we all kind of knew on the margins of our consciousness that this stuff went on.Hope is not a scientific term — people find it out of love and anger, not because of some promise that history will pay them.

I never talked to Kevin as far as I can recall about any of this and how he experienced it. His writing is autobiographical, and his interviews and his writings don’t sound much like the Church, or at least the Irish Church — most of my friends in Ireland, my generation, were educated by the Christian Brothers. They knew the strap and they knew beatings from elementary school. Kevin’s got very nostalgic portraits of his Catholic school education.

I’ve actually always been jealous of Kevin, because more than anything in the world I always wanted to live in the Bay Area, in San Francisco. I never managed to do it. I felt deeply alienated growing up here in San Diego. I think it’s obvious from his biography that he had a tremendous amount of anger around his experience growing up rejected, unwanted by his mother and father, and in San Francisco, in the shadow of the wealthy and all.

One of the people I’ve always admired most is Greg Boyle. He was the only person in the city to get up and say that the issue here is jobs. “Give me one job, I’ll take one gang member and turn them into a member of the working class,” he said, at a time when the archdiocese couldn’t really care less. But Kevin had a far different vision of working men and women, of working hand in hand with one another in order to respect one another and build anew, with protections we had for workers when unions were strong in this country.

I’d like to also point out in kind of a summary that Kevin really believed people can be changed by dialogue with people who have different or opposing views. That’s why he was always trying to connect people from different backgrounds. I’m not sure if that was Hegelian or Roycean idealism; I don’t think scholastics would call themselves Hegelians. One of my closest friends in Ireland — with a PhD in scholastic philosophy at Queen’s in Belfast, from a tough working-class background — we used to fight all night long about these questions, Hegel and Marx versus the scholastics, but this is an area of ignorance for me. Obviously I’m aware of Josiah Royce’s influence on Kevin, but on his ideas I don’t have much of a clue. I know that somewhere Kevin says that Royce was the biggest single influence on him. He talks about Royce and Carey McWilliams as being two major influences, but actually Royce is the more important one.

Kevin’s desire to bring people together he saw as something of a hopeful act, or the struggle for corrective action he would talk about. Kevin also believed in the inherent goodness of people, some who might be deemed inherently evil. Actually the theologians that I’ve read, some of the Russians, left me fascinated with the concept of the apocalypse not as universal destruction and disorder, but as the emergence of the truth of history at the end of time. History is, then, experienced basically by the wretched of the earth, and by persecuted minorities. That made me a big fan of Ernst Bloch, and the whole messianic strand of Jewish Marxism.

I’m very touched to be given this opportunity to share my thoughts about Kevin. We’ll never see the likes of him again.

CONTRIBUTORS
Mike Davis is the author of several books, including Planet of Slums and City of Quartz.


Trump issues sinister threat to 'root out' leftists if elected in 2024


Jake Johnson, Common Dreams
November 13, 2023 

Former U.S. President Donald Trump pledged during a Veterans Day speech on Saturday to "root out" those he described as "radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" if he's elected in 2024, an openly fascistic threat that drew comparisons to Nazi rhetoric.

"We are a failing nation. We are a nation in serious decline," Trump, the current Republican presidential frontrunner, told the crowd gathered in Claremont, New Hampshire. "2024 is our final battle."

The former president vowed to target communists and Marxists—ideological groups that he described as "radical left lunatics"—and "rout the fake news media until they become real."

"The real threat is not from the radical right. The real threat is from the radical left, and it's growing every day—every single day," Trump claimed. "The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within."

David DeWitt, editor-in-chief of the Ohio Capital Journal, characterized Trump's remarks as "rhetoric literally out of the Nazi playbook" and joined others in criticizing The New York Times for initially headlining its coverage of the speech, "Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction."

The former president also said Saturday that his administration would launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," institute "strong and ideological screenings for all immigrants," revive the Muslim ban, further slash taxes, gut regulations, and prioritize the approval of fossil fuel pipelines.

Trump's speech heightened alarm over his authoritarian intentions should he win another term in the White House four years after attempting to overturn the election that removed him from power. The former president is currently facing more than 90 felony charges, many of them stemming from his election subversion efforts and the January 6, 2021 insurrection that he provoked.

The Washington Postreported earlier this month that Trump and his allies "have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations."

"In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to 'go after' President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence," the Post noted. "To facilitate Trump's ability to direct Justice Department actions, his associates have been drafting plans to dispense with 50 years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas dangerous and unconstitutional."

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch argued the scheme "would be, in essence, the military coup that [Trump] wasn't quite able to pull off on January 6, 2021."

Pointing to a recent survey that showed Trump leading incumbent President Joe Biden—who is running for reelection—in key battleground states, Bunch warned that "America is on the brink of installing a strongman in the White Housewhose team has been surprisingly open about their plans for an autocratic, 'Red Caesar' rule that would undo constitutional governance."

In response to Trump's threat to "root out" leftists, Bunch wrote
on social media, "Looks like someone picked up the book of Hitler speeches on his nightstand recently."



RAT BAIT

It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk
NOT JUST ANY VERMIN BUT LEFT WING VERMIN
He’s telling us what he will do to his political enemies if he’s president again. Is anyone listening?

JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Trump spoke at a rally in Claremont, New Hampshire, on Saturday



We’ve all often wondered whether Donald Trump understands the historical import of what comes out of his mouth. He’s so ill-informed, so proudly ignorant, that it’s easy to think that when he hurls a historical insult, he just doesn’t know.

I feel pretty safe in saying that we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt. His use—twice; once on social media, and then repeated in a speech—of the word “vermin” to describe his political enemies cannot be an accident. That’s an unusual word choice. It’s not a smear that one just grabs out of the air. And it appears in history chiefly in one context, and one context only.

Before we get to that, let’s just record what he wrote and said. On Saturday at 10:25 a.m., he posted on Truth Social: “In honor of our great Veterans on Veteran’s Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American dream.” Then, at a rally in New Hampshire later that day, he repeated those words essentially verbatim—promising to “root out ... the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”—and then doubled down on it: “The real threat is not from the radical right, the real threat is from the radical left, and it’s growing every day, every single day. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

This is straight-up Nazi talk, in a way he’s never done quite before. To announce that the real enemy is domestic and then to speak of that enemy in subhuman terms is Fascism 101. Especially that particular word.

Art Spiegelman, the Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Maus and Maus II, the graphic novels in which he drew Jews as mice and their Nazi captors as menacing cats, explained some years ago to The New York Review of Books how he hit upon the idea:

I began to read what I could about the Nazi genocide, which really was very easy because there was actually rather little available in English. The most shockingly relevant anti-Semitic work I found was The Eternal Jew, a 1940 German “documentary” that portrayed Jews in a ghetto swarming in tight quarters, bearded caftaned creatures, and then a cut to Jews as mice—or rather rats—swarming in a sewer, with a title card that said “Jews are the rats” or the “vermin of mankind.” This made it clear to me that this dehumanization was at the very heart of the killing project. In fact, Zyklon B, the gas used in Auschwitz and elsewhere as the killing agent, was a pesticide manufactured to kill vermin—like fleas and roaches.

If you feel that you need additional backup, just go to Google Images and type in “Jewish vermin.” You’ll get the picture in a hurry. Here’s one cartoon from an Austrian newspaper in 1939 depicting Jewish refugees as scurrying rats. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of such images.

Trump, let us clarify, does not mean Jews. He means some Jews—the ones who aren’t for him, which come to think of it is most Jews. And by the way, to drop that rhetorical bomb at this time, when antisemitism is raging across the country because of what’s happening in the Middle East, is especially outrageous. But Trump’s vermin are not a racial category. No, Trump’s rats are a much broader category, and in that sense an even more dangerous one—he means whoever manages to offend him while exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to register dissent and to criticize him.

And no, he’s not going to be throwing anybody in a gas chamber. But that’s a pretty low bar for un-American behavior; that is, fascism was not so bad until it started exterminating people? The Nazis did a lot of things from 1933 to 1941 (when the Final Solution commenced) that would shock Americans today, and Trump and his followers are capable of every one of them: shutting down critical voices in the press; banning books, and even burning some, just to drive the point home; banning opposition organizations or even parties; making political arrests of opponents without telling them the charges; purging university faculties; doing the same with the civil service… If you doubt that President Trump and the Republican Party are capable of all these things and several more, you need to read some history pronto.

Apparently many Americans need to. I woke up Sunday to a Latino man telling CNN for a story about Trump gaining among Latinos that well, under Trump, we didn’t have all this inflation. Which is true as far as it goes. The inflation wasn’t Joe Biden’s fault, but of course Biden and the Democrats can’t say that true thing because it sounds like excuse-making. And one can’t blame this man, who I assume is working hard to feed his children, for thinking this way.

But dear God. Can’t we get people to think about fascism, and what Trump would do to this country? Trump invoked “vermin” on the very day that The New York Times broke yet another harrowing story about his second term plans, this time having to do with immigration. “He plans,” the Times reported, “to scour the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport people by the millions per year.” And he wants to build huge—yes—detention camps. There’s much more. And all of this, by the way, appears to have been fed to the paper by his own people, who are obviously proud of it. They want America to know. And just before this, remember, Trump told Univision that he would use the Justice Department and the FBI to go after his political enemies.

They are telling us in broad daylight that they want to rape the Constitution. And now Trump has told us explicitly that he will use Nazi rhetoric to stoke the hatred and fear that will make this rape seem, to some, a necessary cleansing. We may not get every voter to care about this. But for those of us who do care, this is what the election is about, and nothing else, and history is screaming at us to convince as many people as we can.

Michael Tomasky @mtomasky
Michael Tomasky is the editor of The New Republic.




Climatewatch: Can the market get us to net zero?

Statue of Adam Smith in Edinburgh. Image: Shutterstock

Marco Magrini considers the limits of market forces to tackle climate change

Homo economicus, as we were dubbed by Adam Smith, the father of economics, can be an amazing species. As the canny Scottish Enlightenment thinker predicted, it seems that people can, en masse, adopt new, radical technologies when they’re sufficiently mature, whenever it benefits them. It happened in a snap with the internet, not to mention the smartphone. It may be happening again with clean-energy technologies.

In the first half of 2023, ‘investment in renewable energy skyrocketed to US$358 billion’, according to BloombergNEF’s latest report. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that, in 2023, global renewable capacity will grow by more than 440 gigawatts, the biggest increase ever, mostly thanks to solar investments (and to China). As incredible as it may sound, next year, the manufacturing capacity for photovoltaics production is expected to more than double to one terawatt (1,000 gigawatts).

The recent swift adoption of electric vehicles has also been astounding. Less than five per cent of all new cars sold were electric in 2020, rising to around nine per cent in 2021 and 14 per cent in 2022. This year, EVs are projected to reach a 19 per cent market share. In the first half of 2023, the Tesla Model Y was the top-selling car worldwide, thus beating every petrol-fuelled vehicle. ‘The global automotive market is firm in the Electric Disruption Zone,’ reads the CleanTechnica website with some fanfare.

Is H. economicus’s innate rationality going to steer our society towards the safe haven of decarbonisation? Unfortunately, the answer is no – its rationality is, by definition, marred by selfishness. As Smith put it in The Wealth of Nations: ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’

Solar photovoltaics, electric vehicles and lighting (more than half of residential lights are now low-consumption LEDs) are the only innovations, among the more than 50 monitored by the IEA, that are considered ‘on track’ towards the global goal of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. All of the remaining ones are not.

The majority of the IEA’s indicators are listed in the ‘more efforts needed’ category, including energy efficiency, electrification level and renewables adoption in general, but also hydrogen, wind and nuclear, heating and cooling, energy storage and smart grids. The IEA also laments an insufficient pace of innovation.

The several items ‘not on track’ comprise coal usage, methane abatement from oil and gas operations, and gas flaring. Aviation and shipping are still far from their emissions goals, as are all heavy-emitting industries (aluminum, cement, chemicals, steel and paper). The still unproven carbon capture technology, long promoted by the fossil fuel industry as a dramatic solution, is probably off track entirely.

As a matter of fact, French consultancy Capgemini has outright excluded carbon capture from its own list of ‘technology quests’ that are needed to reach the fabled net-zero target. The list is a very detailed inventory of breakthroughs required to decarbonise Europe’s economy, including (unlike the IEA’s tracker) agriculture and land use (together responsible for more than 18 per cent of global emissions). From building a trans-Mediterranean electric grid powered by concentrating solar energy to retrofitting existing shipping vessels with ammonia-fuel-cell propulsion engines, Capgemini’s 55 quests give a clear idea of the magnitude of the tasks ahead.

Yet ‘progress is occurring faster in those parts of the energy system for which clean technologies are already available and costs are falling quickly’, the IEA reckons in its tracking report. In other words, H. economicus’s instincts aren’t sufficient to avert the climate and environmental crisis; the old idea that market forces could do it has proven to be a fallacy. Maybe a global tax on carbon emissions could have succeeded, but it was irrationally ruled out by many states.

Among the ‘not on track’ flags, the IEA also lists ‘behavioural changes’. In this case, the agency talks about energy usage, but it’s more than likely to be a general rule: nobody is keen on changing their status quo – neither people, nor nations.


We should also remember that Smith was no blind free-market zealot. He realised that his H. economicus needed interventionist government to guarantee the wealth of our nations


To Avoid a Dystopian Climate Future, We Must First Envision the World We Want

When we envision a sustainable future, we can show people that there is something worth fighting for, not just against.
November 12, 2023


As a climate activist struggling against slow-moving policies, influential Big Oil companies and public apathy, I’m mostly focused on stopping a future I don’t want. I fear a future where fossil fuels aren’t phased out in time, leading to ecological destruction and the destabilization of society due to climate change.

Yet, I find that pinpointing the future we do want is often much more difficult in the climate movement. Imagining this hopeful climate future is an essential practice because it helps sustain our movements, informs our advocacy and inspires action.

It’s pretty easy to imagine a world where we don’t intervene in the climate crisis in time. The narrative surrounding our climate and the future is overwhelmingly dystopian. Look no further than a long list of dystopian movies, shows, art and books set in a near-future ecological wasteland. These media tropes are popular and are shown in box office hits like Interstellar, Blade Runner and shows like “The 100.” Many of us are experiencing a glimpse of a terrifying dystopia as we witness the devastation of intensifying natural disasters and pollution. Many people believe we’re already doomed. Within this mindset, the climate movement is challenged in creating counternarratives to this doom-and-gloom expectation.

Established systems of oppression are skilled at making the current state of affairs seem inevitable. The climate crisis is no exception. The overproduction and overconsumption driving the climate crisis is often explained as “the selfishness of human nature,” or an inevitable cost of “population growth.” But this overlooks the fact that humans have been around for millions of years and have lived relatively sustainable lives. It’s only in the last few centuries that overconsumption of resources, including fossil fuels, has caused such extraordinary ecological degradation. These short-sighted explanations often stifle climate action and create a sense of hopelessness. To break out of this limited vision, climate activists must tap into collective imagination.

RELATED STORY
“Our survival is at stake,” says author and organizer Andrea Ritchie.
October 26, 2023

Embracing imagination in activism is often framed as wishful thinking. But radical imagination is a fundamental part of working toward a vision of the future for all social movements, from racial justice to decolonial movements. Imagination, world-building, dreams and utopias are used by various talented social activists who encourage us to envision a different world. Climate activists shouldn’t shy away from this.

I witnessed the power of imagination a few weeks ago when I was invited to an art exhibit focused on climate futures. This was during the tail end of one of the hottest summers in recent history, filled with natural disasters and reports of a perilous future if we don’t stop the climate crisis. The exhibit was a sharp contrast to this harsh reality. It was curated by talented climate scientists and author Ayana Elizabeth Johnson. It pulled together various Black artists and encouraged them to use different mediums to explore a sustainable and just future for their communities.

Established systems of oppression are skilled at making the current state of affairs seem inevitable. The climate crisis is no exception.

While walking through the gallery, I saw images of Black young people in a not-so-distant future enjoying a lush urban landscape. The artist Olalekan Jeyifous explores a vision of Brooklyn, New York, filled with joy, beauty and rich engagement with local ecologies in their exhibit, “The Frozen Neighborhoods.” I’d never seen anything like this before. Even though I work on the climate crisis with Black and Brown communities, I rarely have a chance to imagine us in a sustainable future. I’m often bogged down by the latest devastating news of the climate crisis to reflect on the possibility that we could succeed.

At that moment, I could almost taste what I’d been fighting for. I left the exhibit with a renewed sense of enthusiasm and dedication to climate advocacy. Climate advocacy is often thankless work. Having an opportunity to reflect on an exciting future is a regenerating practice that feeds our desires and renews our faith in this work. I hope to see more spaces where climate leaders work with artists, storytellers, filmmakers and writers to generate a vision of a better and brighter future.

This investment in creating visions of a sustainable future not only empowers climate activists; it’s also for the millions of people who are often discouraged from engaging in climate action. Most people believe that the climate crisis is a problem. But this knowledge can often translate to fear, hopelessness and dread. Climate anxiety is at an all-time high, especially among young people.

I hope to see more spaces where climate leaders work with artists, storytellers, filmmakers and writers to generate a vision of a better and brighter future.

The climate movement is missing an important opportunity to further engage by converting that dread and hopelessness into action and solidarity. People who experience overwhelming climate anxiety already know about the climate crisis and what’s at stake. More messaging about a grim future isn’t stimulating. We need to redirect attention to something more hopeful. By elevating and investing in ideas, images and writing about a bright, diverse and exciting climate future, we can inspire meaningful action and engagement. We must show people that there is something worth fighting for, not just against.

One of my favorite parts of imagining climate futures is that there isn’t just one vision to work toward. Our visions of a climate future should be as numerous and diverse as the many ecologies of the Earth and its people. Though I hope the climate movement invests more time in imagining climate utopias, futures and world-building, I want to push back against the need to create a universal vision.

Instead, I hope that climate spaces uplift a pluriverse of futures that nourish the needs of diverse communities. The climate futures and utopias of the Indigenous people of the Andes will look completely different from those of the communities of the Sahara region. We must embrace this as we explore futures that uplift Indigenous and traditional knowledge, sciences and sustainable practices.

In the wake of so much climate tragedy, a hopeful climate future of possibility is often the last thing on our minds. Nourishing the imagination is often an overlooked practice in climate movements. However, there are signs of change with prominent climate advocates, scientists and communities investing in imagination as a tool for change. As we start to see glimpses of climate dystopia, we remain in desperate need of visions of climate utopia.
Capitalism Isn’t Just Buying and Selling Things. It’s a System of Domination.

Capitalism’s proponents often defend it by pointing to the virtues of markets. But capitalism isn’t defined by the presence of markets — it’s defined by capitalists’ domination of workers.


A factory in India spews smoke as it burns discarded Amazon packaging on Saturday, November 19, 2022. (Prashanth Vishwanathan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)


BYBEN BURGIS
11.12.2023
JACOBIN

The video essay opens with battling citations of environmental activist Greta Thunberg and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. She says, “Capitalism will kill us all.” He says, “Free markets will save us all.” But, the narrator gently suggests, these are both untrustworthy sources. Fortunately, she’s here to break it all down for us.

The video has almost half a million views. The narrator is the German theoretical physicist and gifted science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder. Anyone on the socialist left hoping for Comrade Sabine will be disappointed. Her video is entitled “Capitalism is good. Let me explain.”

It’s an odd choice of subject. Hossenfelder’s popular YouTube channel usually tackles subjects like dark matter, the theoretical possibility of time travel, and whether the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics makes any sense.

As far as I can tell as a layman, she’s doing valuable work in those videos. I’d love it if more scientists found clear ways to communicate and correct misconceptions about their areas of expertise.

But when she turns from debunking bad memes about quantum physics to trying to debunk critics of capitalism, her commitment to rigor flies out the window. She performs reasonableness at several points throughout the video — like when she on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hands the rhetoric of Thunberg and Kennedy — but the quality of the underlying arguments is less Carl Sagan than Jordan Peterson. It’s a compendium of common arguments people make in defense of capitalism when they haven’t taken the time to actually hear out any of the system’s critics.
Fun Fact — Money Existed Long Before Capitalism!

Hossenfelder spends the opening minutes of the video talking about the reasons why using money as a universal medium of exchange is more efficient than using a barter system. But what does this have to do with the video’s stated topic? Money existed throughout thousands of years of feudalism, ancient slave societies, and non-capitalist political-economic systems.

Later in the video, she bolsters her case for capitalism with a dismissive reference to “the nations who still don’t use it, such as North Korea, Cuba, and Laos,” which she tells us aren’t “places you would want to live.” Maybe so, but they’re all places where people use currency — the North Korean won, the Cuban peso, and the Laotian kip — to buy and sell products.

To be fair, Hossenfelder seems to be aware that market transactions have existed before — and, where capitalism has been locally replaced by other systems, after — capitalism. She says that capitalism itself comes about when you add “a person or institution who provides capital to those who want to launch a new business.”Money existed throughout thousands of years of feudalism, ancient slave societies, and non-capitalist political-economic systems.

This is a little warmer, but still quite cold. Hossenfelder seems to have mixed up the narrower category of financiers with the broader concept of a capitalist. Finance capital is certainly an important part of typical capitalist economies. But Hossenfelder’s definition of “capitalist” implies that we wouldn’t be living under capitalism if everyone who owned a business got their starting funds in other ways — for instance, from inheritance, saving up wages, winning high-stakes power games, or robbing banks.

Capitalism’s critics typically distinguish capitalism from other systems, like feudalism and socialism, by talking about what Karl Marx called “relations of production.” The relationship between a feudal lord and a peasant is one production relation, the relationship between a Roman patrician and his slaves is another, and the relationship between capitalists and workers is a third.

The single sentence referencing North Korea, Cuba, and Laos is the only mention in Hossenfelder’s sixteen-minute video of any possible alternative to capitalism. Even more amazing, there’s only one mention of a critic of capitalism other than twenty-year-old Greta Thunberg. And this single sentence is also the only one in the entire video referencing the concept of class.

She says:
Capitalism got a pretty bad rep when Marx claimed that it’s just about grabbing hold of the “means of production” and “exploiting the working class.” Of course, there was an element of truth to his fears, because some things went badly wrong during the industrial revolution, but that’s another story.

The million-plus subscribers to her channel are left in the dark about what either of the quoted phrases actually means. But the implication of what she says here and later in the video is that “exploiting” the working class just means “mistreating” them, and that this was subsequently solved by the regulatory state.

Marx’s actual point is that, under capitalism, there’s a class of people who own the means of production — everything from factories and farms to restaurants and grocery stores — and a much larger class of people who have no realistic way of making a living except renting out their working hours to capitalists. This means that, whether we’re talking about Victorian England or Sweden in 1970s (in many ways the high-water mark of social democratic welfare states in human history so far), there’s still a deep power asymmetry between workers and capitalists.


Regulation, labor unions, and a welfare state can all sand away some of the most horrifying edges of that power asymmetry, but even heavy doses of all three don’t eliminate it. Most of the working population is still forced by what Marx called the “dull compulsion” of economic necessity to spend half their waking hours, most days of the week, following orders from unelected bosses.

“Exploitation” refers to one class’s involuntary extraction of a “surplus” created by another. Under feudalism, Marx pointed out, this extraction happened right out in the open. Serfs might have their own little plot of land they were allowed to work part of the time, but there were designated periods of time in which they were coercively required to farm the lord’s field.

Under capitalism, exploitation is disguised by the legal form of a voluntary agreement between equal parties — what in Capital Marx calls the owner of money and the owner of “labor power” (i.e., the capacity for a certain number of hours of work). At the end of the day, though, workers under capitalism still have no realistic choice except to part with much of what they produce. There’s a portion of the day in which they’re laboring to produce products or services that are equivalent to what were advanced to them as wages, and a portion of the day in which they’re laboring to enrich the boss. So part of the money generated by the activity of workers in Amazon warehouses, for example, goes to paying for Jess Bezos’s spaceship.

Workers can go work for some other capitalist, but the basic shape of the deal will be the same. If they want to have a job and not beg for change on the streets or go on welfare for as long as they can or live in the woods, they have to consent to this arrangement.

Hossenfelder makes a big show of crediting capitalism with spurring scientific innovation. The example she focuses on — the development of medicine — is particularly poorly chosen, given the massive role played by state investment in medical research even in the ultra-capitalist United States.

But the general point that capitalism spurs technological development (what Marx called development of the “forces of production”) is absolutely correct. The opening pages of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto are so much prose poetry on this exact point. Where Marx and Hossenfelder differ is on the question of whether capitalism is the best humanity can do — whether the choice is between capitalism and North Korea — or whether it’s possible for workers and communities to run the means of production collectively and democratically, thereby allowing humanity in general to benefit from the high-tech abundance capitalism has generated.
Capitalism, North Korea, or . . .?

Anyone who’s ever heard of the six-decade-long embargo the United States has imposed on Cuba — which almost every country on the planet annually begs us to lift for humanitarian reasons in United Nations resolutions — or, say, the Vietnam War might have some inkling that not all the problems that beset Cuba and Laos are products of innate flaws in their economic systems.

To put it in terms a scientist should be able to understand, these economic experiments haven’t exactly been allowed to proceed under laboratory conditions. This is true even of the country with the most deeply undesirable political model of the three she lists. The United States bombed North Korea so intensely during the Korean War that some estimates put the casualties at 15 percent of the population.

Part of the money generated by the activity of workers in Amazon warehouses goes to paying for Jess Bezos’s spaceship.

That said, it would be foolish to blame everything that ails these societies — some of which, by the way, I’d much rather live in than others — on external factors. Their systems do have very real flaws. But Hossenfelder is willing to entertain a variety of different forms of capitalism, and throughout her video blames the environmental and other failings of real-life capitalism on capitalism not having been “set up” correctly — with enough regulation, or with sufficiently smart regulations. Why isn’t she similarly willing to consider alternative possible kinds of socialism?

The most obvious objection to the societies she lists, or broadly structurally similar examples like the Soviet Union, is that they were or are politically authoritarian. One of the main values that has inspired socialists over the generations is a desire for more democracy than exists under capitalism. We like democracy so much we want to extend it to the workplace, and to large-scale economic decisions of the kind currently made by wealthy CEOs only accountable to their shareholders. In countries like the USSR, workers had no more institutionalized say in what happened in factories or offices than their counterparts in the capitalist West, and large-scale decisions were made by unelected bureaucrats.

There were also real problems with economic efficiency, particularly with aligning production priorities with fine-grained consumer preferences, that can’t be reduced to the lack of democracy. Even if we added a free press and multiparty elections to the basic structure of the Soviet economy, so that whichever party won each election got to appoint the head of the state planning office, I see little reason to think that would have taken away the day-to-day frustrations of consumers at Soviet grocery stores.

It could be that, at least at this phase of history, we don’t know how to organize an efficient modern economy without some market mechanisms of the kind that the USSR lacked. But that doesn’t mean we need capitalist property relations that disenfranchise most the population at the workplace and create a small elite of capitalists with outsize political power.

Why not have, for example, a system where the “institution” that “provides capital to those who want to launch a new business” is a state-owned bank, and it only provides capital to internally democratic workers collectives? This would still provide market mechanisms where they are needed. Meanwhile, the “commanding heights” of the economy — like energy, finance, and transportation — could be taken into public ownership. Sectors like health care and education could be taken outside of the market altogether and provided as public goods, free at the point of service — as indeed they already are, to one extent or another, in actually existing social democracies.

My friend Mike Beggs has provided some detailed thoughts about the logistics of such a model here. (Full disclosure: I’m cowriting a book with Beggs and Bhaskar Sunkara fleshing out this model.) Someone as smart as Hossenfelder might well have good objections to this model that would give us pause. But for her to make them, she’d have to do something she’s shown no inclination whatsoever to do: she’d have to actually seek out critics of capitalism and ask us what we think.
“But That’s Another Story”

Throughout the video, Hossenfelder waves away concerns about environmental or other externalities with the phrase “that’s another story.” It never seems to occur to her that one of the main motivations for criticisms of capitalism is a considered judgment that it’s all the same story.

In other words, there are at least two reasons to think the long-term horizons of the Left should go beyond reforming capitalism with better regulations or a bigger welfare state to transcending capitalist property relations entirely. One is philosophical: we don’t think it’s fair or reasonable that some people have to rent themselves out to capitalists while other people get to live off the labor of others.

But the other reason is practical. We’ve noticed that where important reforms have been achieved in the past, they’re eroded or even reversed by the efforts of the politically powerful capitalist class. As the Marxist theoretician Rosa Luxemburg once put it, reforms are important, but a workers’ movement whose long-term horizons are limited to reform ends up being like Sisyphus in Greek mythology — perpetually rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down.

That’s bad enough when it comes to reforms that remove entirely avoidable forms of human misery. But it’s potentially catastrophic when it comes to the environmental issues that seem to be among the only problems with capitalism Hossenfelder has noticed. If we don’t take power out of the hands of the capitalists who are letting their unquenchable thirst for profit destroy the planet, our very survival as a species may be at risk.

Ben Burgis is a Jacobin columnist, an adjunct philosophy professor at Rutgers University, and the host of the YouTube show and podcast Give Them An Argument. He’s the author of several books, most recently Christopher Hitchens: What He Got Right, How He Went Wrong, and Why He Still Matters.



The death of the New York Times

D. Earl Stephens
November 12, 2023 

Photo by Stéphan Valentin on Unsplash

After being a loyal reader for the better part of 60 years, I have officially run out of respect for The New York Times.

I have come to the grudging realization that this newspaper is actively playing a part in undermining our Democracy by convening a political horse race, and backing a burnt-orange, reprehensible, racist traitor, and his dirty trainers, who mean our country harm.

I believe they are doing this because they have lost their way and their morals, and have carefully dug out a tributary that flows from the obscene river of cash that is currently poisoning our politics, and runs directly into the bottomless pockets of the broken decision-makers whose fat asses are comfortably stuffed in the chairs of their front offices.

Unrest and instability might be bad for our Democracy, but they are damn good for business at The New York Times.

I take no pride in writing what I believe is this necessary piece.

I have been a steady reader of the “Gray Lady” for most of my life. Growing up in New Jersey, I actually aspired to work at the place as a starry-eyed kid, who pedaled his bike around delivering newspapers after school each day.

That never happened, and mostly by design. It turns out I got far more of a thrill working for smaller, underdog newspapers that stood up for their readers, called power to account, and strived to make a real difference in their communities.

Still, I never lost my respect for The Times — until now.

Their news presentation was boring, gray and haughty, but their writing and editing was second to none, and I had a certain amount of confidence that if there was an important world or national story that needed telling they’d get to it before anybody, and fire it out there for all to see.

In the wake of the terrible blast on November 8, 2016, that blew a hole through America’s decency, it took me no time at all to write in so many words, that it would be professional journalism organizations like The New York Times that would dig deep into Trump’s gory affairs, and begin exposing him for what he was, and always had been.

They would save the day, because that is what good journalism can do when it is done right.

They’d cover his White House like a blanket. When he invariably did completely terrible, anti-American things like defending Vladimir Putin’s attack on America while standing next to the murdering fascist in Helsinki, they’d put a laser focus on it, and make sure everybody in the world understood why that really mattered.

Yes, their treatment of Hillary Clinton’s emails (and the woman herself) leading up to the 2016 Election was a journalistic crime spree, but I still had confidence they would make amends for that malfeasance.

If you are saying to yourself right now that I was a gullible fool, and I was served my just deserts, I am saying that is completely fair.

I still believe I was mostly right, at least for a time, and The Times did start turning around some pretty good stuff that covered the burnt-orange traitor with shame. Just as quickly, however, they resorted to ultra-cheap, both-sides journalism, even when there was nobody even close to the incomparably awful, lying, pussy-grabbing racist and his fawning party on the other side.

And if I never read another 77-column-inch story dedicated to what 11 Trump supporters are saying about anything while inhaling black coffee in a Pennsylvania diner it will be too soon.

What has finally driven my lifelong respect for the paper to an end was yet another poll they conducted with Sienna College that went to print this weekend focusing on six swing states. The poll was accompanied by hundreds and hundreds of column inches devoted to a bunch of ridiculous numbers culled from a sampling of American voters that was so small, the 11 Trump voters at the diner looked more significant and reputable by comparison.

I guess The Times wanted everybody on the face of the Earth to know that according to them Joe Biden was in trouble in these six swing states, and that their burnt-orange steed was snorting hard and closing with a huff on the outside.

We can try to play stupid for a minute and pretend the leadership at The Times had somehow talked itself into believing it was performing some kind of helpful journalism to its readers by producing this bought-and-paid-for bilge, but that just doesn’t add up.

There are too many people there who know full well that a news organization’s job is to report the news, not make it. By devoting three full news cycles to this outlandish slop, the paper made it crystal clear they valued themselves and their bank accounts more than their readers.

Essentially, they told their readers this: “We are glad you are paying us to cover the news, but we just did something we think is important and we are going to spend the next three days patting ourselves on the back and telling you why we’ve come to amazing conclusions that we think are so bloody important. Please make sure you sign your checks before sending them to us. You’re welcome.”

I’m not going to wade too deeply into the results of this poll for reasons I will get to in a second. And frankly, I don’t know how many polls have to be wrong before people stop paying attention to them altogether. Still … I would like to know why Republicans were oversampled by The Times in this particular foray into professional guessing.

The Times has not provided an answer to this question, but it is a fact their minuscule sample size of the American public was predominated by right-leaning voters.

As to polls in general ... To start, they are often ridiculously wrong, as we’ve seen time and time again since, ironically, Trump was somehow elected despite being given a one-in-five chance on Election Day 2016 by these expert pollsters.

More consequentially, depending on their murky results, polls can also present a very dangerous bias and these days are being used mostly by Republicans to suppress the vote. Nobody has more practice in the ghoulish art of voter-suppression than they do.


Let me tell you just one grievous story about how bogus poll results were used to re-elect the vomit-inducing Ron Johnson (another one of Putin’s fast friends, incidentally) in last year’s senatorial race here in Wisconsin, and how the Democratic Party inexplicable and disastrously fell for this ruse.

In the final weeks of the race, polls were released in Wisconsin showing Johnson running 4%-to-7% points ahead of his firebrand of a challenger, Democrat, Mandela Barnes.

These numbers were a bit of stunner because incumbent Democratic Governor Tony Evers was also on the ballot, and was running slightly ahead of his Trump-kissed challenger.

It was also obvious to anybody who was actually covering this campaign, instead of floating poll numbers into the air about it, that it was crystal clear Barnes was closing like a freight train on the fading Johnson.

I was at two of Barnes rallies in the final days of the campaign and the man was drawing huge crowds, and was positively on fire. He was connecting, and I had no doubt in my mind that the race was going to be very close.

Trouble is, the Democratic National Committee got wind of these bad polls for Barnes and pulled the money they had planned to allocate to his campaign during the final week, and instead deployed it to other races they deemed closer and safer around the nation.

Turns out, Johnson prevailed by less than ONE percentage point. It was agonizingly close. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise that if the DNC had stayed with Barnes he would be in Washington right now representing my state in the Senate.

Oh, and Evers won his race in a cakewalk. So much for those polls.

In this case, bad polls actually scared the DNC away. In too many other cases, polls can convince prospective voters that maybe the person they are supporting doesn’t stand a chance. This might cool their support for him or her on Election Day.

I’d guess that both of these things conspired to sink Barnes, which still makes my stomach turn.

But back to this NYT poll, and why what’s left of my hair is on fire.

It turns out that buried deep inside the print editions of their endless, breathtaking coverage of their flimflam poll, was this juicy nugget they had to hope almost nobody would see:

“Polls have often failed to predict results of elections this far out.”

I mean, holy s---.

This isn’t burying the lede, it’s completely obliterating it.

Oh, and on Tuesday? Democrats once again exceeded expectations and those blasted polls in nationwide elections, and won just about every important race on the docket.

Ever since Trump and his Republicans attack on our country and subsequent coup attempt in 2021, I have been calling for The Times and ALL major media companies to establish Democracy Desks in their newsrooms.

Every day — hell, every HOUR — Republicans are doing something to undermine our Democratic Republic here in America, whether it be squashing voting rights, refusing to certify elections, threatening DOJ officials, flat lying about the results of these elections, supporting dictators around the world, banning books detailing our nation’s choppy history, all of the above, and more.

It never ends. There is no bigger overarching story in America right now than Republicans’ surge toward fascism.

WHY isn’t this being given the editorial weight it deserves?

I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again right here: If the Republicans are successful in taking down our Democracy and installing an authoritarian regime in Washington, one of the very first things to go will be our freedom of the press, and THEN where will The Times be?

It is ludicrous that their readers aren’t being educated everyday about what the Republicans have in mind and how devastating it would be to the citizens of this country if they ever got back into the White House.

For one thing, it’s fair to posit there would never be another election again -- at least not one that would be remotely fair.

Ever since the disaster in November, 2016, just enough Americans have risen up and gotten active stamping out the flames of fascism Republicans have so frantically been fanning.

But we could use a little help.

That would start with some first-class journalism and reporting about things as they are. That would start with knocking it the hell off with these stupid polls that predict nothing, and start dealing with our terrifying realties.

That would mean spending the time and resources necessary to really dig in, and actually start reporting only the news that’s fit to print.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. Follow @EarlofEnough
THE TEAMSTERS PICKET AMAZON IN BALTIMORE TO DEMAND COMPANY REHIRE FIRED UNIONIZED DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA


A group of dozens of Teamsters and local community members walk a picket line at sunset outside Amazon's BWI5 warehouse in Baltimore on Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2023. On the corner of the intersection stands a "Fat Cat" blowup doll. 
Photo by Maximillian Alvarez.

Striking Amazon workers from California came to Baltimore to picket the company’s BWI5 warehouse. TRNN was on the ground speaking to strikers and local union and community members who came out to show support for them.

BY MAXIMILLIAN ALVAREZ
NOVEMBER 10, 2023

LONG READ


On the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 8, members of the Teamsters union led a picket line march outside of Amazon’s BWI5 warehouse in Baltimore. Dozens of other union workers and members of the Baltimore community joined the demonstration, which was an extension of the ongoing Unfair Labor Practice strike by unionized Amazon drivers and dispatchers at the DAX8 delivery station in Palmdale, CA. “In April, the 84 workers in Palmdale organized with the Teamsters, becoming the first union of Amazon drivers in the country,” the Teamsters stated in a press release. “As members of Local 396, they bargained a contract with Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner (DSP), Battle-Tested Strategies (BTS). Despite the absolute control it wields over BTS and workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Amazon refuses to recognize and honor the union contract. Instead, Amazon has engaged in dozens of unfair labor practices in violation of federal labor law, including terminating the entire unit of newly organized workers…. The Amazon drivers and dispatchers began their unfair labor practice strike on June 24. They have picketed over 20 Amazon warehouses around the country, including warehouses in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.”

TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez was on the ground at the Amazon picket on Nov. 8 and spoke to: Deion Anthony Steppes, one of the striking Amazon drivers from Palmdale, CA, and a member of Teamsters Local 396; Cristina Duncan Evans, a Baltimore City educator and member of the Baltimore Teachers Union; Taylor Boren, an art teacher for Baltimore Public Schools and a member of the Teachers Association of Baltimore County; and Mike McGuire, a plumber and community member in Baltimore.

Featured Music:
Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song
Studio Production: Maximillian Alvarez
Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

TRANSCRIPT

Protesters: Hey, hey, ho, ho, corporate greed has got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho corporate greed has got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho…

Maximillian Alvarez: Welcome everyone to a special on-the-ground episode of Working People: a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Brought to you in partnership with In These Times magazine and The Real News Network. My name is Maximillian Alvarez and it is about 6:00PM on Wednesday, November 8. I’m currently standing outside of Amazon’s BWI5 warehouse in Baltimore, where workers and organizers with the Teamsters are leading a picket about 20 feet from where I’m currently standing. You could probably hear some of the chants in the background. This picket is an extension of the unfair labor practice strike by unionized Amazon drivers and dispatchers at the DAX8 delivery station in Palmdale, California.

According to the Teamsters in a press release that we will link to in the show notes for this episode, “In April, the 84 workers in Palmdale organized with the Teamsters becoming the first union of Amazon drivers in the country. As members of Local 396, they bargained a contract with Amazon’s delivery service partner, Battle-Tested Strategies. Despite the absolute control it wields over BTS and workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Amazon refuses to recognize and honor the union contract. Instead, Amazon has engaged in dozens of unfair labor practices in violation of federal law, including terminating the entire unit of newly organized workers. The Amazon drivers and dispatchers began their unfair labor practice strike on June 24 of this year. They have picketed over 20 Amazon warehouses around the country, including warehouses in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey.”

So I am here for The Real News Network and Working People to talk to folks about the ongoing fight by Amazon workers to hold this international behemoth accountable for its rampant labor violations and its repeated attempts to thwart efforts by its own workers to exercise their right to organize.

Deion Anthony: Yes. Hello, my name is Deion Anthony Steps, I’m part of the Local 396 Laborers Union and also a current but temporary worker for the Palmdale Amazon facility.

Maximillian Alvarez: Oh yeah. Well man, thank you so much, Deion, for standing here and talking with me. I wanted to ask if you could describe to people listening to this where we are right now, what’s happening 10 feet away from us right now.

Deion Anthony: Currently we are in Baltimore and we are here as an extension for the Palmdale Local 396 and we’re trying to do a practice strike for the labor union. What that entails is showing Amazon that we as workers are fed up with the guidance that they try to give us, and telling us that as we are temporary drivers. And that we do not represent Amazon even though we wear their uniform, drive their trucks, and deliver their packages, while conforming to Amazon safety, without getting any of the benefits or respect that we feel like we deserve. Again, we are temporary workers wearing their uniforms and driving their trucks but we somehow do not represent Amazon, which makes no sense.

Maximillian Alvarez: No, it doesn’t make any sense. But this is how so many of these businesses try to skirt labor laws through contractors and through temp agencies. I was a warehouse temp back in Southern California, where you guys are, 10 years ago. I saw how the sausage was made, I was a product of it, and it fucking sucks. Pardon my French. This has been a sadly under-covered story. Of course, we all know about the historic Amazon Labor Union victory a year ago on Staten Island at the JFK8 Fulfillment Center. We know about the workers in Alabama in Bessemer where I was two years ago when they were in the midst of their own unionization campaign. So those two campaigns have gotten a lot of attention but you guys successfully unionized as well earlier this year and Amazon has also refused to recognize the union and has done even worse than that. So can we talk about that? Tell me more about your struggle; the story that was going on over there in Palmdale. A lot of folks need to hear about it.

Deion Anthony: So what I’d like to tell you is that about six months ago, we as a company decided to join the Labor Union because we felt that we needed to have our voices heard in a way that Amazon should be able to listen to. We believe that all of us who work for Amazon deserve better pay and above all, safety. A lot of us go into very unsafe conditions. We get attacked by dogs. We get hit by the elements such as rain, sleet, and snow, but also heat. We have been in situations where we have had no AC in our vehicles but at the same time, especially to work a 10-hour day, walking, and running most of the time without being provided necessary water.

And there are some of us drivers, and most people have heard of the famous UPS story where someone died of dehydration in the heat, and Amazon treats us even worse. We are not given what we feel is necessary for our safety even though we are trying our best to uphold the safety guidelines that they give us. So the unfair treatment, the low pay, is not where we need it to be. And also because of that, the turnaround rate for Amazon is huge. It’s 150%. Nobody lasts because nobody can deal with the unfair conditions and even though Amazon is making a profit off of us, we’re not giving the respect we deserve. We’re not even considered actual Amazon employees, we are a third party.

Maximillian Alvarez: Right. So you guys technically drive for Battle-Tested Strategies.

Deion Anthony: Exactly, sir.

Maximillian Alvarez: Right, but you effectively work for Amazon, you’re not making deliveries for another company.

Deion Anthony: See, this is how I look at it: If you’re wearing their uniform, if you are driving their truck, if you are obligated to watch their safety videos and follow Amazon guidelines, if you’re talking to customers and telling them hey, we as Amazon representatives are letting you know how this is, and we are delivering their packages, how are we not Amazon employees? It doesn’t make sense in my head. But for you, you try to go through this loophole, as Amazon, a billion-dollar corporation, and trying to screw us over for no apparent reason other than to fill your pockets, shorten ours, and know that, hey, there’s going to be another one of you, and we can hire. So how are we supposed to feed our families? How are we supposed to take care of those that we love? You’re feeding your pockets, we can’t feed our families.

Maximillian Alvarez: Man, that is so powerfully put. And again, it resonates because I was told that every Goddamn day when I was a temp warehouse worker in the City of Industry. I was told how lucky I should consider myself to have that job, how many guys there were every day waiting to take that job if fucked up, how I shouldn’t complain, and all that stuff. They do this all the time. We’re literally about five feet away from a giant inflatable fat cat and that feels pretty on the nose from what –

Deion Anthony: Oh, that’s Bezos. I don’t know if you can –

Maximillian Alvarez: – Oh, I thought that was Jeff himself.

Deion Anthony: – Exactly.

Maximillian Alvarez: I wanted to ask about that too because I know I can’t keep you here for much longer, but could you talk about from your side, what does that work look like? What does a typical day and week look like in the day of the life of you and your coworkers? And why did that translate to you guys feeling like you needed a union?

Deion Anthony: Our typical day starts as we collect our packages in the facility and then are given an allotted amount of time to deliver said packages. And during that allotted time, we have to follow, of course, basic driving regulations such as vehicle compliance, no speeding, no braking, no hitting nobody. We understand those as being the law but what we don’t understand is having to rush through orders because, as you know, Amazon tries its best to deliver as fast as possible. But that’s not Amazon the company, that is us people killing ourselves trying to get you your packages as fast as possible. We understand that is our job and we understand that you deserve to have your packages, but at the same time, we are killing ourselves. We are running in rain, sleet, snow. We are getting attacked by dogs.

I personally was held at gunpoint because of a situation where I was trying my best to deliver a package in a very rural area but unfortunately, I was seen as an intruder. I am a six-foot-four Black man, and I was held at gunpoint saying, what was I doing on their property? I was scared for my life.

Maximillian Alvarez: Jesus man, Jesus. I’m so sorry that happened.

Deion Anthony: I have to say, it’s part of the job. Because of that, I luckily was wearing my Amazon uniform which I’m required to wear, and I was able to get away from that situation. I was able to go back to my vehicle and say, this is your package. I’m here delivering. I am not trying to intrude. I’m trying to do my job and I know you’re trying to protect your family. When I was able to go back, when I was let go from that situation, I stood in my vehicle panicked, my heart racing, knowing that I could have died in that situation. And again, I have to say that is part of the job.

Maximillian Alvarez: Jesus, man. I’m horrified by that. And for Amazon to turn around and say, we’re not going to recognize you and your coworkers for unionizing and trying to improve our working conditions and have better protections for ourselves in these and other cases, it’s despicable. And again, this story itself is despicable because you guys unionized back in April? Tell me what happened then. Tell me what led to this ongoing strike and how it’s developed over the past few months and then we’ll wrap it up.

Deion Anthony: We of the BTS organized to be able to have our voices heard, as I said before. And during that time, we pretty much decided as a group that, hey, we need to get our voices heard. We need to be able to tell others of our story. And we’re able to… Amazon would listen to us if we had a powerful voice, which was the Teamsters, and they decided, we’re going to end your contract right then and there. And that’s when we decided we needed to strike. We need to stand up. This isn’t only for us, this is for everyone who represents Amazon, everybody who feels this is unfair. And as we are in Baltimore right now, there are so many other facilities that are trying their best to strike and get their voices heard.

Maximillian Alvarez: You’re here in Baltimore, and you work in California, so this is like an extension of that strike from coast to coast. And you guys have been going to other parts of the country as well, right?

Deion Anthony: Yes. We have been everywhere from the UK to other parts of the States. I have personally been to Vegas and a lot of my coworkers have been to New York and every such area, doing our best to extend this picket line, to extend this striking force for the unfair labor practices that Amazon gives to us. So as legally as possible, I would like to say I do not hate Amazon. I respect what they’re trying to do, give packages to the common folk, but we as common workers deserve to be treated as human beings. We deserve safety. We deserve fair pay. We deserve not to be replaced by robots in the warehouse facility. We deserve to have job security. And like I said before, you’re feeding your pockets, but we can’t feed our families.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. And Deion, last question, for folks out there listening, what can they do to show support for you and your coworkers? And what can they do to show support for all Amazon workers who are trying to exercise their right to organize in the country right now?

Deion Anthony: Support the Teamsters Union. Go to your local Amazon, file a complaint, saying please help your workers. Please support your drivers. Please support the warehouse workers. All of us are trying to do our best to feed our families and we do our best for you, so please do your best for us.

Male Protester: No justice.

Protesters: No peace.

Male Protester: No justice.

Protesters: No peace.

Male Protester: No justice.

Protesters: No peace.

Male Protester: No justice.

Protesters: No peace.

Male Protester: No justice.

Protesters: No peace.

Cristina Duncan Evans: My name is Cristina Duncan Evans. I’m with the Baltimore Teachers Union and we’re here on the picket lines with the Teamsters fighting against Amazon for higher wages and against retaliation and unfair labor practices.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. Cristina, thank you so much for standing here on the corner outside of this massive Amazon fulfillment center here in Baltimore. I thought it was really, really cool to see you and so many other folks from the community marching with the Teamsters right now, protesting Amazon’s unfair labor practices, its refusal to recognize the unionized Teamsters in California, firing the entire unit, to say nothing of its refusal to bargain a contract with the Amazon Labor Union and its labor violations across the board. I wanted to ask, why as a Baltimore teacher, it was important for you to come out here and be part of this demonstration.

Cristina Duncan Evans: It’s so important because teachers are workers, teachers are members of the union. We know what it’s like to have a boss that takes advantage of you, a boss that retaliates, and so we really wanted to stand with the Amazon workers who are striking. We have family members who work for Amazon, we have students’ families who work for Amazon, and I have former students who work for Amazon. So when I hear that Amazon is doing what they’re doing in terms of how they’re treating their workers, of course, we want to support the workers and fight back against this unfair treatment.

Maximillian Alvarez: I was wondering if you could say a little more about that because that’s a side of the story that people don’t ever talk about much. I see this with my own foster daughter and knowing how many of these young high school students, especially those who are in precarious economic positions, this is where a lot of them are going to come work. How do you deal with that as a teacher when you’re already dealing with… We could talk for days about Baltimore schools, and please tell us how things are going there, but as a teacher, how do you navigate that knowing that places like Amazon are the future for so many of our young people?

Cristina Duncan Evans: It’s really disheartening and honestly somewhat scary. It really started picking up during the pandemic when Amazon was hiring in massive numbers and seeing students, seeing some of my former students who were going to work for Amazon, hearing back from them about the unfair working conditions, the expectations that they were held to, and rules that really made it hard for them to get stability. The distribution plant is in the middle of nowhere, people can’t get transportation to it. I have students who are working at this place and other distribution plants that are outside the city center, they are spending so much of their wages to get here to work.

Maximillian Alvarez: Yeah, this is not an easy place to get to.

Cristina Duncan Evans: It’s not.

Maximillian Alvarez: It took me forever to get here.

Cristina Duncan Evans: And you get trapped in this cycle where you are spending all of your money on childcare, you’re spending all of your money on transportation. Not to mention the cost of living being so high, you’re working and working and working for nothing. And honestly, we want to educate our students for good jobs. We want their families to have good jobs. We want people to have stability in their lives, and Amazon isn’t it.

Maximillian Alvarez: Say it, sister [laughs]. I want to let you go now because we still have a picket line going, as folks can hear in the background. But I wanted to ask how we can make sure that that street goes both ways. What are teachers in Baltimore going through right now and what can working people in the city and beyond do to support you all in this struggle for a better life for all of us?

Cristina Duncan Evans: Well, one of the things we’re dealing with right now is that our school district de-certified our career pathways. And without getting too much into the details of it, basically, they’ve taken a huge amount of stability away from the teaching force in Baltimore, so we’re asking people to pay attention to their educators, and support educators because we want career educators. We want a career in the classroom. We want stability from our employers so that we can focus on students. We don’t want to get a second job. We don’t want to get a summer job. We want to pour all of our energy into developing young people and we want a system that’s stable enough so that we can do that. And right now, we’re not getting that and that’s what we need support from the community for.

Male Protester: Union.

Protesters: Strong.

Male Protester: Union.

Protesters: Strong.

Male Protester: Union.

Protesters: Strong.

Male Protester: Union.

Protesters: Strong.

Male Protester: Union.

Protesters: Strong.

Male Protester: Worker.

Protesters: Power.

Male Protester: Worker.

Protesters: Power.

Male Protester: Worker.

Protesters: Power.

Male Protester: Worker.

Protesters: Power.

Taylor Boren: I’m Taylor Boren. I’m an art teacher for Baltimore County Public Schools and a member of TABCO, the Teachers Association of Baltimore County. I am here tonight because TABCO stands in support of our union brothers and sisters. We are in the midst of a contract campaign to compress our salary scale, to increase our career earnings, among other things, including our working conditions. It’s important that we stand in solidarity with fellow union members and those attempting to unionize.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. It’s so important to see so many folks like yourself who aren’t with the Teamsters, who don’t work with Amazon, but people who are out here literally 20 feet from where we’re standing, blocking traffic from getting into this massive Amazon facility. Do you think that there’s something happening here in the city? Are more folks feeling encouraged to come out to events like this? Or have you been part of these events in the past?

Taylor Boren: I sure hope so. I feel like for me, that more so than staying home or reading a book, this is what self-care looks like: showing up for fellow workers and standing in solidarity with those that need our support. I am excited about the growing labor movement across the country and I hope it keeps growing stronger.

Maximillian Alvarez: And can you say a little more about TABCO for folks who are listening to this? Tell me a bit about your union, the folks in it, and the contract negotiations that you mentioned earlier.

Taylor Boren: Sure. So TABCO is the Teacher’s Association of Baltimore County. We represent all certificated employees in Baltimore County, so not only who you would typically think of as teachers, but also our nurses, school social workers, school psychologists, and more. We are in the midst of our contract campaign. While our contract says that it should be negotiated by November 30, we have never actually negotiated within that deadline. So this is the first year we are pushing to really get our contract negotiated by November 30. That way we have our contract negotiated before the Baltimore County budget is decided. Because if we negotiate a contract after the budget is passed, we’re limited in what we can negotiate.

As I said, we’re working to compress our salary scale, meaning teachers get to their top earnings earlier in their careers. We are negotiating to get more urgent business leave for teachers – Which is personal leave – And we are trying to get pay for more of the things we do that are unpaid, like afterschool events, coverages, and things like that. So we are continuing to wear Red for ED. We’re going to be wearing Red for ED on November 14, the next bargaining session we have with Baltimore County. And we are hoping to get more TAs, Tentative Agreements, on the table then.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. And can I ask, what can folks around the city do to support you all? And what can we all do as working people here in Baltimore to better support our fellow workers, whether they be here at Amazon or teaching in our schools?

Taylor Boren: Awesome question. I would love to see fellow union members and community stakeholders wearing Red for ED with us on November 14 to support a strong contract for educators. Speaking at the Board of Education is powerful. They have public comment slots. They meet two Tuesdays a month. You can show up and speak. Tell them that you support a fair contract for educators, tell them it matters to you. Right now we are also facing a lot of pushback from groups that support book-banning and who oppose BCPS’s current equity policies. So if you can show up and speak up for our students and our educators at board meetings, wear Red for ED on November 14, and send your pictures to TABCO.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah.

Taylor Boren: I wanted to add that it’s also important to me, especially as an educator in this community, that we show up for our students and their families, many of whom are employed here. So fighting for our workers here is a fight for our students and their families and better working conditions and living conditions for them.

Male Protester: What do we want?

Protesters: Justice.

Male Protester: When do we want it?

Protesters: Now.

Male Protester: What do we want?

Protesters: Justice.

Male Protester: When do we want it?

Protesters: Now.

Male Protester: What do we want?

Protesters: Justice?

Male Protester: When do we want it?

Protesters: Now.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Male Protester: If we don’t get it?

Protesters: Shut it down.

Mike McGuire: I’m Mike McGuire. We’re on Holabird Avenue in Southeast Baltimore. I’m a plumber here in town and also do labor and solidarity stuff. I’m a former union member and a former union organizer.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. We concluded this picket out in front of the Amazon warehouse that we’re standing out in front of. You yourself were walking that picket line. I wanted to ask if you could tell listeners a bit about what brought you out. You’re not a member of the Teamsters, you don’t work at Amazon, but why was it important for you to come out and support this?

Working People is a podcast about working-class lives in the 21st century. In every episode, you'll hear interviews with workers from all walks of life. Working People aims to share and celebrate the diverse stories of working-class people, to remind ourselves that our stories matter, and to build a sense of shared struggle and solidarity between workers around the world.


Mike McGuire: I’m out here in solidarity with the Teamsters that are organizing. And one union’s in Amazon. But I’ll tell you what I was thinking about as I was walking the line was Jeff Bezos paying millions of dollars to get a bridge removed and reinstalled so that his mega yacht could make it out of port because they built it so big that it couldn’t fit under the bridge. Then I’m thinking about folks not being able to make it across the warehouse to go to bathroom breaks in the Amazon warehouses and the contrast is going to fucking kill us. There are a lot of ways that we’re building an unsustainable world, and this is one of them. So in as much as I can contribute, I’m going to.

Maximillian Alvarez: And what is your message to other working folks around Baltimore about why they need to come to actions like this? And what we can do as a working class in the city and beyond to better support one another in the fight to stop that horrible inequality that you described?

Mike McGuire: The first thing is to show up and the second thing is to organize. A leader from UNITE HERE, the local here in Baltimore, she just retired. The line that she always gave was, we already know what happens when we don’t organize, so let’s see what can happen when we do organize.

And we’ve got multiple crises that we’re facing in Baltimore and the world. Baltimore is a democratic town, and we have the entire spectrum of politics, gladly not so much as the MAGA right-wing, but we’ve got conservatives and liberals within the Democratic Party in Baltimore. It’s a democratic town, we should be doing a lot more work. We should be doing a lot more organizing. City government should be doing a lot more experimentation around worker power, around… Specifically, something that they would have the power to catalyze more is worker cooperatives in terms of the model of development that we’re pursuing. But that’s about Baltimore. It only happens if there are people that are pushing to make it happen. Elections matter most for us if we show up for them. Protests matter. Organization happens if we show up for it. The most important thing is to show up and then organize and push for a better world.

Maximillian Alvarez: Hell yeah. Mike, on a final note, what would you say to folks around the city and beyond who are listening to this about what they can do to get involved?

Mike McGuire: We, the popular classes in the US, are so disorganized, you can do practically anything; You can join a garden club. You can join a union. The most important thing is to not be quiet and not stay at home.

Our enemy, and this is something… When we talk about elections in the US, we talk about polarization between left and right, but the biggest difference is between those who aren’t paying attention and those who are paying attention. So our biggest enemy are folks that shut themselves down, don’t do anything, don’t pay attention. Even if you’re going to a community garden and you’re building social networks with folks at a community garden or a book club at the library, you’re building those connections and as crises come up, you have people that you know, that you trust, that you know the strengths and weaknesses of, you can go out and do shit. You can hit the streets. You can organize like during COVID, mutual aid networks where you’re providing meals for folks that can’t get out and get their own meals. I say this all the time, but everything contributes. The enemy is staying at home and not doing anything.