Tuesday, July 28, 2026

USA

AOC for President? Will She Run? Could She Win?


Tuesday 28 July 2026, by Dan La Botz



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the former waitress, member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and a New York City congresswoman, now in her fourth two-year term, won a recent poll on Democratic Party candidates for president in the 2028 election. In the New Hampshire poll, she won 22%, while former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg got 21%, astronaut and senator Mark Kelly received 9% and California governor Gavin Newsom had 8%. An ally of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom she accompanied on his “Fighting Oligarchy” national tour, and of Zohran Mamdani, the DSA member who is now mayor of New York City, she has become the standard-bearer of progressives. So now everyone left of center asks: Will she run? Could she win? [1]

The national mood makes such considerations possible. President Donald Trump is losing the war on Iran and doesn’t seem able to win or get out. He is once again imposing tariffs that act as a tax on American consumers. Gas prices are up again. Food is costly. Homes remain expensive. Trump’s popularity is at an all-time low. Even his base is turning against him. The Republican Party could lose the midterm elections this November and there is fear Trump might attempt to steal them, even launch a coup.

Yet the Democratic Party’s popularity is about the same as Trump’s. Democrats and independents are uninspired by Democratic Party leaders like House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who seem to have no new ideas and no fighting spirit. Most Americans seem to be increasingly alienated from the parties, from the establishment, and from the whole political system. Yet, DSA candidates have been winning elections and gaining some power in the Democratic Party. It is this that makes an AOC campaign seem both attractive and plausible.

Yet an AOC presidential campaign would be difficult. Even many of her supporters think that she should run first for the Senate seat now held by Schumer. DSA itself is divided on AOC. While New York City DSA supports her, national DSA withdrew its endorsement of her in July 2024, believing she was insufficiently pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, but if that was true in the past, it is not now. She is strongly pro-Palestinian, calls the Israeli war on Gaza genocide, and opposes military aid to Israel. Still the division in DSA itself is less important than other factors.

The Democratic Party leadership, which acted forcefully to quash Sanders’ presidential bid, loathes the party’s progressives and socialists and would surely use its power to try to crush AOC. Whether or not they could is an open question.

AOC is a woman and the United States has never elected a woman to the presidency, despite several strong candidates in the past. And she would have to overcome a strong anti-Latino prejudice whipped up by Trump and his followers. While AOC was born in the United States, and while all people from Puerto Rico, a U.S. colony, have been U.S. citizens since 1917, given the long history of U.S. racism and xenophobia and the recent growth of white Christian nationalism, she would still face a barrier of racial animus. AOC has experienced harassment, vandalism, and death threats from both right and left.

Things in America are changing. A poll last year found 37% of Americans are favorable to socialism, while among young people the figure is about 60%. Still, a socialist for president would be a big leap.

AOC has not yet said whether she will run for senator or president. She says this, “They assume that my ambition is a title or a seat. And my ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country." She added, "Presidents come and go... but single-payer healthcare is forever, a living wage is forever, workers’ rights are forever.”

26 July 2026

Footnotes

[1] Photo: By Franmarie Metzler; U.S. House Office of Photography - https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/aboutarchive copy at the Wayback Machine, Public Domain, 

 

Source: Jacobin

The American right has spent much of the last week melting down about the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)’s “Workers Deserve More” platform. Many of the elements of that platform that have predictably provoked the Right’s ire are ones you might expect. The “Workers Deserve More” document calls for bringing the largest corporations under public ownership, for example, and it’s only to be expected that conservative anti-socialists would be scandalized by that.

What might be less predictable is that, in a platform overflowing with ideas that socialists would be expected to like and conservatives would be expected to hate, the particular idea conservatives have picked out for special opprobrium is DSA’s call to abolish the Senate.

When Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sunkara recently appeared on Fox News, for example, he was confronted with what was presented as the extreme radicalism of the proposal. Sunkara’s response was simple: “I’m against the Senate. I think the Senate’s an undemocratic body.”

Many people who are far from radical socialists have noted the same thing and been bothered by it. Even one of the Constitution’s framers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in the Federalist Papers, “Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York.” Hamilton and his colleague James Madison (who shared Hamilton’s initial opposition) eventually made a pragmatic decision to accept an unrepresentative Senate as part of a compromise to overcome opposition to the new constitution, but their initial instinct was the same one that Sunkara expressed on Fox.

Nevertheless, the GOP and its media allies reacted as if Sunkara and the DSA were advocating the mass execution of puppies. The Republican National Committee’s research social media account blasted out the clip with just the bare description “former DSA Vice Chair Bhaskar Sunkara supports abolishing the Senate” and a quote from Sunkara, apparently feeling that the sentiment is sufficiently self-damning to require no further commentary from them. Others haven’t been as reserved. Writing at the conservative website Townhall, Julia Cassidy describes DSA as “communists” who have “proudly announced their plans to completely abolish the pillars of America, starting with the Senate,” and demands that the democratic socialist movement be “trampled” before this dastardly proposal comes to pass.

The far-right Geller Report went the furthest: “Abolishing the Senate will destroy America as we know it. But that’s the idea. The Democratic Socialists of America need to be designated as an anti-American hate group. DSA candidates being elected to political office is a national security threat.”

Oddly enough, though, few of these commentators seem to feel any need to explain why the Senate is such an important “pillar of America” or how its abolition would “destroy America as we know it.”

Some note that it would be very hard to abolish the Senate, since it would require a constitutional amendment if not a new constitutional convention. But something being very hard to accomplish tells us nothing in itself about whether it would be good or bad if it did come to pass.

And it’s hard to see how abolishing a powerful institution that assigns representatives in such a wildly unrepresentative way wouldn’t add up to a tremendous deepening of American democracy. Indeed, as the Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait (hardly a friend of DSA in particular or socialists in general) puts it, the Senate’s abolition, “unlikely though it might be, would rank among the great democratic advances in American history.”

The most honest critics of the proposal haven’t tried to argue that abolishing the Senate would somehow make our system less rather than more democratic. Instead, they’ve suggested that making American institutions too “majoritarian” (i.e., democratic) would somehow or other be bad for “the rights of minorities.”

In other contexts, that kind of argument might make sense. Having constitutional protections of freedom of religion, for example, limits democracy insofar as it stops majorities from democratically passing laws to trample the rights of unpopular religious minorities.

In this case, though, it’s hard to make sense of the complaint even in the abstract. If the minority is supposed to be “residents of small states,” the only “right” they’re being deprived of is the right to be disproportionately represented.

And if you know even a little bit about American history, you know that the Senate has often formed a powerful impediment to the protection of actual minority rights. Legislation to end legal segregation and safeguard the voting rights of black Southerners, for example, might have passed decades before the mid-1960s if the Senate hadn’t been such an effective tool in the hands of Southern segregationists. Even laws against lynching, passed in the more democratic House of Representatives, were effectively bottlenecked in the Senate as far back as the 1930s.

More generally, a body that’s less responsive to the will of the voters will be more able to stand in the way of whatever most Americans want, whether that’s to trample the rights of minorities or to expand those rights, and there’s simply no general reason to suppose that minority rights will benefit from that body’s continued existence. Historically, those rights have suffered greatly because of the Senate’s existence.

And today it acts as a great impediment to expanding the rights of the majority. Over half of Democrats in the House, for example, have cosponsored a Medicare for All bill that would provide health insurance to every single American as a right, and put an end to the moral obscenity of medical bankruptcies and workers staying in jobs they hate for fear of losing the health care they and their families need. It’s far harder to imagine Medicare for All passing the Senate, where it’s currently supported by only sixteen of the forty-seven Democratic senators. (All the Republicans in both houses oppose it.)

Some of that disconnect may have to do with the politics of disproportionately represented states, and some with the fact that senators, who only have to run for election every six years, are simply more insulated from the views and complaints of their constituents. They can act, in other words, like aristocrats, deciding what’s good for the commoners whether the commoners like it or not.

Perhaps bringing about such a deep constitutional reform would be so difficult that it’s not worth trying. But if so, that’s a tragedy. And if it really could be abolished, the only thing that would be “destroyed” in the process is a powerful hindrance to real democracy.


This article was originally published by Jacobin; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

 

Is It Just About AIPAC’s Money, or Does the US-Israel Rot Run Far Deeper?

by | Jul 29, 2026 

Two major stories regarding the United States and Israel in recent days represent profound watershed moments in the history of the relationship between both countries.

The first incident occurred on July 8 when US Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) and his delegation were detained by armed, illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

“These hoodlums come in with machine guns – an M4, an American-made machine gun – and they detain us,” Khanna recounted in a stunning statement. “They block off the road. And then they call the IDF, and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans.”

Equally shocking to the congressman’s direct encounter with the raw, lawless reality of the occupation was the response of US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Rather than defending an elected American lawmaker, Huckabee dismissed Khanna’s harrowing experience as a mere “stunt.”

This defiance of old taboos, however, is not confined to progressive factions. In an even more unprecedented development on July 15, US Vice President JD Vance used an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience to deliver some of the sharpest criticism of Israel ever uttered by a sitting, top-tier US official.

Addressing a reported Israeli government-funded online influence campaign aimed at sabotaging the administration’s diplomatic efforts, a furious Vance accused “certain elements within the Israeli government” of actively trying to derail peace negotiations and manipulate American public opinion. He went so far as to target the operators behind the foreign-backed campaign, telling them directly to “go to hell.”

Yet, even as fierce criticism of Israel reaches the very apex of American politics, a profound, schizophrenic rupture divides Washington. While the American public, influential media personalities, and top-tier politicians are openly turning against Israel’s unbridled violence, the traditional power structures continue to toe the line.

This is explicitly evident in Congress, where establishment politicians remain busy acting as defense contractors for Tel Aviv. Lawmakers are quietly pushing forward with Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027. Far from distancing the US from the ongoing regional bloodbath, this legislation aims to permanently integrate and synchronize the US and Israeli militaries under a joint “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.”

This institutional blind spot is why the entire alliance is beginning to look utterly ridiculous.

Traditional foreign policy theory views Israel as an American ‘vessel’ or ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’\ in the Middle East, policing the region on behalf of Western hegemony. Whether that was ever true is highly debatable. Today, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the relentless war on Iran, and the escalating aggressions against Lebanon and Syria have yielded zero strategic value to the American people. Instead, the United States has paid a massive financial and moral largesse to fund bloody regional wars that disrupt the global economy and make Washington a direct, complicit partner in the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Yet, the American administration continues to offer unquestioning support, with the exception of occasionally leaked, manufactured accounts of ‘tense’ phone calls between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. No matter the physical, economic, or reputational damage inflicted on the US, Washington continues to march blindly toward the precipice.

To believe this subservience is a recent phenomenon is to misunderstand history. For many, the physical detention of Congressman Khanna by Israeli forces evokes the memory of Rachel Corrie – the 23-year-old American peace activist who was brutally crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah on March 16, 2003, while peacefully shielding a Palestinian family home from demolition. In both cases, the message from Tel Aviv was clear: American status offers no protection.

Yet, this dependency runs deeper, rooted in the 1967 USS Liberty incident. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces launched a relentless two-hour attack on an unarmed US intelligence ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. Instead of demanding accountability, the Johnson administration accepted Israel’s excuse of a “mistake” and covered up the truth to protect its ally. This established a decades-long precedent: Washington would act as a political and military shield for Israeli actions, even at the cost of American lives.

It is often argued that Israel’s stranglehold on American policy stems entirely from the financial power of its lobby in Washington, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Conventional wisdom holds that AIPAC’s true dominance as the ultimate kingmaker began in 1981, when it waged a historic, ferocious battle to block President Ronald Reagan’s proposed sale of AWACS early-warning surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

But the USS Liberty incident occurred long before the lobby wielded such immense power. The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.

This is precisely why JD Vance’s recent remarks are so critical. It proves that the armor of absolute impunity is cracking, and the language of genuine, systemic criticism of Israel has officially been normalized in mainstream political discourse.

There must be a profound political awakening in America. If the American public and its leaders fail to reclaim their foreign policy from this destructive alliance, the only path forward will be one of perpetual conflict, economic ruin, and endless war.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book,Before the Flood,’ will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
Source: Mondoweiss

On July 22, the House of Representatives approved the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), H.R. 8800, for fiscal year 2027, which includes a provision expanding defense cooperation and integration between the United States and Israel.

The vote was 216-212, largely along party lines, but six Democrats joined the Republican majority: Reps. Henry Cuellar D-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Jared Golden (D-ME), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Adam Gray (D-CA), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA).

The bill included a provision titled Section 219 which would “expand and enhance intelligence sharing” with Israel, establish joint ventures for the co-production of weapons, promote joint military exercises, and integrate Israeli weapons into existing U.S. systems and programs. Critics say it amounts to integrating the U.S. and Israeli militaries.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced an amendment to remove Section 219 from the legislation, but the House Rules Committee blocked debate on it. Massie was the only House Republican to vote against H.R. 8800.

Human rights groups and lawmakers have been sounding the alarm over the proposal and are fighting to have it removed from the final version of the NDAA.

What is Section 219?

Last month, former State Department official Josh Paul and co-founder of the political action committee A New Policy, told Mondoweiss that Section 219 could ultimately enable the Israeli government to steer U.S. foreign policy.

“This integration of the U.S. and Israeli defense industrial bases would expose our most sensitive technologies to a country – and an industry – with a track record of industrial espionage, and would give Israel leverage over U.S. foreign and defense policy through making us reliant on their supply chain,” said Paul.

In Responsible Statecraft, Ben Freeman, Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, says the provision could strengthen Israel’s influence in the U.S. beyond the military.

“It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie,” he noted.

An Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) explainer on the effort cites recent Israeli actions as further reason to oppose further cooperation with the country.

“For over two years, Americans have been horrified by the images live-streamed from Gaza. Israel’s violence against Palestinians has played a large part in historic decreases in support for Israel and in historic degrees of sympathy for Palestinians,” it reads. “Now Israel is explicitly exporting its model of violence from Gaza to Lebanon, where Israel is killing thousands of Lebanese people, attacking hospitals and first responders, demolishing entire Lebanese villages, and forcibly displacing more than 1 million people–just like in Gaza. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dragged the U.S. into an unconstitutional and illegal attack against Iran, which has killed thousands of Iranian civilians and greatly aggravated the affordability crisis for people in the U.S.”

“Considering this context, Congress should not deepen military ties to Israel.”

Congressional opposition

Leading up to the vote, multiple lawmakers criticized the provision across social media.

“While Americans are focused on other things, like how to make ends meet in the face of a rapidly rising cost of living, tomorrow the House will vote to merge our military technology and supply chains with Israel’s,” wrote Massie. “Our Founder’s would be appalled at what Congress is doing now.”

“The NDAA includes a provision that would deepen military ties with Israel. This is an outrageous threat to our country’s security and autonomy,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). “Americans want no part in Netanyahu’s genocidal regime. Congress cannot continue to bankroll Israel’s campaign of terror.”

“This amendment is an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy,” declared Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Israel’s role

In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-OK) last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the provision that ultimately became Section 219 as “my plan.”

For months, Netanyahu has publicly stated that he wants to wean Israel off military aid and “reset” the U.S./Israel relationship through deeper integration. “I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” he told 60 Minutes earlier this year. 

This push comes amid talks to between the U.S. government and the Israeli government to establish a “new security cooperation framework,” as Israel memorandum of understanding (MOU) on military aid is set to expire in 2028.

The vote also comes amid a deepening skepticism of Israel among the U.S. population.

An AP-NORC poll released earlier this month shows that 40% of U.S. adults believe the country is “too supportive” of Israel, while a Gallup poll from February shows more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis. A Pew survey from August found that 60% of Americans now hold a negative view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025.

What comes next

The proposed NDAA, with its own version of the Israel provision, will soon face a vote in the Senate, where Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are leading an effort to call for an amendment vote to strip it out.

“Americans are saying loudly and clearly: No more US military support for the extremist Netanyahu government,” said Sanders after the House vote. “That is why Congress must vote NO on the defense spending bill, which brings the US and Israeli militaries even closer together.”

Pending the Senate vote and negotiations between the two chambers on the details of the military bill, Congress could pave the way for a redefined U.S.-Israel relationship.


This article was originally published by Mondoweiss; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email

Michael Arria is a U.S. correspondent for Mondoweiss. His work has appeared in In These Times, The Appeal, and Truthout. He is the author of Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC.

 

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

Climate overheating is a story, and human survival depends on how we tell that story. It is a story about the ruling class, about the exploited, working masses, about organization and revolution. It is a story about capitalism, about unspeakable suffering, about politics, media, wealth and power. It is a story that Marxists will understand about a speculative end – a matter of something destined to unfold, yet still beyond our capacity to imagine. It encompasses familiar themes of both a biblical apocalypse and the grand designs of history. I am only one story teller – a struggling, uncertain, inadequate one, perhaps – but the plot lies in front of me (as it does for anyone to scrutinize) with all of its compelling and epic subplots.

Climate overheating is not a fragmented narrative about local floods and wildfires. It exempts no one and meaningfully returns to global themes and international solutions. We make a grave mistake to make climate into a riddle about carbon capture, sea walls and renewable energy, even if technical means of mitigation have to be deployed. We can easily miss the forest for the trees. Climate is a tale about the means of production, profit, and the divided working class. The ending, unlike in classical Marxism, may be one of brutal failure and utter collapse. But the final act will revolve around the working class as we react with outrage or surrender.

Climate overheating is a story about criminals and victims, about failure and salvation, about beguiling mirages, about futile half measures, habitual compromises and the rageful insistence of nature.

We live in the age of excess – excess wealth, addiction, excess stuff straining walls, storage facilities, supply closets, attics, basements and landfills. Excess stuff creates a notable by-product – excess heat from overproduction. Climate overheating initiates a terrible sequence of consequences. With rising sea levels and spreading deserts, the earth shrinks, creating refugees – twice victimized. Stateless people, orphaned by poverty and the violence of the writhing natural world, have been destined to become the centerpiece for reactionary political movements. But what happens when refugees become, not millions, or tens of millions, but billions? Climate overheating, refugees, fascism and war exist as inevitable features in an environmental/political feedback loop. The wealthiest nation builds walls to exclude the victims of climate. When walls fail, concentration camps follow. Excess people will be “treated accordingly” as genocide becomes capitalism’s shadow. Gaza should not be seen as an aberration, but as the template for an overheated world.

Let us add in AI. Our wondrous new passion for profit, fossil fuel generated knowledge available on a whim makes human brains redundant. AI knows that 50 times as many people died in the French Revolution as in the tame American Revolution that we fought on behalf of slave owners and land speculators. With a billion barrels of oil you can conjure up millions of bushels of random facts – you can burn your folder of cake recipes and let the data center measure your sugar and flour. Human thinkers – slow, contradictory, distracted by extraneous tasks involving philosophical and ethical questions that have become dead weight slowing the momentum of profit – once guided even the worst societies. AI, like smoldering climates, creates yet more unnecessary people. Capitalism does not waste space for redundant people. Private prisons and detention centers might be profitable means for the temporary storage of excess people, but for how long? In the US, we have mastered the act of concealment, as a matter of animal agriculture so that industrial levels of agony remain sequestered from common awareness. We have practiced on animals – a trillion tortured, beaten, brutalized chicken and pig carcasses can invisibly be “processed.” Animal agriculture plays two key roles – it spews greenhouse gasses while desensitizing us all. Systemic violence has long provided the foundation for industrial supply chains, but now nature lashes back. Methane from cattle, CO2 from degraded forests turned into grasslands pushes the boundaries of fate. There is no climate story that circumvents animal agriculture.

How could the pundits have missed something so obvious? As the rich become fewer and richer, and the rest lose everything – a swelling torrent of displaced people without a homeland, a bed, a blanket or a meal, the ocean of roiling refugees that capitalism has deemed to be waste products will have to be discarded. You have absorbed the staggering statistics – the top 12 global billionaires own more wealth than the bottom four billion nobodies, the anonymous human filler, the suffering hordes vainly coaxing atrophied corn out of the parched remnants of the global south’s once-upon-a-time coveted fields.

Chiquita once dictated US policy in Latin America, long before El Salvador became a dumping ground for the USA’s most scapegoated and hardest working people. While our backs are turned, as we bow our heads silently in the direction of the cell phone deity, the banana withers and threatens to join dinosaurs, trilobites and saber-toothed tigers.

“Bananas are the world’s most consumed fruit – and the fourth most important food crop globally, after wheat, rice and maize. About 80% of bananas grown globally are for local consumption, and more than 400 million people rely on the fruit for 15% to 27% of their daily calories.”

Climate overheating works in an orderly and incremental manner. First bananas, then you.

“Bananas, especially the cavendish, are sensitive fruits. They require a temperature range between 15C and 35C (59F and 95F) to thrive, and just enough water – but not too much. They are sensitive to storms, which can cause a banana plant to shed leaves, making it much harder for the crop to photosynthesize.

While there are hundreds of banana varieties, the cavendish accounts for the vast majority of exports since it was chosen by the fruit conglomerates for its decent flavor, hardiness and high yield.

It’s this lack of genetic variation that makes bananas particularly vulnerable to the rapidly changing climate.”

So we have a world too hot for the most beloved tropical crop, and a huge population of vulnerable, hungry people who have value to capitalism only as a narrative target for political vituperation. The people burning alive in a post-banana, smoldering hell-scape want to violate our borders, we are told, and in the heat and the chemical pea soup of our remaining days, we are air conditioned, Comfortably Numb and eager to believe. In a world divided between too hot, and just unpleasantly warm, the cooler spots need to be cordoned off with concrete and razor wire.

In the boiling oceans of western civilization we are somehow running out of icebergs, but still richly in possession of sinking ships. In a system founded upon austerity, you can guarantee that the powerful shakers of civic priorities have not budgeted for life boats. Climate overheating is all about not enough. Climate overheating features mansions and tent cities, water for golf courses and dust for corn fields, air travel to tropical resorts and a funeral for the AMOC.

The AMOC, in the straight thinking and linear world of capitalist thought, will be destined to confuse us. We don’t do irony, paradox, or any manner of counter-intuition, do we? The AMOC – an acronym for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the system of ocean streams that delivers equatorial warmth to the North Atlantic, has been slowing down as the ocean absorbs heat from our greenhouse gasses. A stagnant ocean will cause Europe to freeze. Huh? How do warming waters deliver an ice age? You ask.

“The AMOC is driven by the formation of deep water near Greenland: Cold, salty water sinks for the simple reason that cold water is more dense than warm water, and salty water is more dense than fresh. This sinking pulls surface waters toward northern Europe from the east coast of the Americas and further south, powering a massive global conveyor belt of water that extends all the way down to the southern tip of Africa. But as the north warms thanks to climate change, its waters become less dense and therefore less inclined to sink. The current slows. This pulls less salty water up from Africa, making the water in the north even less dense, and even less inclined to sink. The current slows more. Melting ice from Greenland freshens the waters further, exacerbating the problem. Eventually, this feedback loop shuts the current down.

Something similar has happened before: An AMOC shutdown played havoc with the planet 12,000 years ago, when the end of the last ice age dumped huge amounts of fresh water into the northern ocean. This plunged Europe back into ice-age-like conditions, with Greenland, for example, cooling by a stunning 18 degrees F (10 degrees C). “The effects are amongst the most drastic we have seen in the paleorecord,” says (climate scientist, Stefan) Rahmstorf. “We really don’t want this to happen.” “

No matter how much “we really don’t want this to happen,” it will happen, perhaps sooner rather than later if global capitalism fails to summon mass resistance. This revolutionary fervor will need to institute global cooperation and an international mandate to quickly abandon fossil fuel use in favor of slowed consumerism, redistribution of wealth and coordinated production of renewable energy. Economists have imagined the details – Piketty, Chancel, Mohren, Moshrif and Odersky, regarding their own research, conclude:

“A global transformation that reconciles planetary habitability and high standards of wellbeing for all is possible – as long as three conditions are simultaneously met. Fast decarbonisation of energy systems is necessary. But we also need a major shift away from overconsumption towards “sufficiency”. This would involve a sharp reduction in labour hours and the use of raw materials, along with big changes in consumption patterns, food habits, land use and forest cover. Financing and politically sustaining decarbonisation and sufficiency will require a drastic reduction in inequality of income, wealth and power, between countries and within them. This reduction of global inequality is compatible with deep decarbonisation; indeed, it is a necessary condition for shared prosperity on a finite planet.”

Arguments for degrowth have been made by Jason Hickel, Kohei Saito and others, but these neo-Marxist conceptions have not found a vibrant voice outside of academia. The runaway train of suicidal fascism – the ultimate and final strategy of capitalism – is rushing headlong into the geological epic of banana extinction and increasingly static ocean currents. The task for a viable renaissance of progressive mobilization will be both massively difficult and essential – ordinary people have to become “literate about climate.” The basic narrative must be the foundation for political organization, particularly among poor and working people.

Climate overheating is a global issue that cannot be solved by nationalistic politics. Nationalists default to racist, anti-immigrant tropes, leading to war and genocidal solutions as a distraction from the true crimes of the past centuries – the unfettered rule of fossil fuel capitalists, animal agriculture and giant tech corporations (with its insatiable passion for fossil fuels). We now inhabit a five alarm fire being mediated by a global network of arsonists.

Out of our current predicament there are two (and only two) possible outcomes – a world of stagnant oceans, burnt banana plantations, death camps and survival bunkers, or a world of unprecedented international cooperation. This emerging world of second chances will be a mostly vegan world, a world of shared rather than private pleasures, a place full of parks, local agriculture, leisure time and democratic rule animated by citizens assemblies. Technology will be a public good – rationed and evenly distributed. A shrinking, hotter world, with coastal flooding and uninhabitable stretches of formerly cooler territory will require planned, humane movement of populations. Underpopulated countries like Canada, the US and Russia will have to share their good fortune with poor people driven from their homelands by capitalist behaviors of extraction, pollution and emissions. Survival is not about neoliberal nostalgia for an American ideology that never existed outside of fantasy. Survival will involve mass understanding of the emergency engulfing us. Rebecca Egan McCarthy, a climate journalist writing in Grist, suggests that a more protracted unfolding of the looming and catastrophic slowing of the AMOC:

“would still cause enormous upheaval, but would give the world more time to put mitigation efforts in place.”

Climate journalists seldom concern themselves with the nature of “mitigation efforts,” nor do they venture into the obvious implications of entrenched capitalism. Mitigation for climate involves an existential and vast requirement for global, political coordination. It is not a matter regarding the technical brilliance of a few geniuses, the externalized means by which an unforeseeable, inspired immaculate discovery rescues the passive sum of humanity from the physical laws of nature. This rescue will require an enormous network of ordinary people who fully understand the consequences of non-action. Our future will depend on mass comprehension of our shared climate predicament. The solution is not in the hands of scientists only – the bulk of the work (if it is to be done at all) will be accomplished by story tellers and those who avidly listen.

This article also appears in Phil Wilson’s Nobody’s Voice substack.Email

Phil Wilson is a retired mental health worker and union member. His writing has been published in ZNetwork.org, Current Affairs, Counterpunch, Resilience, Mother Pelican, Common Dreams, The Hampshire Gazette, The Common Ground Review, The Future Fire and other publications. Phil's writings are posted regularly at Nobody's Voice (https://philmeow.substack.com/).