Will California Secede from the US over Election Result?

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, and the Republican Party winning both houses of Congress, the movement for Californian independence, or Calexit as it has become known, has gathered pace. The obligatory hash tag is trending on Twitter.

One such campaigning group, ‘Yes California,’ founded in 2013, has seen its profile rise after last week’s US elections. The state has a liberal outlook, and almost always votes for the Democrat Party in Presidential and Congress elections. They have elected Republican governors, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he stood on a very liberal ticket. Trump’s election has caused widespread unhappiness in the ‘Golden State.’

California has the sixth biggest economy in the world, roughly on a par with the UK, and Californians may be joined in the push for secession from the US by the two other west coast states, Oregon and Washington, and even Nevada and Hawaii, in what would be a mighty western American nation state. Cascadia is the name that has been mooted for the new nation.

Calexit is getting backing from the tech industry in Silicon Valley and the media industry around Hollywood. The state’s economy is also based on agriculture, with much of the US’s home produced fruit and vegetables, and wine, produced in California. There is no doubt that California would manage just fine as an independent nation, and even more so if joined the other states mentioned above.

Yes California’s website has had 2 million visits since the election and the group has grown from 1,500 volunteers prior to the election to over 10,000 in the week post election. The immediate aim is for the group to collect enough signatures to put a referendum on the issue on the state ballot in 2018.

Although it is perfectly feasible for California, even on its own, to become independent, there are formidable obstacles to this becoming a reality. The US Constitution forbids unilateral secession by any state, so first this would need to be amended. For that to happen would require the support of both houses of Congress and 38 state governments. On the plus side, judging by some of the social media comment, other states may be willing to oblige those states wanting to secede. This quote is just one example:

‘California is already flooded with illegals and is rapidly becoming a majority minority state. Good riddance.’

After the Brexit vote in the UK , Britain has seen similar secession feeling in parts of the country, most notably in Scotland, but to a lesser extent also in London. We could well see another independence referendum in Scotland, and that could set in motion a train of events which encourages the fledgling London independence movement. California could add momentum to the break up of the UK, by setting a good example, as it were.

When you think about it, London and California have much in common, apart from the weather, in that both have thriving technology and media industries, the new industries, as well the financial services sector. California has the edge over London in tech and media, but London does so in finance. The news that Californian company Google, is to expand its operation in London, is an indicator of the similarity in skill sets of Londoners and Californians.

The Trump win, and the Brexit vote are part of a piece, where a chasm has opened up between people in parts of both the US and UK. Those of a liberal, internationalist bent are in despair with their fellow citizens who have taken a reactionary, isolationist, inward looking, xenophobic and racist attitude to the world.

California is different from many parts of the US, as is Scotland and London from the rest of the UK, with their citizens seeing themselves as progressive and outward looking to the world. It is true that these places have done relatively well out of globalisation, but that is because they have embraced it and made it work for them.

Contrast this with the feeling of victimhood and nostalgia for the 1950s demonstrated by the Trump and Brexit votes, where foreigners are to blame for everything, rather than their own government’s worship of big business as the solution to the challenges of the modern world.

Something has to give, as the division is probably too wide to heal. Progressives need to fight back against the reactionaries, and independence is likely the only way to save ourselves from living in a shit country.    

Brexit – British Government Up Shit Creek without a Paddle

The news today of a leaked memo written by consultants at Deloitte, who it appears were or are working on the government’s Brexit strategy, such that it is, reveals what we all suspected. The government is divided and completely in the dark about how to handle our exit from the European Union (EU).

It has been noticeable, from public comments made by the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and the more hawkish members of the cabinet, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis, that there is deep disagreement amongst ministers. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, the memo also says, is acting like a medieval monarch and taking decisions herself, where no cabinet consensus can be found. The memo labels this as ‘unsustainable,’ which sounds about right. At some point, there will probably be resignations or sackings of one side or the other in the dispute.

The government has been quick to dismiss the memo, as not officially from Whitehall, but it is pretty clear what is going on, or not going on, as the government stumbles around hoping for the best, in the absence of a thought through plan for Brexit negotiations, or at least a realistic one anyway.

A civil service union, the First Division Association (FDA), which represents top civil servants such as departmental permanent secretaries, has echoed this situation, saying that the government wants ‘Brexit on the cheap.’ The civil service has endured something like 80,000 job losses since 2010, and the government’s pre Brexit plan was to cut another 80,000 civil service jobs in the current Parliament. 

With over 40 years of EU legislation to unpick, the FDA is not indulging in hype when they say that Brexit is the biggest challenge for the civil service since the second world-war. It is a massive operation, and will require resourcing if it is to be successfully delivered.

But even if the staffing resources are made available, to make a proper job of Brexit, it will probably require more than two years to sort through everything. Which begs the question, why is there such a rush to trigger Article 50, which puts a two year time limit on negotiations? Surely it would be wiser to strike an interim agreement, for say five years, by exiting the EU and joining the European Free Trade Association? I’m not saying this will satisfy those most determined to break free, whether we have a good deal or not, but it does buy us some time.

It would meet the requirements of ‘leaving the EU,’ so would be perfectly in line with the Brexit result, and would likely secure widespread agreement in Parliament. It is just the sensible thing to do.

But sensible is not what this government is. They seem determined to rush into this reckless act of risking that we get no deal at all with the EU, and have to fall back on WTO trade rules, which will mean tariffs on British exports, varying between 10% and 20%, dependent on the industries involved.

Plans are afoot, to rush an Act of Parliament through, to trigger Article 50, with such tight wording that it will be difficult, if not impossible for MPs to table amendments to it.

All of this against a backdrop of a possible trade war between the US and China, where such small fry as the UK will be trampled in the process. The more I see of the government’s non strategy, the more I think they are going to use this Brexit vote in a very political way. To discredit the opposition as ‘undemocratic’ and then turn the UK into a country that tries to attract big business, by cutting corporation tax to something like 5% or even less. And use ordinary tax payers money to compensate companies for any trade tariffs that do become applicable.

Is this what people voted for when they voted for Brexit? I very much doubt it is, but will they even notice in their fervour for stopping eastern European migrants coming to the UK?

This really is the biggest political fiasco that I can ever remember.

Does President-Elect Trump Spell Doom for the Planet?

Written by Nika Knight and first published at Common Dreams

Climate change denier promises to bring in new era for coal, pull U.S. out of international climate commitments.

Hours after the stunning U.S. presidential election returns showed an avowed climate change denier chosen for the nation's highest office, environmentalists around the world grappled with what a Donald Trump presidency will mean for the planet.

Trump has vowed to renege on the Paris climate pact, reinvest in fossil fuel infrastructure, and to bring in a new era for the coal industry, not to mention repeatedly denying the reality of climate change.

"Africa is already burning. The election of Trump is a disaster for our continent. The United States, if it follows through on its new President's rash words about withdrawing from the international climate regime, will become a pariah state in global efforts for climate action. This is a moment where the rest of the world must not waver and must redouble commitments to tackle dangerous climate change," said Geoffrey Kamese of Friends of the Earth Africa.

"Sadly, while Trump campaigned as a political outsider, his transition team is filled with corporate lobbyists," observed Food & Water Watch director Wenonah Hauter. "His agriculture advisors are agribusiness insiders. He has called climate change a hoax, and his energy advisor is a lobbyist for the Koch Brothers. His reported top pick for energy secretary is Harold Hamm, a modern-day oil tycoon."

And as Grist pointed out, "Most of President Obama's efforts on the clean energy front were made using his executive powers—powers that will now allow Trump to fulfill many of his promises to completely defund climate action and gut environmental protection."

The environmental outlet added:

He's pledged to pull the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He's vowed to cut all federal climate spending. He is going to appoint a known climate denier, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell, to head the Environmental Protection Agency's transition team.

Under Trump's appointees, the EPA's powers will be rolled back, with weaker enforcement of regulations mandated by the Clean Air Act and upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course, Trump will have his pick on the Supreme Court, too—which could soon decide the fate of Obama's central climate accomplishment, the Clean Power Plan.

Scientists, too, fear the coming Trump presidency.

"Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had," Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC, told Nature. "The consequences are going to be very, very severe."

"This is terrifying for science, research, education, and the future of our planet," tweeted María Escudero Escribano, who is "a postdoc studying electrochemistry and sustainable energy conversion at Stanford University in California," according to Nature.

"You're talking about an individual who is not informed by data, whether it's from climate change or anything else, and is poorly read," Evan Snyder, a stem cell biologist in California, told BuzzFeed. "So clearly science is not a priority for him."

"Donald Trump is a climate menace, no doubt about it. He wants to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, stop funding clean energy research and drill for extreme oil. But together we are more powerful than he is," said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, to the Guardian.

Indeed, many environmentalists are vowing to stay the course, unify, and assert new pressure on the incoming Trump administration as well as the international community in an effort to avert complete climate chaos.

"Our hearts go out today to the millions of people who voted against bigotry and hate and now have to accept the fact that the man who ridiculed and threatened them for months is the President-elect of the United States," Greenpeace USA executive director Annie Leonard said. "Fear may have won this election, but bravery, hope, and perseverance will overcome."

"As a young woman and first-time voter I will not tolerate Trump's denialism of the action needed for climate justice. Our country must undergo a systemic change and just transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy within my lifetime," said Becky Chung from the youth network SustainUS. "The next four years are critical for getting on the right pathway, and the disastrous election of Trump serves as a solemn reminder of the path ahead of us. As young people and as climate justice movements we will be demanding real action on climate for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world and for all future generations."

"Greenpeace and millions of people around the world have all the power we need to combat climate change and create a just world for everyone," Leonard added. "Let's use this moment to reenergize the fight for the climate and the fight for human rights around the world."

And 350 Action executive director May Boeve told supporters Wednesday: "Our work becomes much harder now, but it's not impossible, and we refuse to give up. The hateful rhetoric promoted by Trump’s party will only strengthen the ties between progressive groups and make our movement stronger. Together, we will put everything on the line to protect the progress we've made and continue to push for bold action. We refuse to leave the future of our climate in Trump's hands. Now is the time to take a deep breath and fight like never before."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

US Election - Trump Wins as Democrat Voters Sit on their Hands

I'm probably not fully over the shock of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, but some things are becoming clearer about what the hell happened in America on Tuesday.

I've watched every US presidential election since 1976, and this one is the biggest upset I can ever remember seeing. I have watched every previous election on the BBC, when that or ITV were the only options in earlier days, but this year I watched CNN on my laptop. I have to say, the coverage was much better, with in depth local psephological analysis, and a fast moving pace. The only downsides were the intervals, numerous and long, when US viewers were seeing ads.

I also watched a bit of Democracy Now's live coverage, which is a left wing news site, where they talked much more in depth around the issues in the election. I caught Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate putting a brave face on things, recounting local successes in county elections, on what turned out to be a disappointing 1% of the presidential vote. At least the Democrats can't blame the Greens for this defeat.

Although this result is being interpreted widely as a people's rebellion, turn out was only 55.6% according to provisional data, which is low by recent US presidential elections standards, which have been around 60%.

Of those who did vote, CNN exit poll results say that Trump voters were overwhelming white, with only 8% of black voters supporting him. Surprisingly, more Latino voters supported Trump than did Mit Romney, the Republican Party candidate last time around. Even so it was only 29% of them. Racism was clearly at play, with Trump's rhetoric on the back of eight years of Obama's presidency. Brexit linked, in a kind of Anglo-Saxon uprising.

Misogyny was also a factor, with 58% of Trump voters being men, to 42% women. Although this did cut across racial lines, with 53% of white women voting for Trump. Trump's treatment of women will have encouraged some men to vote for him, but it also looks as though women, white ones anyway, were able to overlook the issue. Women can be just as misogynist as men, of course.

Trump voters were mainly older, too.

Trump pulled off some notable victories in the Democrat heartlands of the rust belt, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which are being put down to his call for trade tariffs on imports, and reviving the coal industry. It does look as though, Hillary Clinton's association with the NAFTA trade deal, and wider support for globalisation, had an impact on her vote in the area.

I think there was also a broader dislike of Clinton. She embodies everything that Trump voters were rebelling against in terms of the political establishment. She has a lot of baggage, and although the email investigations didn't help, she has record and image as being at the centre of corporate/political convenience. This probably cost her the election.

As the headline says though, Trump's vote was similar to Romney's four years ago for the Republicans, but the Democrat vote was down by 5 million on what Obama got in 2012. It looks as though, hate Trump as they did, some Democrat voters were not prepared to vote for Clinton, Susan Sarandon being probably the most famous.

Would Bernie Sanders have fared better? Well, maybe he would have. He could have at least matched, and in many ways exceeded Trump's outsider image, and he is no fan of the NAFTA agreement. The Canary makes this case here.

Trump is pretty unpredictable, but whatever he does do, and his policy ideas are terrible, he will try to maintain his winning hand by doing at least some of things he has promised. This is going to be awful, but quite how awful, we will have to wait until January to find out.
 

Richmond Park Byelection - Green's Decison not to Stand Provokes Fury amongst Membership

The decision by the local Green Party in Richmond and Kingston (in south west London), not to stand a candidate in the forthcoming byelection in the constituency, has been met with a wave of opposition from party members. If you are able to look at Green Party member's forums, Facebook groups and email lists, you will see the majority opinion of the contributors is against the non-standing decision taken locally.

The byelection was caused by the sitting Tory MP, Zac Goldsmith, resigning and standing as an independent, over the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Green Party rules and indeed principles are to leave decisions on standing and candidate selection to local parties, which I think is right, but I'm not too clear about the extent of consultation with members that has taken place. This is complicated by there being two separate local parties covering the Parliamentary constituency, (Richmond and Kingston) but it looks as though the decision was taken by a small group of activists. I may be wrong, but that is my impression.

Further to this, it also looks like pressure was applied to the local party by the Green Party co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, who stood on a 'progressive alliance' ticket to win this year's party leadership contest. The leadership putting pressure on local parties not to stand is not a new thing. I remember the local party being discouraged to stand when Tory MP David Davis resigned his seat as a protest against government policy. Labour and Lib Dems did not stand, but the Greens in the end did, and finished second.

Judging by the forums mentioned above, I'm not the only Green Party member who thinks the decision not to stand in Richmond Park is a bad one. I think it is wrong on many levels, and I'm broadly in favour of a 'progressive alliance' (anti-Tory is probably a better description), at the next general election, with a commitment to proportional voting for future elections.

But this is not a general election, nor is there any agreement on an alliance, and in this byelection the Labour Party look set to stand a candidate. A broadly left alliance is just not credible if the Labour Party doesn't take part in it, which looks to be situation we will have in Richmond Park. I hear they have selected Christian Wolmar as their candidate.

This byelection is also probably a unique opportunity for the Green Party to get heard, because the effective cause of it is a very green issue, airport expansion. The Lib Dems and probably Labour (as well as Zac Goldsmith, now Independent) are not against airport expansion per se, just at Heathrow Airport. They are quite happy for an expansion at Gatwick Airport, where less fuss has been caused by local residents, and it now looks as though the Green Party is in agreement with this line of policy, by the very inaction of not standing.

We could well have got a lot of media attention to put an alternative argument, which is our policy after all, and may have got a reasonable result. In this constituency we got 6% in last year's general election, and although politics has changed, with the airport issue, we could probably do better than that.

The other thing that jars here, is the Greens endorsing the Lib Dems, who are responsible for all of the austerity misery we have been put through for 5 of the last 6 years, and Green Party members know from experience how unprincipled Lib Dems can be. Say anything, if you think people will like to hear it, kind of thing party. They thrive on nimbyism, but now we will be tarred with the same brush.

The way all of this seems to have been handled, is causing a lot of disquiet in the Green Party, and is definitely not a template for a 'progressive alliance' in the future, in my opinion.

If this type of thing carries on, I fear the Greens will lose a lot of members. If we can reach a one off agreement for the general election, with a commitment to future proportional voting, then OK, I can go along with it. But we first need to get this agreement, and byelections anyway are not part of the bargain, and should be approached dependent on the local and national circumstances at the time.

Anything else, I think, will destroy the Green Party, just when we were getting a toe hold in the political system. I hope sense prevails in the end.
     

Rojava: the real alternative. Review of “The Alternative Towards a New Progressive Politics” and “Revolution in Rojava”

This Guest Blog is reposted with the permission of the author. First published by Lipstick Socialist HERE

In 1925 the Manchester Irish trade unionist Mary Quaile led a TUC delegation to the new Soviet Union. Mary had spent her life working at a grassroots level with women workers; advocating for women’s involvement in trade unions so that they could get equal pay and decent working conditions.  In the Soviet Union she saw a different society that had at its core a worker based politics with  factory committees that existed to promote wage equality, and state policies that had as much to say about the private lives of workers as about the economy. After the 1917 revolution in Russia many activists in this country saw its society as a positive example of how life could be transformed, both personally and politically for women, men and children.

But In 2016 we are all fed up with our stagnant political system, and our politicians who inspire hatred rather than hope. Brexit was just one example of people hitting back at the political elite that run this country and who refuse to either take notice of or include within the political discourse the rest of us.

In a new book edited by Lucas, Nandy and Bowers, The Alternative Towards a New Progressive Politics, they  cites as a major problem the unfair electoral system and suggest that “progressives”       (not quite  sure who they are) should work together to oppose the Conservative government and its policies. Unfortunately “progressives” are few and far between amongst the political classes, and it’s  hard to see how the ordinary person on the street can really believe this message. Politicians in this country and the political elite that surround them, with a few exceptions including Caroline Lucas and Mhari Black, are now so despised by the public it is highly unlikely they would buy the message from this book. Indeed would they even bother reading it? Who are books like this written for? Is it just written for the same Guardian readership? What about the rest of us?

People are looking for hope and look to other societies that may  give a real alternative to the stagnancy of western politics and politicians. In a new book, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, we can see how people in a war zone, and surrounded by enemies, have created a community-based democracy, putting at its heart the equality of women. What makes this book relevant is that the writers are not just observers of Rojava, but have fought to defend this communally organised democracy. Both Anja Flach and Ercan Ayboga have taken part in the revolution, while Michael Knaff is an activist with the Berlin Kurdistan Solidarity Committe.

So where is and what is Rojava? It is part of northern Syria, and includes three cantons of Cizire, Kobani and Afrin. It is a war zone, surrounded by ISIS and Turkish forces which  are hostile to the Kurdish people. In January 2014 these three cantons issued a declaration of Democratic Autonomy creating a “democratic-autonomous administrations,” which  would be inclusive and pluralistic: a “third way” rejecting the Ba’athism dictatorship of Assad and the chauvinist Islamist opposition.

Central to this new society is the Kurdish freedom movement and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),  a Marxist-Leninist party (including Turkish and Kurdish revolutionaries) that after the fall of the SU in 1991 adopted a  new vision of politics and society in the Middle East.

The Kurdish people are one of the most repressed in the world and although, and particularly in this country, there is a vibrant campaign to support the Palestinian people, there is little information or news about their struggle. Kurds are a displaced people, hated by the Turkish governments who have over the years persecuted them, and after the military coup in 1980 allowed the PKK to settle in Syria. The aim of the PKK was to establish a homeland in Northern Kurdistan.

The guerrilla war that ensued led to many young women and men becoming involved,  with women participating equally even as frontline soldiers.  The women had their own army known as YAJK (the Union of Free Women of Kurdistan) with its own headquarters. Women were now free to develop principles of autonomous women’s organising, dual leadership and the minimum of 40% participation of women in all areas. It was these principles that have been carried forward in all four parts of Kurdistan and are central to the new society they have created in Rojava. An activist on the Women’s Council in Cologne commented;”For thirty years I have been in the PKK movement..Only with the Rojava revolution, with the women’s communes with Arabs and Syriacs, have I really understood what it means to create a women-centred society within the state.”

This is a fascinating, if complex book. In the West we are starved of information about what is really happening in areas such as northern Syria. Our views of Middle Eastern women are often dominated by  stereotypes of them as passive victims,  not of women taking up arms to defend their country. It’s not just that people in Rojava are trying to create a radically reordered society;  they are doing it whilst besieged by the Islamists and the Turkish government who are determined to crush this  revolution. For the people in Rojava there is no alternative; “What spurs them on is the knowledge that there is no objective alternative for the Middle East, a profoundly heterogenous region. Or put another way; communalism or barbarism.”

Buy it here

Watch a film about women in Rojava:

Read Mary’s report “Soviet Russia, An Investigation by British Women Trade Unionists April to July 1925” at the WCML

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

I first came across the quote in the headline above when Ken Livingstone published a book by the title in the late 1980s. I didn’t read the book, but I later learnt that Livingstone was quoting the anarchist activist, Emma Goldman (attributed to her anyway), but it got me to thinking about this issue for the first time. I am from a traditional Labour voting background, and voting (Labour) was just what my family did. It didn’t stop Livingstone standing for election of course.

To set it in the context of the political times, we were getting on for ten year’s into Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government, and it struck me that the government elected into power in 1979, had changed things considerably from the post second world war welfare capitalism settlement. Of course the welfare capitalism of the time had been driven by the threat of the USSR, offering an alternative economic model, albeit not a good one, but it was credible all the same. By the late 1980s the USSR was crumbling and finally collapsed in 1989.

The changes brought by Thatcher were essentially a regression to the pre-second world war days, and all in favour of the capitalist class, in a rolling back of the welfare capitalism year’s gains for most people. It is true that the Labour governments, in 1945-51, 1964-70 and1974-79, did achieve many good things, but the situation was favourable, because, as I say, the USSR worried the capitalist establishment, so they played along, although rumours abounded in the 1970s of an army coup, to quell the trade unions. In general, the situation was tolerated.

Capital was doing well in western countries, with continual growth in the post war period, and inequality for people reduced. Succeeding generations were getting wealthier, and the Tory UK Prime Minister in the late 1950s, Harold MacMillan, coined the phrase, ‘you’ve never had so good.’ But by the 1970s the Keynesian economic system was in crisis, and was pushed even further by a steep rise in the price of oil. A new term emerged to describe our economic woes, stagflation.

The capitalist’s saw their chance and began expanding their markets into what was previously publicly owned companies, crushing the trade unions and changing the culture of the country along the way, to one of individualism. Growth was restored, and profits increased. Tax on corporation and wealthy individuals was reduced. All introduced by an elected UK right wing government.

But nothing like this has happened on the left of politics, not by electoral means anyway. In South America, some gains have been made by socialist governments, but they are constantly under threat of overthrow by the forces of capital, that it is an uphill battle. The circumstances in South America, with large populations of indigenous people, make this a situation very different from western countries though.

Emma Goldman (1869-1940)

So, we might conclude, that in some quite unique circumstances, some positive change can be delivered from the left of politics, by electoral means, but this is piecemeal and fleeting. Capital’s hold over our politics is too strong to be transcended completely by government policy which aims to reduce the profits of the capitalist class.
 

Elections then amount to a choice between Coca Cola or Pepsi, so what is the point of participating in them? When Russell Brand encouraged people not to vote, he was rounded on by the media establishment, and forced into changing his advice, but Brand was only really reflecting what was happening anyway, with voter turn outs at elections in the UK falling, since 2001. That year’s general election, was a record low 59% turn out, and that only of registered voters. How many don’t even bother to register?

The local anarchist’s in my area tell people not to vote, but are very active in putting pressure on those who do get elected. Their argument for not voting, is that it delegitimises the election, and I guess if turn out was very low, then it would do this. Whether this would bother the politicians too much is open to debate though. There would probably be some hand wringing, but I wouldn’t have thought they would resign if less than half of the voters participated. After all, local council politicians are often elected by only around 30% of the electorate, and they seem perfectly happy.

Going off subject a little, one place where abstentions do seem to concern the leadership is with workplace staff surveys. Nothing seems to wind up the management as much as their staff not bothering to complete the survey. They prefer a negative response to none at all, as they seem to sense that their staff have tired of giving them the response they want to hear or even telling the truth, as experience teaches that nothing changes anyway. Might as well wind them up by not participating, what is there to lose?

This is always an area of debate on the socialist left, reform or revolution?  Reformism is capable of only limited change in a leftward direction, but socialist revolutions have produced only autocratic, centralised governing bureaucracies. Maybe revolutionary change doesn’t have to be like this, but history teaches us that has been the outcome. I guess I’ll carry on voting and continue to agitate for rebellion and ecosocialism.

Here’s another quote from Emma Goldman, speaking about anarchism and free association:

"It seems to me that these are the new forms of life," she wrote, "and that they will take the place of the old, not by preaching or voting, but by living them." (Quoted in Wexler, Intimate).