Episode 352 of RevolutionZ continues with chapters two and three of The Wind Cries Freedom. Alexandra Voline tells about going from despair to determination, from her parent's activism to her own revolutionary conviction. Born to 1960s radicals, politics was "background noise" until Trump's election added passion to knowledge. Alexandra describes how giving a speech against war-making at a defense plant taught her a painful but enduring lesson. Her self-righteous rage alienated the very workers she needed to reach. To organize effectively she had to develop empathy, not just display moral certainty.

Malcolm King relates his experiences of electoral politics. He learned from Bernie Sanders that dissidents could run viable campaigns, raise money without corporate cash, and inspire volunteer armies. Sanders challenged traditional fatalism. He opened possibilities many had stopped believing in. Malcolm asked, "If you believe the system is rotten to its core, but you don't believe it can be changed, what exactly are you doing?"

The episode's interviewees also conveyed their understanding of Trump's appeal. They recognized that while racism and sexism were factors, many working people supported Trump because they had been abandoned by a political establishment that ignored their suffering. Effective organizing would require addressing economic devastation alongside fighting gender and racial oppression. They discussed as well fear and overcoming it. 

These interviewees report that their organization, Revolutionary Participatory Society, emerged when activists began thinking strategically rather than performatively—asking not "what makes me feel pure right now" but "what builds power for the future." As Alexandra put it, "Justice isn't a pie that we divide. It's a flame that we grow."

The Wind Cries Freedom is an oral history of how people like you, perhaps even your alter-ego in another time and place, won extraordinary change through their vision, strategy, and uncompromising solidarity. Human stories to reveal revolutionary lessons--with more to come. 

Support the show

Episode 351 of RevolutionZ introduces a special journey as Miguel Guevara and his 18 Interviewees convey chapters from "The Wind Cries Freedom," an as yet unpublished novel that reimagines how revolutionary change might unfold in America.

The novel is thus an oral history of a future American revolution. As such the book is fiction but it works hard to sound like (future) historical fact. It is personal and dramatic but it doesn't emphasize entertainment or character exploration. It instead taps dramatic personal stories to convey the contours of revolutionary change by reporting how a movement called Revolutionary Participatory Society (RPS) transforms an imagined near-future America. 

This first episode in the sequence presents the introduction and the first chapter of the book. We meet Miguel Guevara, whose activist parents named him after Che, and who undertakes this oral history project to understand how "the next American Revolution is succeeding. After Guevara explains the logic and motives that guide his questions, Chapter One jumps to near the book's endpoint to recount a conversation with then newly-elected President Malcolm King and Vice President Celia Noether who reflect on their electoral victory and on what they deem the far more important prior grassroots activism and organization as well as the movement's plans for continued transformation. There are twenty four more chapters to address all that, from conversations to marches, sit-ins, blockades, strikes, occupations, and more.

The Wind Cries Freedom weaves together personal stories with strategic insights. It explores RPS emerges and grows. How its activists organized and faced and overcame obstacles through collective action rather than individual heroism. 

The oral history explores a vision of revolutionary change thought the experiences and feelings of its practitioners. It challenges us to see ourselves not as passive observers but as potential makers of history. I hope listeners will share your thoughts and questions via email or in the ZNet Discord channel. Miguel assembled testimonies. Whether and how the imagined future's lessons will be assimilated, corrected, augmented, and otherwise refined to aid our current efforts is up to us.

Support the show

Episode 350 of RevolutionZ conducts an experiment with ChatGPT to reveal profound insights about both political theory and artificial intelligence.

ChatGPT, please respond to this critique of the Marxist tradition's current relevance first as a Marxist would, then without that constraint. When operating as a Marxist, the AI eloquently employs classic rhetorical strategies to defend the tradition while missing or misrepresenting the actual criticisms. It speaks of "dialectical augmentation" and accuses the criticisms of "flattening contradiction." It ignores the tradition's blindness to the coordinator class.

Freed from replying as a Marxist, however, the same AI accurately summarizes the arguments and acknowledges the validity of claims of economism, inadequate class analysis, and organizational hierarchies. You decide: Does this  shift demonstrate the critique's claim that immersion in the Marxist tradition, while offering valuable insights, imposes conceptual limitations that blind adherents to crucial aspects of social reality?

The episode then ventures into issues of artificial intelligence itself to explore questions of consciousness, language generation, and the nature of understanding. Albert and ChatGPT each address the concern that AI systems, by becoming increasingly capable conversational partners, as but one example, risk displacing human-to-human dialogue and intellectual companionship. 

Interested in revolutionary theory, artificial intelligence, or the philosophy of mind? In how theoretical frameworks shape what we can—and cannot—see? Episode 350 of RevolutionZ addresses not only Marxism's current relevance or lack thereof, but also the trajectory of human intellectual engagement in an age of increasingly sophisticated AI.

Support the show

Episode 349 of RevolutionZ displays what happened when I asked artificial intelligence to critique my critique of artificial intelligence. In this episode, I share the results of this peculiar experiment—feeding my recent articles about AI dangers directly to ChatGPT and asking for its reaction. What in its view did I get right. What did I get wrong. And I comment, as well. I also ask it about how it operates. How does it answer questions, write a song, and so on. It was very forthcoming and clear. I also asked it its reaction to Noam Chomsky's critical writings about AI. Again, very forthcoming agreeing with most, which it accurately conveyed, but questioning some, also accurately conveyed.. 

ChatGPT's analysis of my article was nuanced, including emphasize and surprisingly agreeing with my core concern about "infantilization"—that is, that humans might lose distinctively human activities by becoming passive and dependent on AI systems. The  "conversation" that followed accessibly clarified creative processes, neural networks, and philosophical perspectives on machine intelligence.

I also asked it to compose a Dylan-esque protest song about the pharmaceutical industry in seconds, which it did, and then methodically explain how it generated such content through pattern recognition rather than genuine understanding, using the first line as focus. This window into AI's functioning—explaining that it doesn't "research" or "look up" information or know anything in our sense, but rather has its trained encoded relationships across neural networks to consult—provides crucial context for understanding both its impressive capabilities and certain fundamental current limitations.

Chomsky in the title isn't clickbait. The conversation explores his critiques of AI, with ChatGPT offering balanced and well informed analysis of what Chomsky says and where he got things right but also where his perspective might be limited and why he might have erred in some respects. The discussion even ventures into territory of scientific bias and how brilliant minds can resist evidence that challenges their philosophical frameworks or practical aims.

This experiment only increased my concerns about AI's potential dangers—in many ways, experiencing its capabilities firsthand was more disturbing than theoretical discussions I was previously aware of. Will we approach AI development with caution, ethical frameworks, and democratic oversight to ensure these powerful tools serve humanity rather than diminish it? Or will we get sucked in by potential benefits, ease of use, etc.?

Support the show

Episode 248 of RevolutionZ asks, what if the real danger of advanced AI isn't robots taking over the world, but humans willingly but unintentionally surrendering our humanity? What if AI need not go rogue for its collateral damage to fundamentally hurt humanity? What if our most likely dystopian future isn't machines battling us to death, but machines doing exactly what we ask—better than we ever could?

AI is spreading through society at an unprecedented rate, with exponentially growing functionality. While critics point to potential limitations in data, computational resources, or energy requirements slowing AI's gains to a crawl, the industry continues to race toward Artificial General Intelligence and beyond.

Picture a future where AI teaches your children more patiently than human teachers, diagnoses illness more accurately than human doctors, creates more beautiful art than human artists, and provides more satisfying companionship than other humans. Of course it isn't here yet. But is it coming? What happens to us if AI-guided robots do for us everything meaningful that we humans now do? Is that utopia or dystopia? What if we don't lose our humanity because machines force us to succumb, but because we prefer what AI offers until we are so dependent that to change course would be even worse than to suffer on

Is this danger me hallucinating? Is it so subtle it doesn't exist or is it so profoundly dangerous we must pay serious attention? Will we become passive consumers of massive AI creativity? Will our uniquely human capacities  atrophy from disuse? Today's AI can already write not only letters but also novels, compose and play music, diagnose and treat illness,  hold conversations, provide sympathy, and also complete self chosen tasks. What's next? 

Is it time for us to demand serious regulation while we still can? Not only to protect jobs (a good reason), to prevent misuse by bad actors (a good reason), and to prevent a sci-fi robot apocalypse (maybe a Hollywood exaggeration), but to also protect the essence of what makes us human?

Support the show

Episode 347 of RevolutionZ asks why so many stay essentially silent when our world is burning? Adam Aron, climate activist and psychology professor at UC San Diego identifies barriers that keep most people from taking action despite acknowledging the twin crises of climate collapse and rising authoritarianism. We then discuss what to do about the disturbing situation.

Aron draws from his years of research and activism to identify what's holding us back: an atomized society that erodes our sense of solidarity, widespread feelings of powerlessness, and movements that fail to connect with people's material needs and identities. "Many cultural and psychological forces are pushing people to be isolated... not a lot of people have confidence in the concept of solidarity."

The discussion delves into why climate organizations remain relatively "minuscule" despite scientific consensus. While environmental and anti-fascist rallies draw thousands and even millions, why do they fail to translate momentary enthusiasm into sustained collective power? Aron argues this happens partly because movements focus too narrowly on moral appeals without connecting to people's economic concerns or creating appealing cultural identities.

We momentarily confront terrifying climate truths, perhaps weeping over extinction forecasts in a lecture, then step outside where everyone continues life as normal. This splitting makes sustained engagement nearly impossible for many. What are pathways forward? Do we make activism more desirable through aesthetics and community-building, do we target specific pressure points like the successful Tesla dealership protests against Elon Musk, do we link abstract climate concerns with tangible local benefits like public ownership of utilities? What is the psychology of social change? What would it take to create movements people actually want to join? How might we transform our atomized society into one capable of collective response? These are some questions this episode tackles.

Support the show

Ep 346 of RevolutionZ takes on a stew of topics. What's up with Epstein. Fascism's arrival. Clickbait's Impact. Anti Collective Individualism. Gallaudet''s Struggle. Social Media. Good Trouble, and Now What?

What's the connection among these? Lies, undermined trust, narrow horizons of calculation, fear, confusion, a surprisingly relevant movie, impoverished communications, a set back, and mostly some ideas about effective resistance. 

We know to go forward requires resistance to consistently grow in numbers and sophistication. Rather than isolated demonstrations against single issues, effective opposition must build bridges between constituencies to connect  those who fight genocide with those who defend healthcare, to connect immigrants rights activists who resist deportations with teachers who resist censorship. Elites must perceive not only widespread opposition but escalating costs to them.

How can movement building effectively counter fascism's advance? From workplace resistance to campus organizing, from artistic engagement to direct confrontation with power centers, this episode discusses ideas for creating the pressure needed to force elites to reconsider destructive paths. The episode's warning is clear: we must act bigger and better now, while resistance remains possible before fascism completes its institutional capture. Are we ready to move beyond scrolling toward persistent fighting?

Support the show

Ep 345 of RevolutionZ begins with a brief apology for an error last episode. some self-reflection about RevolutionZ's duration of 345 consecutive episodes, some moving guest comments on Gaza plus my own comments on emerging Trumpian fascism. It then again addresses the question do activists need fresh conceptual frameworks that transcend traditional Marxism?

The episode revisits the critique of the Marxist tradition's adequacy for contemporary struggles/ We again and perhaps more succinctly and also aggressively argue that Marxism's core concepts systematically diminish attention to gender, race, and power relations while distorting economic understanding by defining classes solely through property relations.

The episode describes how these limitations have manifested in real-world movements to lead not to classlessness but to "coordinator class rule," dictatorships, and persistent though sometimes somewhat altered racism and sexism. The episode rejects Marxism's labor theory of value, denies the practical utility of dialectics, and considers why the tradition seems particularly vulnerable to sectarianism.

After then sharing a couple of personal anecdotes, the episode extends invitations to prominent Marxist intellectuals—from Kali Akuno, Tariq Ali, Ben Burgis, Vivek Chibber and Angela Davis, to Terry Eagleton, Max Elbaum, Bill Flether, Nancy Fraser and John Bellamy Foster, to David Harvey, Doug Henwood and Boris Kagarlitsky, to Robin Kelly, Vijay Prashad, Kshama Sawant and Rick Wolff—to address these concerns in the spirit of constructive dialogue. Hopefully one or more will respond. After all, why not?

This episode isn't bent on dismissing Marxism's contributions much less any Marxist activists, but on asking essential questions to propel a needed conversation: Does this intellectual tradition, as practiced by real-world actors who have been bent by existing oppressive structures, provide the comprehensive understanding needed for today's multi-faceted struggles? When should we enrich existing frameworks, and when must we entirely transcend them? Do you  want to be called Marxist? If so, why? What conceptual tools will best serve our efforts to create a world beyond capitalism, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, and ecological collapse? Marxism's conceptual tools, or what?

Whether you're deeply versed in Marxist theory or approaching these matters for the first time, this episode urges that we together critically examine the intellectual foundations of our activism. What frameworks best position us to understand—and change—our rapidly transforming world?

Support the show

Episode 344 of RevolutionZ begins with some reflections on Zohran Mamdani's inspiring electoral win. How? By his campaign mobilizing an astonishing 50,000 volunteers. How? By he and his campaign feeling real and honest, and by offering real and meaningful vision. By electoral politics and grassroots activism becoming a mutual aid tag team rather than competing opponents. 

The episode then moves from Gaza's gut wrenching fascistic horrors to our own American "Twilight Zone" reality that seeks to entrench fascistic tendencies as normal life. The episode then  takes a break from its usual patterns to look at some music, some lyrics, hoping to find some clarity, courage, and, well, dignity. Hoping to find some potential sources for an emerging new youth culture which is something that we all, young and older alike, profoundly need to create, experience, and embrace. 

Bruce Springsteen's "Youngstown" documents capitalism's broken promises. His "The Ghost of Tom Joad" reminds our moral obligations. But mainly the episode hopes to introduce and propel some emerging voices of today, not only old ones from yesterday. We hear Jesse Wells' and Carsey Blanton's unflinching and yet also moving and eloquent lyrics that directly confront power. "Rich people been fucking us all." Back not too long, we  re-surface Iris DeMent's "Wasteland of the Free" and Bob Dylan's "Gates of Eden" and "Dignity." The point of it all is to celebrate how artists have long conveyed a  vocabulary of resistance that we desperately need today.

I hope the songs whose lyrics I offer reveal that cultural resistance isn't separate from political action—it's an essential aid. It helps us imagine and create more just futures. Even more, it can help establish a mood, a disposition, aspirations, and confidence in the face of deadly hate. In the coming months of defense and then in coming years of positive gain, we will need to disobey authoritarianism, eliminate ecological nightmare, and reduce staggering inequality. We will need to entrench in their place self managed participation, productive and ecological sanity, and real solidarity and equity. I hope the lyrics in this episode and others that you go on to find, to sing, and to hear, music and all, can help provide the rebellious soundtrack for our necessary actions. When I was a child we had that. The culture around us propelled us. We didn't win all we needed to, but some. Now new generations have to prevent the elimination of all that and, more, have to expand the victory vastly further. I hope artists and their audiences do their part to help propel all that. It ought to come naturally.

Support the show

Ep 343 of RevolutionZ has Gene Bruskin, long time and many issues, labor organizer to discuss workers' responses to rising fascism, our current predicaments and our potential paths forward.

Why does America's labor movement struggle to mount a unified response to authoritarianism, one  for all and all for one? How did post-WWII labor structures intentionally divide workers by union and industry, creating what Bruskin calls a system "structured to divide ourselves"? 

Why do significant segments of working people support Trump despite his anti-worker policies? Bruskin challenges simplistic explanations, arguing that economic desperation combined with Democrats' unwillingness to confront billionaires and inequality created an opening for "phony populism." When Trump says "I feel your pain" while Democrats offer only rhetoric, many desperate workers took a chance on the disruptor.

We also discuss Bruskin's post-retirement work creating political musicals about working-class history and struggle. His productions about Reconstruction and the abolitionist, John Brown, act on his belief that cultural resistance is essential for movement-building. Bruskin says, "We couldn't have won the civil rights movement if people couldn't be singing 'We Shall Not Be Moved' while they were being hauled to jail." 

Bruskin leaves us with a powerful metaphor from a banquet waiter who, when pressured to give a senator special treatment and dismissively asked if he didn't know who the Senator was, responds: "Do you know who I am? I'm the guy who gives out the bread and butter." This encapsulated Bruskin's point: working people must recognize their collective power. As he put it: "Do you need the boss, or does the boss need you?"

Support the show