Why Reading Books is for Everybody

~Reflections from an Elder Gen-Zer~

I often rewatch one of the most popular sitcoms of all time: Friends. There is a line (in season 3 episode 21) that always surprises me. Joey, the “dim-witted” member of the group, purchases a baby chicken. As he enthusiastically caresses the chick in his hands and expresses adoration for the little creature, the chronically sarcastic member of the group, Chandler, makes a seemingly simple joke: “Easy, Lenny.” Joey takes great offense, suggesting that he understands what Chandler means (Friends 2023). I tend to wonder how many people in 2026 would know that this exchange is a reference to the classic book, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Why would one of the most mainstream television shows of the late 90s/early 2000s era showcase such an obscure joke?

Leave a tip <3

One answer is that twenty years ago, reading was far more popular than it is today. More people read on a regular basis. And, more people could read.

Throughout the industrialized world, literacy and reading habits are in decline. According to 2024 data from the National Literacy Institute, 21% of American adults are fully illiterate; and, 54% read at or below a 6th grade level. In other words, over half of the American adult population is “functionally illiterate,” meaning most written works are completely inaccessible to the majority of people (National Literacy Institute 2024). Both children and adults are reading less and less, insofar “reading for pleasure has fallen by forty percent in the last twenty years” (Marriott 2025). An alarming 2024 headline in the Atlantic – “The Elite College Studies who Can’t Read Books” – points to how pervasive a lack of literacy skills is becoming (Marriott 2025; Horowitch 2024).

These observations should not be interpreted as an indictment of “kids these days.” In fact, people in every generation are reading less than in previous decades. We are living through unprecedented times. Many factors are preventing us from honing our literacy skills, such as powerful technology companies that keep people glued to screens for an average of seven hours a day (nine if you are Gen Z!) (Marriott 2025); education policies that hindered phonics instruction in schools, producing students who cannot sound out unfamiliar words (King 2023); and widespread economic insecurity that drains people’s free time and mental energy. These challenges are systemic and therefore require collective solutions. It is ineffective to shame and berate ordinary people—especially young people—for a set of conditions we did not create.

As individuals, what can we to do? Why bother with cultivating strong literacy skills when trillions of gigabytes of information are at our finger tips, so long as we have a wifi connection?

As a baby Millennial/elder Gen Zer who feels like I am not reading enough anymore, I find it helpful to remind myself why I personally value literacy. The more I reframe reading as the empowering and rebellious act that it is, the more motivated I feel to make it a priority. Here are my top six reasons to pick up a book this summer (or, in any season!):

ONE: Reading has a direct impact on brain structure, making it essential for early childhood development. According to a 2023 study that included 10,000 teenagers and controlled for sociological factors such as socioeconomic status, children who establish good reading habits (literally) grow larger brains by the time of adolescence (Sun et al 2023; University of Cambridge 2023). Among consistent pleasure readers, researchers found “moderately larger total brain areas and volumes, including in particular brain regions that play critical roles in cognitive functions” (University of Cambridge 2023). Early development of literacy skills was associated with “improved mental health, behavior[,] and attention” as children transitioned into their teen years; this cohort performed better at school, had fewer depression symptoms, and were less stressed and volatile (University of Cambridge 2023). The study also observed that reading helped kids stay off screens and get more sleep (Sun 2023; University of Cambridge 2023) – presumably leading to even more neurological benefits. These findings add to a body of research that demonstrates the mental benefits of regular reading (especially fiction reading), including improvements in test scores (The Nation’s Report Card 2023), empathy, and creativity (University of Cambridge 2023).

No one has to read all day long to see results. Researchers reported that reading twelve hours a week (about 103 minutes a day) is the sweet spot, allowing kids to adequately exercise their brains but not keeping them from engaging in other essential skill-building activities like social time (Sun 2023; University of Cambridge 2023). If a child is a “poor” reader, it is not “too late.” A Carnegie Mellon (2009) study found that 100 hours of remedial reading for eight-to-ten year-olds “[caused] the brain to physically rewire itself, creating new white matter that [improved] communication within the brain” (Science Daily 2009; Keller & Just 2009). All of our brains are amazing, but they need exercise, stimulation, and practice to reach their full potential.

TWO: Reading is the ultimate workout for the brain, benefiting human health and wellbeing at every life stage. If you did not establish strong reading habits as a young child, now is the time to start. As people move into their teen years, consistent reading tends to decline. According to the National Literacy Trust (2026), only “17.1% of those aged 11 to 14 and 14.0% of those aged 14 to 16” read on a daily basis. This shift is detrimental to development, considering the brain undergoes a “pruning” process throughout adolescence (Palm 2023). For efficiency, the neural pathways that are used consistently get strengthened; and the neural pathways that have fallen into disuse are cut away (Palm 2023). What pathways do you want to keep strong?

As our brains continue to mature and age in adulthood, we still need intellectual stimulation to keep them healthy. While humans can form new neurons at any life stage, we become increasingly vulnerable to a loss of brain volume and cognitive decline (Palm 2023). According to a recent study associated with the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, “Reading, writing and learning a language or two can lower your risk of dementia by almost 40%” (Gregory 2026).

In general, our brains, much like muscles, are a “use it or lose it” organ. The amount of mental exercise a person does has a direct impact on the structure, capacity, and health of their mind. Few would expect to automatically stay physically fit for the rest of their life after engaging in a few years of weightlifting; why do we assume the opposite logic about intelligence and cognitive ability? Being “smart” is not a natural “gift” but emerges through the ongoing practice of deep thought and intellectual engagement—things that almost always require reading.

THREE: Reading is a CHALLENGE that forces us to engage in deep thought. In our social media age, many complex concepts are reduced to clickbait, tweets, 30-second Instagram reels, and AI summaries. The “attention economy” describes how powerful technology companies make money by encouraging us to continuously consume content. Hence, creators that encourage nuanced and critical thinking are in short supply. Reading, requiring sustained engagement with an idea or argument (Marriott 2025), provides the perfect anecdote to our slop-saturated atmosphere.

While we can google anything at any time, there is no replacement for learning how to engage in “advanced” thinking (Marriott 2025). Reading (and writing) is a key way humans have been able to access, work through, articulate, and build on complicated ideas. Sticking with long-form texts— especially those that stretch our imagination—is hard work. Through gritting through the challenge, readers build sustainable knowledge that cannot be wiped away as soon as the wifi goes out. Furthermore, this sustained engagement can start to change how individuals interpret and engage with the world around them.

Whenever an influencer says “no one is talking about THIS,” they are rarely saying anything new or revolutionary. In fact, they are usually revealing how little they have read and/or cashing in how little their audience reads. There are likely a myriad of articles, books, and academically-produced content that deeply explores whatever “THIS” happens to be. An influencer might give listeners a useful fun fact or catch phrase, but a trustworthy author will give their audience the tools to understand the evidence and underpinning logic of an argument. Rather than become dependent on a cultural leader for answers, a well-read audience becomes empowered and increasingly able to think for themselves.

FOUR: Reading encourages the use of libraries. Federal funding for local libraries is based on the number of active library cards. By getting (and using!) a library card, readers protect a key public institution that democratically distributes resources; anyone can walk into a library and get assistance without having to prove need or deservingness. Many people rely on libraries for essentials, including wifi, air conditioning when it is hot, and warmth when it is cold. Others get help with filing taxes, job searches, passport applications, and building general computer skills. Many libraries provide avenues for social connection, including book clubs for teens and adults. I could fill this whole paper with examples of how wonderful libraries are. Unfortunately, they are increasingly vulnerable due to decades of lobbying that aims to privatize all public goods (Shirazi & Johnson 2023). Library card renewal might be the most impactful thing a person does for their community all year long.

FIVE: Reading fosters social connection and a strong community. The written word is not just about individual improvement. Reading is a communal act, requiring engagement with the thoughts and experiences of those who came before us. We also tend to share our favorite ideas with our friends, family members, coworkers, and even strangers (I always talk with my Uber driving about what I am reading!).

During college, I would read as many as three books a week. Most of my courses were social science seminars, meaning my peers and I (guided by our professor) would come together weekly and spend two+ hours discussing what we had read. My most impactful learning experiences were shaped not just by the talented scholars I got to read and study under—but by the fellow twenty-year-olds seated next to me. As each of us individually processed aloud what we had learned, we simultaneously helped one another make sense of tough material; working together, we were able to build on the texts, draw connections, sit with contradictions, and grapple with critiques. This dual process (of reading individually and processing collectively) created a robust community of learners. As graduation approached, our conversations—often between kids who had different backgrounds and experiences—became increasingly nuanced and fulfilling and meaningful. I lost track of all the times I changed my mind about something that once felt unquestionable. In an age of social isolation, I think we could all use a little more of this kind of community building.

SIX: Reading is a form of rebellion. Early writing systems were primarily used by ruling elites. Following the rise of large-scale agriculture and (eventually) bureaucratic states, writing was used to control and discipline ordinary peasants, particularly through surveillance and taxation (Kemp 2025: 171-190). Whenever powerful empires fell, their writing systems often went with them; this occasional backsliding freed common folk and restored their ability to live freely on the land (Kemp 2025: 171-190). Yet, new warlords usually took control of key resources and formed new states/empires, and the masses were repeatedly forced to submit to the wills of whoever was the most militarily successful (Kemp 2025). Over time, brute military force was eclipsed by a more efficient and subtle form of power: ideological control. As the gatekeepers of knowledge, education, and religion, the ruling elite were almost impossible to meaningfully question and critique. If not ordained by God, they were the gods.

In 1439, something changed the course of history: the invention of the printing press. Books, traditionally only available to the top strata of society, became increasingly accessible on a global scale. By the 1700s, a “reading revolution” was underway (Marriott 2025). The ruling class became increasingly anxious as “[Poor people] began to know to much. People began to think too much” (Marriott 2025). After all:

The reading revolution was a catastrophe for the ultra-privileged and exploitative aristocrats of the European aristocratic ancien regime — the old autocratic system of government with almighty kings at the top, lords and clergy underneath and peasants squirming at the very bottom. (Marriott 2025)

This democratization of knowledge helped create the conditions for many modern democracies (Marriott 2025). A knowledgeable public is far more difficult to control and dominate, making monarchies and aristocracies less sustainable. While the world did not transform into an egalitarian Utopia, an uptake in literacy undoubtedly strengthened the masses. For the average peasant, picking up a book was revolutionary and rebellious and life-changing.

Because literacy proved deeply empowering to the underclasses, maintaining illiteracy among select groups was a way to perpetuate oppression. In the United States, for example, “anti-literacy laws” prevented enslaved Black people from reading and writing (Coleman 2025; Socol 2024)m). Proponents of slavery argued that Black people did not have the same intellectual capacities as whites; hence, a literate Black person was “dangerous” to the entire status quo (Coleman 2025). Although formal segregation has ended, the legacy of racist laws and systemic wealth inequality ensures public schools in low-income communities remain underfunded and under-resourced. As a result, Black, Brown, immigrant, and low-income children of all racial backgrounds (in the United States) are disproportionately reading below grade level (Socol 2024).

Similarly, powerful men fabricated reasons why women and girls should not read and write. Philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once wrote, “We men now wish that women would stop compromising themselves by their enlightenment…” (BELLAWILFER7 2021). Victorians argued that an “overactive brain” would lead to female infertility and “hysteria” (Young 2026). In 2026, many Internet personalities are advocating for a “natural order” in which women never have to think “too much.” Globally, women are still more likely than men to be illiterate (Iragavarapu 2026).

Whether you have a learning disability, got labeled the classroom “trouble-maker,” are dismissed as “ditzy,” or think higher education is out of reach, it is understandable to think that books are not for you. While our education system has made progress over the last century, we are still dealing with a long legacy of sorting students into potential “white collar” and “blue collar” workers. We often assume that intellectual development is only relevant to small subset of “gifted” people who will become doctors, lawyers, scientists, and academics. We see reading as an “innate talent—you have it or you don’t—rather than a skill you need to learn, hone, and practice” (Gwendolyn 2024).

In reality, no matter what future path a student pursues, all people are entitled to the educational tools that will allow them to think for themselves and resist exploitation and oppression as they navigate the adult world. If students who struggle with reading are “more reliant on the authority of their teachers and are less capable of racing ahead, innovating[,] and questioning orthodoxies” (Marriott 2025), then what do you think happens to adults who are functionally illiterate?

In, “You’ve been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress),” Ismatu Gwendolyn (2024) explains how widespread aversion to reading, although understandable, is disastrous for democracy. While it may seem counter-cultural and avant-garde to claim reading is outdated, this declaration is actually a form of conformity that primarily benefits dominant technology corporations. Not reading is exactly what the most powerful people in this society want you to do. As Gwendolyn powerfully states,“You never have to burn the books if no one ever wants to read them in the first place” (2024).

To be clear, I struggle to pick up a book more often than I would like to admit. Like many of my generation, I have wasted hours doomscrolling. Navigating our current world—fraught with uncertainty and grief—is overwhelming. It makes sense that many of us seek escapism in our screens.

When I feel discouraged, I try to think of the people who picked up a book even when it was incredibly difficult. Sojourner Truth probably would not have become as powerful an orator without asking people to read books aloud to her. Frederick Douglas was still enslaved when he learned how to read. Countless women authors were social pariahs who read far beyond what was considered acceptable for the “female mind.” Albert Einstein was dyslexic. Black Panther Party leaders were barely adults when they could cite a century’s worth of revolutionary scholars. Some of the most successful hip hop artists of our time were once nerds, studying Shakespeare and mastering Iambic pentameter…

I try to think of who I want to be in the world. I think of movie characters like 10 Things I Hate About You’s Kat Straford, who reads books like the The Feminine Mystique and intelligently argues with every authority figure that crosses her path; and, Gilmore Girl’s Jess Mariano, who seems like a “bad boy” but actually spends most of his free time reading classic literature. I want to be like these characters—both knowledgeable and rebellious.

I do not want to be the person staring into my phone screen for hours. I want to be the edgy person at the coffee shop, pouring over a book and then sharing with others what I learn. I want to be the person who values the knowledge of my ancestors and can engage in the human intellectual tradition. Most importantly, I want to be someone who understands the world so that I can question the way things are and have a say over the conditions that shape my life.

In a turbulent world in which we are told anything that cannot be translated into dollar signs is a waste of time, one of the most rebellious things we can do is pick up a book. For a moment, we can pause the rat race—corporations cannot mine our data; influencers cannot shock us with “hot takes;” AI cannot pollute the air we breathe; and Amazon workers do not have to race to fill our millionth 2-day delivery order. During that pause, our brains grow and we become reconnected to our common humanity. Books may not change the world on their own, but they do change people…

Share Cat’s Substack

One time donation

Preliminary Reading Recommendations for Fellow Rebels (teen/young adult+):

Cemetery Boys By Aiden Thomas

Forest Euphoria by Patricia Ononiwu Kaishian

Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer

Parable of the Sower By Octavia Butler

Their Eyes Were Watching God By Zora Neale Hurston

To Kill a Mockingbird By Harper Lee

What is the What By Dave Eggers

When the Tide Held the Moon By Vanessa Vida Kelley

References

BELLAWILFER7. 2021. “Friedrich Nietzsche “Beyond Good and Evil” – quotes and comments.” Litcritpop. https://litcritpop.com/2021/02/21/friedrich-nietzsche-beyond-good-and-evil-quotes-and-comments/.

Coleman, Colette. 2025. “How Literacy Became a Powerful Weapon in the Fight to End Slavery.” History.com. https://www.history.com/articles/nat-turner-rebellion-literacy-slavery.

Friends. 2023. “Joey Buys Chick/Friends.” Youtube, August 16, 2023.

Gregory, Andrew. 2026. “Reading and writing can lower dementia risk by almost 40%, study suggests.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/11/reading-writing-lower-dementia-risk-study-finds.

Gwendolyn, Ismatu. 2024. “You’ve been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress).” Threadings. https://www.threadings.io/youve-been-traumatized-into-hating/.

Horowitch, Rose. 2024. “The Elite College Students who Can’t Read Books.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/.

Iragavarapu, Rama. 2026. “Even Today, Literacy is Still Not Equal.” LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/even-today-literacy-still-equal-talradioenglish-yzsrc/.

Keller, Timothy A., and Marcel Adam Just. 2009. “Altering Cortical Connectivity: Remediation-Induced Changes in the White Matter of Poor Readers.” Neuron: A Cell Press Journal. 64 (5) 624-631. https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(09)00847-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627309008472%3Fshowall%3Dtrue.

Kemp, Luke. 2025. Goliath’s Curse: the History and Future of Societal Collapse. Knopf.

King, Noel, host. 2023. “Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good.” Today, Explained, June 16, 2023. Podcast audio. 26:04.

National Literacy Trust. 2026. “Teenage reading: (Re)framing the challenge.” https://literacytrust.org.uk/research-services/research-reports/teenage-reading-reframing-the-challenge/.

The Nation’s Report Card. 2023. “NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment Results: Reading & Mathematics.” https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/reading/student-experiences/?age=13.

Marriott, James. 2025. “The dawn of the postliterate society.” Substack.

Cultural Capital

The dawn of the post-literate society

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book because there would be no one who wanted to read one…

Read more

a year ago · 21540 likes · 1321 comments · James Marriott

Palm, Meredith. 2023. “Brain Development.” In Lifespan Human Development: A Topical Approach. Press Books. https://openbooks.library.baylor.edu/lifespanhumandevelopment/chapter/chapter-8-1-brain-development/#:~:text=Blooming%20occurs%20during%20the%20first,various%20areas%20of%20the%20brain.

ScienceDaily. 2009. “First evidence of brain rewiring in children: Reading remediation positively alters brain tissue.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091209121200.htm.

Shirazi, Nima, and Adam Johnson, hosts. 2023. “Episode 179: From Budget Cuts to Book Bans— The Decades-Long Assault on Public Libraries.” Citations Needed, March 29, 2023. Podcast audio. 1:04. https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-179-from-budget-cuts-to-book-bans-the-decades-long-assault-on-public-libraries.

Socol, Allison Rose. 2024. “The Literacy Crisis in the U.S. is Deeply Concerning and Totally Preventable.” World Literacy Foundation. https://usareads.org/the-literacy-crisis-in-the-us-the-right-to-read-2023/.

Sun, Yun-Jun, Barbara J. Sahakian, Christelle Langley, Anyi Yang, Yuchao Jiang, Jujiao Kang, Xingming Zhao, Chunhe Li, Wei Cheng, and Jianfeng Feng. 2023. “Early-Initiated Childhood Reading for Pleasure: Associations with Better Cognitive Performance, Mental Well-Being and Brain Structure in Young Adolescence.” Psychological Medicine 54, no. 2 (2024): 359–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291723001381.

University of Cambridge. 2023. “Reading for pleasure early in childhood linked to better cognitive performance and mental wellbeing in adolescence.” https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/reading-for-pleasure-early-in-childhood-linked-to-better-cognitive-performance-and-mental-wellbeing.

Young, Caroline. 2025. “International Women’s Day: The fight to read and write.” Scottish Book Trust. https://www.scottishbooktrust.com/articles/international-womens-day-the-fight-to-read-and-write.

While I contend it is impossible to “objectively” define “human nature” and am (staunchly!!) opposed to biological determinism, mainstream discourses about the “evils” of humanity ignore evidence that suggests humans are (or, have the capacity to be) deeply prosocial, cooperative, egalitarian, and peaceful beings.

In Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse, Luke Kemp (2025) takes an interdisciplinary approach (drawing heavily on the archaeological record, sociological trends, and historical patterns) to reconfigure our collective imagination of “end-times.” The book offers a glimpse into how societal breakdown can bring out the best, not the worst, in ordinary people. Perhaps most importantly, the downfall of powerful corrupt institutions has often opened up liberatory possibilities for non-elite, oppressed subjects. Not only has humanity proven to be capable of surviving catastrophe — we have proven capable of intense creativity and synergy when things get hard.

Subscribe now

Share

One time donation <3

The collapse of oligarchic and exploitative “Goliath” states—like the Roman Empire—often leads to a measurable improvement in the lives of the underclass(es). When empires fall, there is even a statistically significant increase in human height and life expectancy (Kemp 2025: 223-243). History’s greatest dystopias did not occur due to the breakdown of powerful “civilizations.” Systematic violence, genocidal practices, authoritarianism, and mass disenfranchisement has almost always occurred within, not independent of, bureaucratic, hierarchical states. Perhaps, this modern moment is the dystopia of our time period…

I was particularly struck by Kemp’s opening chapters, in which he explores the evolutionary attributes and social structures that helped our ancestors “survive the Ice Age” (Kemp 2025: 44). While the human story is rife with violence, our Paleolithic history provides an antidote to pessimistic claims about “human nature.” Moreover, through investigating the material changes that coincided with a rise in violence after the Ice Age, it becomes clear that interspecies violence is not a defining feature of homo sapiens nor an inevitable response to catastrophe; violence is arguably an outgrowth of resource ownership and hierarchy. Problems seem to arise when a small group of people (who are statistically more likely to exhibit psychopathic traits!) control a surplus…

Building on Kemp’s account of the Paleolithic Era, here are my preliminary takeaways:

Hobbes was patently wrong about “human nature.” Mainstream, pessimistic views of “human nature” are informed by an unsubstantiated hegemonic idea: “civilization” (i.e. the nation-state) is the only thing preventing humans from devolving into violence, laziness, and self-destruction. This narrative is not a “fact” but a philosophical claim popularized by Thomas Hobbes in the 1600s. His key argument – that the state exists to prevent humans from backsliding into “barbarism” – was not rooted in any archaeological or sociological data. Hobbes was both (1) responding to his particular historical moment (he lived through significant turmoil in England, including civil wars) and (2) building on a pre-existing ruling class ideology (those in power have often argued their existence is paramount to the safety and wellbeing of the masses). Since then, disciplines like Anthropology have repeatedly demonstrated that stateless peoples – such as many Indigenous communities – are not prone to violence and can persist (largely peacefully) for thousands of years (Kemp 2024: 60-76). Meanwhile, “civilized” modern states rarely last more than 300 years before inequality, corruption, and violence bring about collapse (Kemp 2025: 1-17). Often, “common sense” ideas about human nature are unfounded and encourage ordinary people to participate in our own subjugation.

Manosphere bros and social darwinists cherry-pick examples from the animal kingdom to justify patriarchy and deadly “competition” between humans. Gorillas, for example, are an ideal subject for arguing that patriarchy and male-male violent competition are “inevitable” parts of primate evolution. These human relatives organize their social structures around a singular ‘alpha male’ who is physically dominant and mates with all the adult females of his ‘harem’ (Tuttle 2026). Hence, females and males must be programmed to have different roles and inclinations; we have modern problems because we no longer stick to “natural” and “primal” gender divisions. This argument is deeply flawed, not least because:

1. Male domination is not universal among primates (Goodman 2026). Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are often described as “matriarchal” and exhibit many prosocial behaviors (including a variety of homosexual practices that solidify social bonds and prevent conflict) (Schrefer 2022; Kemp 2025: 21-44; Goodman 2026). Our other closest relative, Chimpanzees, are often more “patriarchal;” nevertheless, they have proven capable of changing their social structures. If dominating male chimpanzees are killed off, the remaining males do not automatically become the new dominators. Surviving females and males have been observed reorganizing their social practices, becoming more cooperative and peaceful. This change in chimpanzee “culture” is then handed down to the young, leading to the continuous absence of “alpha males” (presumably, even if some offspring are born larger and stronger than the rest) (Goodman 2026)). For every cherry-picked example of a “patriarchal” animal group, there is a multitude of species who are female-dominated, incredibly egalitarian, and/or simply not aligned with the worldview of right-wing podcasters.

2. Humans are NOT gorillas (or chimpanzees or bonobos!!). Our evolutionary trees diverged millions of years ago; we have each evolved in different directions. After our split, gorillas and other primates evolved traits advantageous for raw physical fighting – such as their large canine teeth, high pain tolerance, and the ability to heal quickly. Meanwhile, humans became balder, slower, and physically weaker than our common primate ancestor. Coinciding with evolutionary advances like increased dexterity and large brains, we accrued prosocial biological characteristics. For example, our eyeball structure is advantageous for social bonding; the fact that we can tell where one another is looking is bad for fighting and deception – but ideal for connection (Kemp 2025: 21-44). Male humans even lost the primate “penis bone,” making (genuinely) spontaneous reproduction is fairly difficult; according to paleoanthropologist, Ella Al-Shamahi, consistent connection and association with female humans (i.e. relationships and more monogamous practices) likely removed the need for an erection-jump-starter…

   Likewise, while male gorillas are nearly twice as large as female gorillas, male humans are (on average) only 15% larger than female humans (Kemp 2025: 21-44). Plenty of female humans are more physically daunting than plenty of male humans. If we do not reduce physical strength to the size of someone’s biceps, female human bodies and male human bodies do not fit nearly into a strong & dominant/weak & vulnerable binary (ultra marathon running is a great example of how “weak” female muscles frequently outperform male muscles). Furthermore, the patriarchs who have gained power and reigned supreme in history have often been the opposite of an “alpha male” image and have operated through the deference/passivity of other men (NOTE: the book Sapiens is worth critiquing for its linear representation of history and progress, but I did find Yuval Noah Harari’s point about patriarchy’s arbitrary nature to be incredibly compelling). Oppression has much more to do with the monopolization of resources by a small group, technological/weapons advances, and ideological control than biology and physical might. People we call “women” have not been oppressed because we are physically weak – nor have we been oppressed since “the dawn of time.”

3. Concepts like “matriarchy,” “patriarchy,” “woman, “man,” “female,” “male,” “feminine, and “masculine” are human constructs that we project onto other species AND onto our ancestors. These terms are culturally and historically contingent, meaning their definitions are subjective, contested, and highly variant (if even relevant) across place and time. Kemp fails to question modern binaries and can slip into biological determinism, but any anthropologist would attest that our human ancestors did not think about gender and sex in the rigid ways we often do today. Humans are simply too diverse to “naturally” fit into neat categories. Somewhere between 0.018% and 1.7% of us are intersex (Sax 2002; UNHCR 2026), and many more of us do not feel aligned with the modern sex and/or gender category we have been assigned (NOTE: a person does not have to be intersex, trans, or nonbinary to be alienated, violated, and misunderstood by the binaries). Paleolithic humans simply did not group everyone into two reductive sex-gender categories and organize all their social and political norms around a high-reproducing “alpha male” — this structure would have been a recipe for extinction during the Ice Age. Patriarchy (including sexual double standards, patrilineal family structures, and material inequality between the sexes) was developed later, coinciding with the rise of states and aristocracy (Kemp 2025: 112-132). In addition, patriarchy has never been universally practiced or accepted; it must be policed and maintained through socialization, ideology, economics, and violence. As it turns out, humans, including so-called “passive” women, are prone to rebel against domination (Kemp calls this phenomenon “dominance-aversion”).

In summary, humans are not evolutionarily destined for rigid hierarchy. We have a range of capacities as well as agency over how we live and organize ourselves.

“Tribalism” is not a universal feature of humanity. Our Paleolithic ancestors did not live in homogenous, isolated units who feared and hated outsiders. Early people lived in genetically-diverse groups that were connected through vast, geographically expansive social networks. Women and men left/joined groups at fairly equal rates, meaning heterosexual partnering and reproduction did not unilaterally require women (nor men) to abandon their family/friends/group (Kemp 2025: 21-44). As evidenced by the genetic diversity of these units, the strongest social bonds were not necessarily familial or reproductive; we do not know how Paleolithic people conceptualized their relationships to one another, but it is not totally outlandish to argue that the most important bonds were ones of friendship. Not only did people live and travel with their “friends,” they maintained hundreds — possibly upwards of 1,000 — connections with people across geographic regions. This intensely prosocial environment, particularly the traversing of people between groups, was highly advantageous — preventing incest and promoting genetic diversity; facilitating the sharing of ideas and technologies; as well as mitigating tribalism and violent conflict (Kemp 2025: 21-44).

In addition, our ability to connect with others was not hindered by superficial differences. People found ways to connect and communicate despite significant language and cultural barriers. We repeatedly interacted with, traveled with, and interbred with people who not only spoke and acted differently - but also looked vastly different than ourselves. We even had close relations with Neanderthals and other now-extinct human species (there were eight kinds of human who coexisted, whose remnants are mostly found in our genes!) (Kemp 2025: 45-59). Intermingling with “outsiders” like the Neanderthals was incredibly advantageous; these short-statured, muscular humans had lived in Europe and Asia for millennia, developing adaptations to the climate and immunity to local diseases. Upon our later arrival in Europe and Asia, homo sapiens were able to “supercharge” our evolution by passing on Neanderthal genes to our offspring. Without the help of Neanderthals, traits necessary for survival would have taken much longer to acquire. Hence, it was not necessarily intelligence that gave homo sapiens an evolutionary edge. The Neanderthals had very similar brains and capacities to homo sapiens; for a long time, homo sapiens were the “underdogs” who had little luck surviving outside of Africa and endured local extinctions whenever we tried to leave the continent (look into Ella Al-Shamahi’s work for an accessible explanation of this time period). Neanderthals were not dumb or maladapted, but they were socially insular and not very genetically diverse. Arguably, it has been our homo sapien propensity and capacity to share and connect with others that has helped us persist across geographies and through the ages (Kemp 2025: 45-59).

On average, humans are not “natural” killers. Experimental psychologist, Steven Pinker, helped spread misinformation about rates of violence among our Paleolithic ancestors. He claimed that 14% to 24.5% of human deaths in the Paleolithic era could be attributed to murder. In the modern world, 0.9% of human death is the result of interpersonal violence and war; a little over 1% is the result of suicide, bringing the total of human deaths cased by direct violence to about 2% (Kemp 2025 21-44). Accordingly, humans have become strikingly less violent over time, conveniently becoming more peaceful alongside the rise of modern states and “law and order.”

However, as Kemp points out, Pinker based his conclusions on limited and faulty data. His findings do not have credibility in the field of archeology or anthropology. Kemp gives us a more accurate statistic to ponder: in the Paleolithic era, about 1% of human death was caused by direct violence. The archaeological record suggests most Paleolithic violent deaths were the result of interpersonal “crimes of passion” – not large scale wars or the systematic murder of entire groups. Researchers can also have difficulty concluding if an example of a violent death (such as a human skeleton that has evidence of an arrow injury) is the result of human conflict or simply a hunting accident. Stateless and “lawless” people are far more peaceful than typically imagined, implying that the world has become increasingly violent alongside state/empire building (Kemp 2025: 21-44).

Furthermore, “killology” research suggests that humans are adverse to killing one another. For example, battlefield studies reveal that soldiers in history have often shot to maim (rather than kill); purposefully missed their targets; and/or avoided doing anything by constantly refilling their rifles (Kemp 2025: 21-44). During World War II, 150,000+ British and American soldiers actively deserted the frontlines; this figure is significant considering only 10% of ALL soldiers were forced into combat (Davies 2013). This aversion to violence has to be beaten out of (average) people (Kemp 2025: 21-44), such as through ideological warfare (i.e. propaganda that portrays “enemies” as less than human, as animals, as rats…) and desensitization/normalization of violence (i.e. using “combat simulators” and other technologies to turn the battlefield into a videogame). During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military became more strategic about training people to be killers, ensuring that fewer soldiers would refuse to fight. As Kemp emphasizes, if killing was our “natural” inclination, intensive training would not be as necessary; and the impact of being in battle would not be so costly to the psyche of soldiers (2025: 21-44). If we are an inherently self-destructive species, how would we have persisted, especially without eliminating all the altruistic and prosocial traits (average) humans continue to exhibit?

Humans are contradictory and flawed, so our ancestors developed social technologies that promoted prosocial and egalitarian behaviors that favored the collective. To be clear, our Paleolithic ancestors were not passive “noble savages” who “fell from grace” due to the rise of agriculture (see David Graeber and David Wengrow’s (2021) Dawn of Everything for a deep dive into this topic). Our ancestors were human, exhibiting the emotional complexity of modern humans; like you and me, they had contradictory motivations and desires. Egalitarian social structures did not arise “naturally” but through experimentation and outright necessity. In the thick of an ice age, “every man for himself” would have been a deadly approach (Kemp 2025: 40-44). (In fact, I cannot think of a moment in history in which individualism has genuinely existed other than in ideological terms; even under capitalism, we are always relying on the labor of other people – particularly if we have capital and can outsource laborious tasks to others). Caring for one another (including the wounded/disabled and elderly), sharing knowledge, and accepting “outsiders” from afar provided a social safety net that enabled cohesion and resiliency under dire environmental conditions.

However, some Paleolithic people did partake in behaviors that harmed the collective. As social creatures, we can be alarmingly “status-seeking.” Some of us also have a propensity for domination and even psychopathy/sociopathy; unchecked power also seems to lead us toward antisocial and corrupt behaviors, even if we do not have a psychiatric precondition. Our ancestors were very aware of such evolutionary flaws, developing means of punishing anyone who sought domination of the group. At times, gossip and public shaming was enough to discourage individuals from seeking power. In more extreme cases, capital punishment was used to eliminate dominance-seeking individuals (Kemp 2025: 21-44) While humans can love power and status, it turns out our hatred of domination has often canceled out our individual desires to be the dominator.

When the Earth warmed in the Neolithic period, access to new resources helped create the conditions for hierarchy and widespread violence (Kemp 2025: 60-76) Nevertheless, when warring societies self-destructed, the survivors often made an active choice to (re)build more egalitarian ways of living. In North America/Turtle Island, for example, a number of “Goliath” states rose and fell long before Western influence arrived. When Europeans encroached on the “new world,” they came across Indigenous communities who were responding to a history of violent collapse – developing new forms of democracy and sharing oral traditions that shamed power-hungry leaders (Kemp 2025: 91-111). As Kemp (2026: 40-44) emphasizes, egalitarianism is not just a moral choice— it is an effective survival strategy that many of our predecessors chose (and re-chose) throughout our history.

In conclusion…

While I continue to worry about the ways the ruling class and the psychopathic systems they govern will (continue to) harm the planet and all its inhabitants, I am becoming less worried about the capacity of the world’s “peasants” to (continue to) show up for one another and build new futures. Capitalism requires and proliferates antisocial forms of existence that hinder connection, cooperation, and solidarity (especially in the United States!), but this modern reality does not mean individualism and “every man for himself” are representative of our “survival instincts.” According to the archeological record, there is no strong evidence that the absence of state structure(s) automatically results in a Hobbesian dystopia. A small percentage of people who are already trained to be violent (such as police and military personnel) are the ones who carry out violence during collapses; when states and laws fold in on themselves, ordinary people do not suddenly transform into rabid killers (Kemp 2025: 149-170). Our neighbors are not to be feared – they are the ones who save us when things get scary (Stein Labrano 2025).

I have a few more chapters to go! To be continued…

Leave a tip <3

References

Davies, Dave. 2013. “WWII ‘Deserters:’ Stories of Men Who Left the Frontlines.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/189275754.

Goodmans, Amy. 2026. “Actor Elliot Page on Growing Up Queer, Trans Identity & ‘Second Nature’ Film Directed by Drew Denny.” Democracy Now!, June 24, 2026. https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/24/actor_elliot_page_on_growing_up.

Graeber, David and David Wenbrow. 2021. The Dawn of Everything. Allen Lane (Penguin Books).

Harari, Yuval Noah. 2015. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Random House.

Tuttle, Russel Howard. 2026. “Human Evolution: Language, culture, and lifeways in the Pleistocene.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Language-culture-and-lifeways-in-the-Pleistocene#ref868056

Schrefer, Eliot. 2022. Queer Ducks (and Other Animals): The Natural World of Animal Sexuality. Clarion Books.

Sax, Leonard. 2002. How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of sex research, 39(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139.

Stein Labrano. 2025. “In the Apocalypse, the Person Who Saves You is Your Neighbor.” Substack.

My Subschtick

In the Apocalypse, the Person Who Saves You is Your Neighbor

N.b. This smaller piece is part of something larger I’m working on in the form of a video essay (I will also publish the essay as a written word piece probably, for those of you who don’t like that) - but for now, here’s a taste of the whole…

Read more

a year ago · 33 likes · 5 comments · Sarah Stein Lubrano

.

UNHCR n.d. “Intersex people: OHCR and the human rights of LGBTI people.” United Nations. Accessed July 5, 2026. https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people.

In my current job, I help people cultivate “adulting” skills. My clientele is disproportionately adult men. I have observed firsthand that men—particularly those who are unemployed, under-employed, or engaged in wage labor—are struggling. My typical work week includes many discussions about social isolation; housing insecurity; job market challenges; the bureaucratic nightmare of accessing healthcare; and the never-ending struggle to “keep up.”

Share Cat’s Substack

One time donation

When I work with women, they are often struggling in these same exact areas. However, I can typically expect that a woman client will only attend a fraction of our scheduled appointments. Childcare and other caregiving responsibilities often conflict with women accessing supports—even with (and sometimes because of) the presence of male co-parents and partners.

Furthermore, college-educated and fully employed women are facing major challenges. As a contract worker in a helping profession, I experience significant precarity. I do not have health insurance, my rent continues to increase, and I remain under-qualified for most forms of “skilled” and white collar work. My primary options for employment are care work or service industry work. LinkedIn recently recommended that I become a surrogate. My bachelors degree in Anthropology undoubtedly gives me cultural capital, but it has not translated into financial capital or significant social mobility.

As women increasingly outnumber men in higher education, we should be weary—just not for the reasons often given. When an institution or industry becomes “female-dominated,” we can usually expect that society has (or will start to) decrease its value. The financial utility of a college education is in decline. Some young people, especially young men, have (accurately) determined that they will have better economic outcomes if they pursue the trades and/or nontraditional forms of income.

The young women attending college, rarely encouraged to pursue skilled trades and often intimidated by the prospect of being the minority in male-dominated fields, are disproportionately funneled into the social sciences, humanities, and lower-paid industries. I was genuinely passionate about my college major and found my education deeply empowering, but I still unintentionally wound up in the care work industry—performing the traditional feminine labor I thought I was escaping.

To be clear, I love my clients. I think every human should find a way to share in the labor of caring for others—this work is extremely needed and important and should be compensated far more adequately. Yet, like other humans, I love exercising my creative, intellectual, and physical capacities. I dream of having the freedom to be both a caring community member and someone who can be an “artisan” of sorts. In grade school, how many of us wanted to be artists, writers, musicians, craftspeople, and professionals who could build, repair, and invent things? Under current conditions, people—women and men alike—are increasingly denied a very human need to use our minds and bodies in fulfilling ways.

In a world that is increasingly difficult to thrive in, it is easy to grow resentful of one another (and some of these resentments are valid). Nevertheless, I will always have far more in common with a poor or working class man than I will ever have with a woman CEO. If we want affordable housing, medicare for all, liveable wages, a job guarantee, publicly-funded higher education, the capacity to build and support our families, and the freedom to retire before age 80...we are going to have to start seeing that people of different identities have the same economic interests. We are in this struggle together.

It is almost as if politicians - Democrats and Republicans - benefit from our lack of solidarity with one another…

Leave a tip <3

Recently, I was forced to listen to Left media personnel “debate” the politics and ethics of shoplifting. Not to be a snob, but the “radical” points made were akin to the claims of first year college students (what a concept it is to think critically about the moral contradictions that arise when a person is poor). On the New York Times Opinion video, Hasan Piker points out corporations engage in “wage theft” everyday; hence, it is not immoral for workers to steal back the wealth they produce. In Damage Magazine, Dustin “Dino” Guastella claims that advocating for “antisocial behavior” does not benefit working people or the Left; he warns “social disorder” will follow, and then people will blame the Left for making current conditions worse. (Note: Guastella does not qualify why stealing from a corporation is an “antisocial behavior” and his full argument is eerily similar to “broken windows theory,” so I am not compelled by his logic). On Novara Media, Ash Sarkar argues that stealing from corporations has much less moral weight than other forms of theft. However, she asserts that people, specifically middle class folks, engage in shoplifting not because they are in need or political conscious – but because stealing is thrilling and fulfills a self-interested desire for commodities.

I do NOT enjoy listening to people in professional roles debate whether or not the choices of the poor/working class are moral. At worst, this conversation opens up opportunities for political leaders to police the lower classes in the name of “social order.” At best, this conversation leads to a basic understanding: if you subject people to exploitative living and working conditions, many will rebel through petty rule-breaking. Moralizing about acts like shoplifting is like judging a feudal peasant for having a secret stash of vegetables. I do not need a Leftist thought leader to explain this argument to me. Anyone who has worked for a major corporation or a shitty Mom&Pop shop intimately understands that middle-class “morals” are irrelevant when you make $16/hour.

Share

One time donation <3

What I did find interesting: none of the commentators saw individual shoplifters as valid political actors. Guastella is preoccupied with promoting “social order,” ignoring the political agency of poor/working people and the way petty crime can be an expression of political grievances. Meanwhile, Piker and Sarkar conclude individual rebellious acts are not political. In order for shoplifting to be a form of resistance to capitalism, the shoplifter has to be: (1) politically conscious and politically motivated; and (2) acting in concert with a collective political movement.

While I concede that atomized acts of resistance will never put an end to capitalism, I wholeheartedly disagree with this rubric for assessing whether or not someone is engaged in “politics.”

What is the definition of “politics”?

Drawing on my exposure to feminist theory, political theory, and Anthropology/Sociology, I understand politics as individual and collective negotiation and shaping of the systems, ideas, and values that govern our world. Even if we define ourselves as “apolitical,” politics are inescapable because the most intimate part of our lives – the ways in which we acquire food and shelter, access clean water, cloth ourselves, get from place to place, access medical care, communicate, form relationships, and build families and communities – are structured by broader systems and power relations. Politics is not a dirty word, reducible to the realm of electoralism and the U.S.’s two-party system. Rather, politics describes how all of us are participating in (re)making the world. Through everyday actions, we contest, disrupt, debate, comply with, and/or reproduce the conditions we were born into. Even in an ideal society, politics would exist; humans would continue to argue, try to convince one another that their ideas are best, and negotiate an ever-changing world. When enough people become conscious, politicized, and organized – then political engagement can grow into collective forms (movements, unions, mass organizations, third-parties). For many Leftists, the goal is to turn class-consciousness into a working class political party that can pose a substantial threat to oppressive systems. (See Carol Hanisch (1969) for the original “The Personal is Political” essay).

Can individual and spontaneous actions be political?

Individual actions have been pivotal for political movements. For example, most Americans know who Rosa Parks is. While Parks is often portrayed as a fed-up, ordinary woman, she was an active political organizer of the Civil Rights Movement. Her personal act of civil disobedience was deeply strategic. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was going to happen; organizers simply needed a pivotal event to organize around. The arrest of a 42-year-old, light-skin, Christian, Black woman provided the perfect impetus for one of the most successful boycotts in U.S. history.

However, before Parks, there was a long history of Black people refusing to give up their seats on the bus (literally and metaphorically). Claudette Colvin, for instance, was arrested nine months prior to Parks for the same “crime” of not giving up her seat for a white person. Civil Rights leaders decided not to organize around Colvin’s case because she did not embody the image of “respectability” they believed was necessary to achieve widespread support. Colvin was fifteen, darker skin, and became pregnant not long after her arrest (Adler 2009). While her act of rebellion did not result in an immediate collective action, it was still deeply political. The Civil Rights Movement was born out of rich tradition of Black struggle – which has involved both deeply coordinated and spontaneous actions. In Colvin’s words, “It felt like Sojourner Truth was on one side pushing me down, and Harriet Tubman was on the other side of me pushing me down. I couldn’t get up” (Adler 2009). Ordinary Black people fighting white supremacy and seeking dignity in their everyday lives– even in disorganized and nonstrategic ways – helped plant the seeds for and propel the Civil Rights Movement. Parks’s tactical approach does not exist without a whole lot of people, across a whole lot of years, having the guts to put their bodies on the line. Hence, spontaneous individual acts can be political and yield lasting impact.

Does someone have to be “politically conscious” to engage in politics?

Relatively mundane acts often get read as political statements. A Black person wears their hair natural; a woman forgets to shave her legs; a Queer person dresses in a way that makes them feel comfortable; an Indigenous person gets a tattoo that reflects their heritage; a man decides to be a stay-at-home dad…these people get labeled “activists, “feminists,” and “bold” even if all they are doing is trying to live authentically. Recently, my neighbor commented that witnessing me run after dark “is so nice to see.” I have made her feel safer by demonstrating that a (white)1 woman is not in danger as soon as the sun sets. My impact was unintentional — I get caught running at night because of my poor time management skills. Nevertheless, my relatively mundane routine has challenged a taken-for-granted idea about female vulnerability. While these small acts are not enough to overthrow systems of oppression, they let other people know that other realities are possible and help open up opportunities for transformation.

Politics also extends beyond challenging the status quo. Compliance is just as political as defiance. Changing one’s name after marriage (for women); buying an iPhone; (mis)using African American vernacular language for Instagram likes (for nonBlack folks); relying on Amazon for cheap commodities; driving to work in a gas-guzzling car; ordering non-contact delivery from DoorDash; using AI to compose personal messages; sending one’s children to private school; continuing “business as usual” as genocides, wars, and environmental catastrophe ravage the planet….all of these are political acts with real world, material consequences. Such “choices” are often chosen for us through social norms, economic incentives, and powerful tech monopolies. Nevertheless, all ordinary people (particularly those of us in the Global North who are consuming energy and goods at levels beyond the Earth’s capacity), are participating in creating the world as it is today.

Is anyone a “good person” under capitalism?

If everyone is engaged in upholding oppressive and exploitative systems, why not just stop? Daily political choices are heavily shaped by incentives and coercion, which is why overcoming systemic problems is so challenging. Most (over 60% of) Americans live paycheck to paycheck (according to a variety of sources). Hypothetically, if I took the day off to serve my community in a more meaningful way than wage labor, I would not get paid. If I continued my work hiatus for a few weeks (maybe I could run a free adult literacy program?), I would not be able to afford groceries, utilities, healthcare, or debt payments. After a month (assuming I would lose my job), I would not be able to pay rent. If I managed to successfully navigate the bureaucratic nightmare of obtaining welfare benefits, I still would not have enough money for food and housing — let alone any other expenses. If I became unhoused, it would be nearly impossible to get a new job without a home address. Living on the streets would not only make me an incredibly stigmatized and vulnerable member of the community; I would also be subject to laws that criminalize homeless people, possibly ending up behind bars and without the right to vote. If I did not go to jail, freezing winters and increasingly hot summers would surely shorten my natural life span. I would lose everything simply because I stopped engaging in full-time paid labor. The violent threat of this outcome, however unlikely, ensures I will continue working and consuming cheap commodities despite widespread poor living/working conditions, climate catastrophe, genocide, war, and other gross injustices.

Under this coercive model, people with money have far more freedom to be “good people” and “help the less fortunate.” Bill Gates, for instance, is often celebrated because of his philanthropic endeavors. Every billionaire accumulates wealth through unjust, exploitative, and environmentally damaging means; their consumption habits then further contribute to the problems currently facing humanity. Yet, they buy back their morality and integrity through self-serving charity work. As is the case for The Gates Foundation, a philanthropic organization can have stock investments and “[make] far more money than it gives away, and all that income is completely tax-free” (Kriss 2022). Even in the quest to help others, people are incentivized to seek profit. Hence, the wealthiest among us pursue endless profit accumulation—because they can.

(NOTE: billionaire-controlled institutions have repeatedly proven incapable of operating democratically and resolving global inequality. If philanthropy was effective at solving systemic problems, billionaires would cease to exist. See Kriss 2022 for detailed examples of the ways Gate’s philanthropic projects have gone wrong and harmed people in the process.)

While I do not care for billionaires, their behavior is relatively rational and aligns with other wealth-seekers. Under capitalism, building wealth requires us to engage in ethically dubious actions. A law school graduate (who probably has substantial debt) will make far more money if they become a corporate lawyer instead of an environmental lawyer. We talk of small business owners as if they are an oppressed group, when many of them engage in labor practices that are just as exploitative as major corporations (while providing fewer channels for employees to voice concerns!). When people start to acquire wealth, they are encouraged to make “investments.” Some invest in real estate and even become landlords; in other words, many middle income people contribute directly to and profit from the housing crisis. Millions (from members of congress to normal folks with 401Ks) are invested in the weapons industry, meaning Americans have been making passive income from the destruction of human life in the Middle East for decades.

I concede that there are avenues for individuals to be more ethical when it comes to building wealth. (A small business owner could work alongside her employees and share the surplus value equitably; a retiree could rent out his spare room at a reasonable price). Still, the most ruthless and morally abhorrent practices are given the highest reward. Exploitation of others is heavily incentivized. The wealthiest people in the world profit from human suffering, and then turn around and tell the rest of us to “work hard” so that we too can become “good people” who donate to charity, buy organic food, drive electric cars, and live a life of purpose.

What’s the point of individual acts if the problems we face are systemic?

To be clear, capitalism and imperialism are responsible for the vast majority of environmental destruction, wealth inequality, poverty, hunger, preventable death, and genocidal/military violence (Vulture Capitalism by Grace Blakely is a good resource if you are confused about this statement). I highly recommend watching Abby Martin’s (2026) interview on Doomscroll for a sobering perspective (She also released a 2026 documentary: Earth’s Greatest Enemy). The U.S. Military Industrial Complex is the greatest environmental polluter in the world. In addition to facilitating mass death, the U.S. military continues to (literally) poison non-Americans and Americans alike. For what? So that the U.S. can control the earth’s resources and maximize corporate profits.

The problems we face in our daily lives are often systemic. Therefore, they cannot be resolved through spontaneous and individual acts; systems change through organization and mass mobilization. However, this conclusion is NOT mutually exclusive with cultivating a sense of personal responsibility for current conditions. In fact, individual actions are essential for working towards collective actions. I have four reasons for this claim:

(1) Everyday individual actions have real world effects. The slogan, “There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism,” often becomes an excuse to do nothing. Encouraging certain behaviors, like shorter showers, is a waste of time. If we all started taking shorter showers tomorrow, little would change. Industrial agriculture, not household water use, is what is wasting massive amounts of the clean water supply. On the other hand, some of our personal choices do contribute directly to environmental degradation and the exploitation of other humans. Refusing to buy fast fashion, for example, is a political and moral imperative. (I will expand on this point below.)

(2) If we believe we can do nothing, we become numb and consent to our own subjugation (and the subjugation of other humans). In my first women’s studies college course, one my peers said something informative: “The concept of empowerment assumes people have no power.”All individuals have some level of power; we can use that power to reduce the harm we cause to others (especially the people and organisms we do not have direct contact with). On Novaro Media, Ash Sarkar explains:

Lea Ypi who put it, “We never lose our fundamental freedom, which is the freedom to do what is right.” And sure, we can say these are individualized choices, and they’re ways of letting big corporations and systems off the hook. But when I know deep that to down that there is a morality and a moral implication for me to…fly for leisure purposes when…parts of Bangladesh are going to be rendered uninhabitable because of [saltwater] intrusion or rising sea levels…there’s a moral dimension there that I cannot escape.

Capitalism takes a lot from us, but it cannot take away our agency to do what we can.

(3) Even if individual acts “do nothing,” we can view them as practice. My college roommate studied abroad in Latin America (I believe Colombia). She said that the political culture of everyday people was starkly different than American individualist culture. If I remember correctly, there was a bus driver strike, leaving many people without transportation. Rather than get enraged about the inconvenience, her host family was calm and in solidarity with the bus drivers. It is one thing to espouse socialist values; it is another thing to actually practice them. Through small acts that force us to think about our allegiance to the wellbeing of other people, we can start to cultivate the skills to be in solidarity with others even when it is difficult.

This philosophy mirrors the Anarchist principle of “direct action.” Through the process of engaging in political action, small and large, people transform. We learn knew skills and become more aware of our capacity.

Similarly, Jame C. Scott’s concept of “Anarchistic calisthenics” describes how breaking rules, even if mundane, is an essential political exercise. Noticing how much difficulty he had breaking an inconsequential norm, Scott came up with a “pep talk” for himself:

‘You know, you and especially your grandparents could have used more of a spirit of lawbreaking. One day you will be called on to break a big law in the name of justice and rationality. Everything will depend on it. You have to be ready. How are you going to prepare for that day when it really matters? You have to stay ‘in shape’ so that when the big day comes you will be ready. What you need is anarchist calisthenics. Every day or so break some trivial law that makes no sense, even if it’s only jaywalking. Use your own head to judge whether a law is just or reasonable. That way, you’ll keep trim—and when the big day comes, you’ll be ready.’

Norms, rules, and laws do not always reflect ethics; they often reflect the interests of powerful actors. People who rely on the law as a moral code are not utilizing their capacity to think for themselves; individuals who have no practice breaking rules are predisposed to go along with legal atrocities. A mass movement would probably benefit from having shoplifters on its side…

Overall, as Sarah Stein Labrano (2026) points out “gateway actions” prepare us for — and often lead to— larger scale actions.

(4) Someone has to go first. In Struggle Makes Us Human, Vijay Prashad (2022) makes an important point: revolutionaries take one step forward first so that the masses can see that another world is possible. Once the movement takes a step forward, the revolutionaries can take another step. This idea is reminiscent of Margaret Mead’s famous quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” According to the BBC, nonviolent movements that “[engage] a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change” (Robson 2019). Some of us are going to have to be brave enough to go first…(and some are already being quite brave…)

Where to go from here?

I am often disillusioned — painfully aware that I am not doing enough. How will I explain myself to future generations? When I graduated college, I imagined joining the DSA and attending a community organizing meeting every evening. In reality, I am often burnt-out; preoccupied with my own “social reproduction” (Sarah Stein Lubrano (2026) piece,“Why Adulting is Hard(er Than it Used to Be,” expands on why this is a common struggle), and geographically far away from the “exciting” protests. However, I have slowly learned some ways to actively engage in politics that are accessible, budget-friendly, and OFFLINE. These practices have varying and limited impact, but they allow me to cultivate the socialist values I espouse; resist complicity; reduce my reliance on exploitative and environmentally degrading forms of consumption; and contribute (in meager ways) to the struggle against capitalism.

Some caveats

I understand that the list below is more or less accessible depending on the reader’s positionality. I have done my best to come up with options that (I think) most people living in the U.S. can do. Still, keep in mind: I am a white woman with American citizenship; I am on a tight budget and do not come from wealth (even so, my social network network would have to disintegrate before I would become completely unhoused); I do not drive and live in relatively rural area; I identify with Queerness but am not noticeably gender non-conforming; I am childless and do not have any dependents; I struggle with executive functioning but do not have a debilitating physical disability. Please use your discernment to identify what is relevant/irrelevant to you.

This list of ideas is not intended to shame poor or working class people. I am still learning how to put my politics into action (and often failing!). Like others, I have relied too much on social media for political engagement, doomscrolled for hours, consumed cheap goods, used the products of powerful tech companies, and often felt numb and powerless. My goal is to share my knowledge and (maybe) help other people (especially those with limited capacity) contribute to the struggle against capitalism. I apologize if I sound overly prescriptive or morally-righteous…

POSSIBLE action steps for people who want to feel a little less powerless

Get a library card even if you never plan to use it (renew it every year and annoy your friends/family until they do the same!). Federal funding for your local library is based on the number of library cards. By getting a library card, you are protecting a key public institution that democratically distributes resources; anyone can walk into a library and get assistance without having to prove need or deservingness. Many people rely on libraries for essentials, including wifi, air conditioning, and warmth. Others get help with filing taxes, job applications, passport applications, and general computer skills. I could rant forever about how libraries benefit everyone…but they are increasingly under threat due to right wing lobbying that aims to privatize all public goods. Getting a library card might be the most important thing you do all year.

Take part in local community organizing that is already taking place – even if you have ideological differences with the organizers. You do not have to form an organization or become a committee leader to be impactful. Most community organizers need people to simply show up to the events that they plan. Look into the events hosted in your town/city. Googling “your town name + mutual aid” is often a good place to start. The PSL, DSA, and General Strike (U.S.) also have many local chapters and host teach-ins, documentary showings, clothing swaps, and other meaningful forms of engagement. If you live near a college, students are probably organizing demonstrations you can attend. Even if you are non-religious, religious institutions, such as the Quakers and Unitarian Universalists, can offer opportunities for community service and progressive political action. Can you get to one event, protest, or volunteer opportunity per month (one!)? Every other month? To keep yourself accountable, can you invite your neighbor to go with you?

If you live near me:

• New Hampshire Mutual Aid Fund offers flexible opportunities for volunteer work. Its “Free Store” runs weekly in multiple New Hampshire towns/cities. If you cannot attend, you can donate items and/or help with transporting supplies.

• New Hampshire Peace Action conducts vigils for Palestine every week. I originally thought I would hate going because they are not an explicitly “Leftist” organization. In reality, I encountered veterans of the peace movement and elderly women willing to put their bodies on the line. They have become a persistent thorn in the side of state representatives. On Mother’s Day weekend 2024, five members were arrested at the NH State House, creating a much needed spectacle.

Sign your strike card! Many of us no longer have access to unions (if you do, PLEASE join your union!), but the General Strike (U.S.) is currently organizing so that we can achieve a national general strike. This initiative is not the same as a social media declaration to not buy anything for a day; organizers are preparing for a mass, potentially long-term, sustainable, REAL strike. This undertaking requires extensive planning and coordination to prepare participants and protect strikers from hunger, job loss, and eviction. Once 11 million people (3.5% of the U.S. population) commit, the organization will have the numbers to get serious about using our collective labor power. Even if you cannot help with organizing in the immediate future, you can sign your strike card and spread the information!

Follow Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions (BDS) consumer guidelines when making purchases. The “there is no ethical consumption” slogan does contain truth. If you look into the supply chain of any product, even if it is “green” or “women-owned,” you will find ethical problems. BDS helps by creating targets for people to focus on, preventing consumers from supporting companies that profit from weapons manufacturing and genocide. (The list is s not as straightforward as you would think – I am often surprised by the range of companies implicated in the genocide of Palestinians). If you generate passive income through investments, BDS led me to this tool for assessing if you are profiting from human rights violations.

Cancel amazon prime. Not only is Amazon a BDS target and mired in unethical practices, it perpetuates our blind dependency on instant gratification. I completely empathize with people who are overwhelmed by to-dos and need a product at the last minute. But, that “two-day delivery” feature comes at a high cost to delivery workers. See “Delivery Drivers Sue Amazon For Being Forced To Pee In Bottles” (Hamilton 2023).” We are often outsourcing our struggles directly onto another exploited worker – yet, we do not have to think about it because we rarely come into contact with the people we harm.

Buy second-hand whenever possible - especially when it comes to clothing (I am going to be a little shame-y here!). The fashion industry has pathetic labor practices and is a “major contributor to pollution and climate change” (Singh & Bansal 2024). Nevertheless, people keep buying cheap clothing beyond what is socially necessary:

In recent years, the fashion industry has witnessed a staggering doubling of consumption, marking a significant shift in consumer behaviour. This surge in demand has profound implications, leading to an increase in waste, mainly due to the rise of disposable fashion (Singh & Bansal 2024).

If I hear the argument “It is classist to tell people not to buy fast fashion” one more time, I will scream. I have been on the lower side of the economic ladder my entire life – and I have primarily worn second-hand clothes the last 29 years. I have not suffered a psychological trauma because I have been “deprived” of brand new material things. (In fact, I am probably better off since brands like Shein produce clothing containing microplastics and other harmful chemicals). Furthermore, thrifting has been rebranded as a cool and edgy hobby; wearing secondhand clothing is not nearly as class-coded as earlier decades. (Note: I do not think resellers or upperclass people who shop at thrift stores are taking precious resources away from others; a disgusting amount of perfectly good second-handing clothing winds up in landfills – there is enough for everyone!). I am not saying people do not deserve nice things. (And, I understand the limited availability of plus size clothing in thrift stores complicates this discussion). However, I am saying that no one is entitled to nonessential, cheap consumer items that are produced through environmental degradation and human rights violations.

Consider engaging in a form of wartime tax resistance (please use your discernment here!!). Most of our tax dollars go to the U.S. military. The National Wartime Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee can advise you on methods of morally-driven tax payment refusal (this is not about tax evasion!!!). There are a number of legal ways to protest against the war machine while still paying into Social Security and Medicaid. I learned from one woman that she mails a check to the IRS everyday of the year; her extremely incremental payments are basically moot (the processing costs will cancel out what she pays back). After ten years, the IRS will be obligated to forgive the rest of what she owes. The “simple living method” is probably most accessible: the less money you earn and accumulate per year (and the more money you put into a retirement account and donate to charity), the less you contribute to the military industrial complex. ********NOTE: I am not qualified to give legal or financial advice!!!!********

Defy the tech brows by protecting your attention. Our attention is a powerful weapon (otherwise companies would not be competing for it!). On Instagram (ironically), I came across a reel of Chris Hayes applying the labor theory of value to attention. Previous generations understood that workers have labor power; without workers, the economy cannot function. Hence, worker strikes are very effective at forcing people in power to meet our demands. Yet, in a world increasingly driven by the “attention economy,” we no longer just sell our bodies and working hours to capitalists. Even when we are not working, our attention is being colonized for profit. In Damage Magazine, Adam Smith (not the 18th century economist haha) describes our excessive smartphone use as “alienated leisure.” The eight hours of freedom that the labor movement fought for is being overtaken:

…The product of our most determinedly “unproductive” hours (for Gen Z, over 6 hours of captured attention per day) is used to generate massive profits that we do not share, and to enable pervasive surveillance. The activity of scrolling (or clicking, or whatever) is intensely piecemeal, by design: we are algorithmically sorted with godlike efficiency into various silos and echo chambers that cut us off from any context that might salvage our act of attention from the constant fragmentation (cat video follows live beheading follows stock tips) that has been quite helpfully characterized as a form of “human fracking.” It goes without saying that we are unprecedentedly isolated from all the other people with whom we are supposedly more “connected” than ever before in human history. And, most importantly, we are increasingly cut off from our natural desire to spend our “free” time doing something that is free—something that is active and creative, something that strives for coherence and depth, something that involves not “connection” (that is what machines do) but honest-to-god relationships. (Smith 2026)

Phones are addictive by design, so it is not productive to shame anyone. Still, the more we can resist scrolling – the more we defy corporate power. Furthermore, once offline, we have greater capacity to build the relationships, skills, and ideas necessary for a more just world.

Consider alternative tech brands when replacing your electronics. Many of us have seen the videos and headlines about cobalt. For an overview, the Geneva International Centre for Justice (2024) published, “Major tech companies accused of child labour in Congolese cobalt mines.” The article explains:

Due to the fact that cobalt is necessary for the rechargeable lithium ion batteries that power the millions of products sold each year by Apple, Dell, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla, the lawsuit claimed that these businesses encouraged the mining company to exploit children for labor, forcing them to work in hazardous conditions that resulted in fatalities and serious injuries. (Mosebo 2024)

When the environmental and human costs are accounted for, it becomes clear that a $600 iphone should cost consumers $30,000 (Prashad 2022). When we buy electronics that we could not afford without exploitation, we are implicated in stealing wages and life from children. Since a smartphone is increasingly essential for life in the U.S., some are putting together tools to help find more responsible brands. Obviously, it is the fault of tech giants for facilitating exploitation. Still, when we benefit from something objectively awful, I think we have a responsibility to resist complicity.

Avoid passive consumption of AI. AI (or LLMs) is unpopular. Hence, tech companies are coming up with ways to integrate their products into our daily routines without our consent (turns out a similar process occurred when electricity was invented). There are still ways to avoid unnecessary AI use. When I do internet searches, I type in “-ai” so that an AI answer is not automatically generated. I also turned off all AI features on my email account and added this statement to my automatic email signature:

AI statement: I attest that this email was written by me (NOT AI). I request that those I correspond with avoid AI when communicating with me (with the exception of anyone who has a condition that prevents them from being able to read/write). I find AI generated emails unclear and confusing; I would much rather receive a flawed/informal human-composed message. Moreover, I would like to reduce my environmental impact and limit my complicity in putting dollars in the pockets of powerful AI companies. Thank you for your understanding.

AI does have positive applications, but the way it is being developed and forced onto the public is highly questionable. Sam Altman explicitly stated he plans to use AI to commodify intelligence; if his vision comes to fruition, we will be outsourcing the act of thinking to technology. Increasingly, we will have to ask ourselves, when is AI a legitimate tool, and when is it preventing me from thinking for myself? When is AI actually necessary to use, and when is the quest for convenience/efficiency a selfish use of resources? When is efficiency desirable, and when does efficiency result in a loss of human contact and connection? Whether you worry AI might be socially and psychologically counterproductive; a threat to education/educators and art/artists; providing a means to sexually exploit women and children; exacerbating the climate crisis; coming for your job; bolstering the power of tech giants and the state; or bringing our worst science fiction nightmares to life, we are all on the same side and should start acting like it!

Find a way to support independent journalism and/or left-wing media. Both independent journalism and left-wing media are severely underfunded because they do not run on corporate sponsorships (meaning they are far better at providing reliable information than the CNNs and Joe Rogans of the world). “Alternative media” is growing in popularity, but most of this content is right-wing and funded by dubious sources. You do not have to break the bank to help balance the scale! I choose ONE news media organization and donate $1 to $5 a month. Simply viewing, following, sharing, and leaving positive reviews are FREE ways to support the work of independent journalists and Leftist platforms. Democracy Now! and Pro-Publica are reputable, award-winning news sources that are not bought out by corporate interests. For an explicitly Leftist perspective, Rev Left Radio, Citations Needed, Upstream, Novara Media, and Haymarket Books are great places to start. (When assessing Leftist media options, I look for hosts that cite their sources and credentials; are not dogmatic; bring together a wide range of perspectives; do not use their platforms to generate excessive profits; and engage in some form of outside community organizing). The revenue generated through sources like these quite literally puts food on the table for people who have made personal and economic sacrifices in order to educate the public.

Challenge yourself to think about your “red line” and what you are willing to give up. As the climate crisis persists and economic conditions worsen, many of our lives will get continue to get worse. Some people are already living through an apocalypse, such as the Palestinians and the Sudanese. However, some people’s lives will retain a sense of normalcy and comfortability; the decline will likely feel slow and ordinary (see Octavia E. Butler’s (1993) Parable of the Sower for a strikingly accurate picture of how collapse can be gradual and multi-causal). I often think of this viral tweet: “Climate change will manifest as a series of disasters viewed through phones ...until you’re the one filming it.” Hence, complacency might be easier than organizing, strikes, boycotts, taking to the streets, and creating new ways of living that help us survive climate catastrophe. At what point will you be willing to pay more than lip service to the struggles against capitalism and imperialism? How can you cognitively prepare yourself to do what is inconvenient?

Cultivate human connection and practice some level of civic responsibility. About a year ago, I encountered an unhoused woman who was incapacitated and needed medical attention. I was in my local downtown—bystanders driving and walking by. While shielding her from getting hit by cars, I desperately tried to get medical help without giving law enforcement an opportunity to berate her. The local harm reduction hotline I called could not do anything but offer therapy. An ambulance eventually came, but not before two police showed up to question someone who could not speak. The entire situation was hellish, but it would have felt much more manageable if a couple other ordinary people felt some responsibility to help. Instead, bystanders asked me, “Do you know her?”

I share this anecdote not because I am proud of what happened (I became brutally aware I need bystander training and basic first aid skills). I felt incredibly disturbed and let down; my core belief that humans are caring and cooperative was aggressively challenged. The incident was a microcosm of Americans’ individualism, deteriorating social skills, and total lack of community care/resources.

As we spend more and more time alone and disconnected (see Stein Lubrano 2026 for further explanation), I often wonder what is happening to our social skills and sense of obligation to one another (especially to the people we are not friends with or related to). Capitalism discourages human connection, helping people who cannot return the favor, and living slowly. So, it is deeply political to carve out spaces for connection and care in the mundane (especially when doing so is inconvenient and inefficient). Maybe this is the neuro-spicy part of my brain talking, but having socially-oriented rules for myself has been helpful. For example, “I must initiate conversation with my Uber driver.” My most important rule is to never be the bystander that assumes someone else will do something. You might have different rules/boundaries/skills than me, but any way you can practice community care and preserve “inefficient” forms of human contact is politically vital. As David Graeber reminds us, communism is already here – hidden in the creative ways humans care for one another. Everyday forms of human sociality is terrain we should never surrender.

Conclusion

To reiterate, advocating for some personal responsibility does NOT mean ordinary individuals are responsible for our current reality. Capitalism and imperialism are the culprits. Laws, enforcement of laws, incentive structures, wealth and resource distribution, supply-chains, reliance on fossil fuels, energy consumption, power relations, governments, and, ultimately, the entire global economic structure need to be radically transformed if humans (and many other species) are to be okay in the coming years. Spontaneous, atomized actions are not a replacement for coordinated, collective actions.

As Leftists, we critique economists for their reliance on the mysterious notion of the “invisible hand of the market.” Apparently, the market is an independent entity—all we can do is pass policy to regulate (or de-deregulate) it. This understanding negates the reality that states and corporations are directly involved in running “the market.” In Vulture Capitalism, economist Grace Blakely (2025) argues that capitalist economies are very much “planned economies” shaped by state intervention and corporate power. If corporate lobbyists are shaping the laws that weaken competition, for instance, how is “the market” genuinely free? In Exit Zero, Sociologist Christine Walley (2013) similarly points out that capitalist crises are exacerbated, if not enabled, by real people. Deindustrialization, for example, has been accepted as a natural “evolutionary historical transformation” that no one had control over (Walley 2013: 82). However, policy makers and corporations were not merely “pushed” by globalization; they made many “conscious choices” (Walley 2013: 85). Deregulating big business and refusing to create stable jobs alternatives for industry workers were not unavoidable outcomes (Walley 2013: 85-86). Likewise, in 2008, the bailing out of big banks — and not everyday people —was a political choice. Today, at a time when wealth inequality in the U.S. surpasses the level of wealth inequality in pre-revolution France, our political leaders have curtailed social welfare programs and public spending. American tax dollars are instead used to kill people abroad. Humans, not rogue/unknowable market forces, are engaged in violent processes that make and remake structures of inequality.

We are not living under some magical, sentient force that secretly knows what’s good for humanity. We are living under capitalism: a system invented and upheld by humans — a system that has only existed since 1650 (1850 if we are talking industrial capitalism!). If capitalism was stable and everlasting, it would not require so much violence to maintain.

Despite this critique, Leftists still follow the example of classical economists by portraying capitalism as separate from human complicity. Capitalism is the bogeyman programming humanity! Better yet, it is an eight headed hydra shapeshifting into increasingly evil forms. Capitalism is to blame for everything bad (which is often true) — it is sneaky and self-perpetuating and durable and corrosive (also often true). Before we know it, we are claiming our economic system is transcendental and losing sight of our own agency.

Sometimes, I think about the feudal peasants who were driven off common lands and forced into wage labor. Violence was necessary because they did not put their heads down and comply. Some became vagabonds and endured persecution rather than sell their days to those with capital. The history of capitalism includes many instances of defeat for ordinary people and socialist movements. Nevertheless, there are also innumerate examples of humans refusing to accept their own subjugation and the subjugation of others. If for no other reason than to honor the people that came before me and maintain my own humanity, I think it is worth doing what I can to resist complicity in the things that I hate.

Leave a tip <3

References

I have linked all my citations directly in the text.

The key texts that influenced this piece include:

• Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts, and the Death of Freedom by Grace Blakely (used copies available for $16.47; the audiobook is free on Spotify)

• Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism by Vijay Prashad (edited by Frank Barat) (Ebook available for 5.99; the audiobook is free on Spotify)

• I did not cite it directly, but my thinking is very much influenced by James C. Scott’s (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. The full text is available online for free.

Recently, I was teaching a student about “anxiety” and caught myself regurgitating a common sentiment in pop psychology. As exemplified by our “fight or flight” response, humans are “wired” to respond to mundane modern challenges as if we are about to die. I perceive a relatively inconsequential email from my boss as if it is a wild animal. I might as well have claimed that all human behavior is a direct result of our “primitive” origins “on the savanna.”

Despite not believing this reductive logic (I understand human behavior as the result of a complex web of interacting factors, from individual agency to oppressive systems to socialized learning to whether or not someone had breakfast), I became complicit in purveying it.

Share Cat’s Substack

One time donation

I live in a society that loves to explain modern problems and experiences through the lens of evolutionary psychology. We look inward - into our genes - to find an “objective truth,” to find what is truly “programming” humans.

And, even our public intellectuals can fail to combat the simplistic, often pseudo-scientic, understandings that become mainstream. I often enjoy Neanderthal and prehistory youtube videos, especially those featuring a paleoanthropologist named Ella Al-Shamahi. While her videos are accessible and informative, she can relay arguments that are essentialist. For example: women will never achieve equality with men because of our biological clocks. Despite strong scientific evidence that male fertility, like female fertility, is impacted by the aging process – and despite the systemic (social and economic) factors that oppress women in the modern day – Al Shamahi’s explanation for patriarchy’s persistence is attractive.

There is comfort in explaining away the world’s challenges through rooting them in our evolutionary development. Women and men are unequal due to biology; racism and xenophobia are natural outcomes of genetically-encoded tribalism; white supremacy exists because white people are genetically superior to Black and Brown people; poverty exists because rich people are genetically superior to poor people. We are all on a mythical savanna – some of us destined for power, some of us destined for oppression, some us destined for life, some of us destined for death. It is a cruel picture of the world, but it offers clear answers.

Many of us do the work of reinforcing this worldview - even when we do not agree.

In Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right, Quinn Slobodian (2025) details the ideological history of the modern alt-right. Rather than represent the rise of Trump as a radical break from the status quo, Slobodian makes it impossible to separate a century long development of neoliberalism, libertarianism, and ultracapitalism from this current moment. Perhaps more alarming is the way these intellectual histories dovetail with social darwinism and race science. While the alt-right is often dismissed as irrational, haphazard, and driven by illogical hate, we are actually up against an enemy that is far more frightening: an ideology that grounds itself in “hard science,” seeks specific economic outcomes (specifically, freedom for capitalism at the expense of human freedom), and is far more hegemonic than many of us realize (Slobodian 2025).

Key to this ideology is that human inequality is inborn. Some humans (particularly white, male, and rich ones) are simply better than others. Certain “cultures”1 (particularly Western, white, and pro-capialist ones) are simply better than others. There is no way to resolve this hard-wired reality through social welfare programs; the continuance of inequality under liberal democracy is proof that most people cannot be saved from their biological deficiencies. The decay of society can only be fixed by undoing the semblance of welfare and democracy that we have left. Only then, will capitalism be “free” to create the utopia the alt-right dreams of: a world in which capitalists dominate domestic and world affairs; the state exclusively serves capital interests; and natural selection can run its course (i.e. many of us die). The ultracapitalists, whether in Trump’s cabinet or in his pocket, are explicitly fighting for a world without universal suffrage. And, arguably, they are winning (Slobodian 2025). (Consider that voting rights in the United States are increasingly under threat…).

Few “normal people” are walking around declaring we should end democracy. Nevertheless, there are sneaky ways of explaining human behavior, ranking human ability, and naturalizing the status quo that are both alt-right and common sense. A society that has never addressed its proclivity towards eugenics is primed to accept ultra-capitalist reasoning.

(NOTE: Eugenics “is broadly defined as the use of selective breeding to improve the human race” (Kalomiris 2022; Willems 2021). Eugenicists (1) rank humans along a hierarchy (usually based on race, class, ability, and usefulness to capitalism) and (2) implement projects that encourage reproduction among certain groups and limit/eliminate reproduction among others. Eugenicists can be very direct, as was the case with the Nazi’s project to wipe out “genetically inferior” groups through sterilization, ghetto-ization, and industrialized murder. Eugenics can also take “soft” forms, such as through social policies and norms that discourage low-income people from having children.)

In what follows, my goal is to:

1. Point out the recent history and enduring legacy of eugenicist policies in the United States;

2. Demonstrate how modern neurodiversity discourse dovetails with eugenicist logics, often hinging the value of autistic people on IQ and their value to capitalism; and

3. Implore the Left (or anyone opposed to the project of ultra-capitalists) to adopt a more complex understanding of “scientific fact” and “human nature.”

The American eugenics movement was/is wildly successful and mainstream

The early 1900s were fraught with anxieties about social decay. The elite “white race” was supposedly on the verge of extinction. President Theodore Roosevelt reinforced racist and classist rhetoric, expressing fear of “race suicide” (Davis 1982: 357; DuBois et al 2005: 404-406). The eugenics movement was politically successful, garnering support from leading progressives and conservatives. The Supreme Court ultimately sanctioned sterilization laws, which aimed to improve humanity by eliminating the “inferior” classes. Consequently, the mentally ill, poor, African Americans, and immigrants were subject to compulsory sterilization (Davis 1982: 361-362; Roberts 2009: 198-199; Dehlendorf 2010: 214). Individuals were legally denied the right to reproduce on the basis of social status. “Cloaked in a scientific rationale,” compulsory sterilization laws violated many people’s right to have children and build families of their own (Roberts 2009: 199). These successful sterilization campaigns are often credited with “inspiring” Hitler and the Nazis (Kalomiris 2022).

While legal birth control was an important import development for many women, birth control first gained political acceptance because of its efficacy in enforcing eugenics. To gain mainstream acceptance for women’s “reproductive freedom,” prominent birth control advocate, Margaret Sanger, strategically built a coalition with eugenicists in the early twentieth century (Davis 1982: 359-361; Roberts 2009: 200). As a result, “birth control became a tool to regulate the poor, immigrants, and, [in particular], black Americans” (Roberts 2009: 198). Working alongside policy makers, Sanger established government funded birth control clinics in African American communities (Roberts 2009: 203-205). Such interventions were about controlling, not empowering, minority populations (Roberts 2009: 203).

The American government continued to violate fertility rights throughout the twentieth century. Even after the atrocities of World War II, the American government targeted and sterilized Puerto Rican women, Native American women, Black women, and women dependent on welfare programs (Davis 1982: 363-664; Fried 2000: 185; DuBois et al 2005: 698-701). In the 1970s, 100,000-150,000 poor women were sterilized per year. About 50% of sterilized individuals were Black (Fried 2000: 185). While compulsory sterilization laws were partially overturned by 1979, the practice persisted until the 2010s (targeting vulnerable populations, such as incarcerated women; see La 2023).

Nongovernmental organizations continue to (legally) enforce eugenics. Women of color and poor women have reported experiences of “coercive family planning providers” (Dehlendorf 2010: 216). During family planning appointments, low-income and minority women are more likely to feel pressure to control family size, especially through longterm contraception or sterilization (Dehlendorf 2010: 216-217). Some programs subsidize women for using “highly effective contraceptive methods,” demanding that underprivileged women control their fertility in order to earn economic support (Dehlendorf 2010: 216). A Californian organization, originally named “Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity” or “C.R.A.C.K” (Now called “Project Prevention”) grants $300 to individuals with substance use disorders if they agree to longterm birth control or sterilization. As of 2000, the group had been involved in the sterilization of forty-five women, and the organization was expanding across the nation (Fried 2000). Today (May 2026), the website boasts it has paid 8,260 “addicts/alcoholics.” 2,772 recipients have gotten (irreversible) tubal libations (Project Prevention 2026).

Unfortunately, many people will read the paragraph above and find such approaches acceptable. The point is NOT that long-term birth control or sterilization are invalid choices; the point is that these options stop being genuine “choices” if they are incentivized and advocated almost exclusively to individuals in vulnerable positions.

Many of us have internalized the belief that some people should not reproduce. It is easy to judge others for making the “irresponsible” choice to have a child - until you realize you are also one of the poors, one of the mentally ill, one of the disabled, one of the “undesirables” (in the eyes of the Epstein class, all non-elites are less than). Today, more and more of us are not having children, often citing financial constraints as a barrier (Stein Lubrano 2026). The pronatalists may advocate coercing women into marriage and babies, but only certain women. Denying people the economic freedom to support a family is a form of population control - a form of soft eugenics. Clearly, the United States is in no place to declare that its eugenicist movement is a thing of the past.

Case study: preliminary reflections on neurodiversity discourse

In my work with ADHD and autistic clients, I have often reiterated arguments that have an evolutionary psychology tone. The neurodiversity movement often grounds the value of “atypical” brains in evolutionary terms. During intake sessions, I consistently tell clients that the diversity of brain types in the human genome has been a good thing for our species. Reputable sources such as, Harvard Medical School, echo this discourse. Published findings link the gene mutations that led to autism to the gene mutations that led to complex social human behavior (Fliesler 2016).

Also popular in the neurodiversity discourse is the claim that “challenges” are accompanied by “superpowers.” The Harvard Business review, for example, asserts that many neurodivergent people “have higher-than-average abilities; research shows that some conditions, including autism and dyslexia, can bestow special skills in pattern recognition, memory, or mathematics” (Austin & Pisano 2017). The article, “Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage,” details how companies can utilize the “untapped potential” of the neurodivergent community. Using words like “wizard” to describe disabled individuals, the authors implicitly suggest neurodivergent folks are hard wired to be ‘gifted’ (Austin & Pisano 2017). Hence, given their use value to companies, especially in the tech industry, disabled people are worth recruiting and making workplace accommodations for. This inclusive approach could reduce the 80% unemployment rate among neurodivergents….just not for neurodivergent individuals “with more-severe disorders, who are not candidates for neurodiversity programs” (Austin & Pisano 2017).

Between 2022 and 2024, I regularly listened to “The Neurodiversity Podcast.” The host, Emily Kircher-Morris (LPC), uses the term “twice exceptional” or “2E” to describe the duality of inborn challenges and talents among neurodivergent kids. Often describing herself and her children as “twice exceptional,” Kircher-Morris claims giftedness is inherited/inherent. Her “About Me” section on the podcast website is full of references to her desire to support the “gifted community.” In addition to creating a binary between gifted neurodivergents and “neurotypicals,” the podcast also seems to also be drawing a binary between gifted and non-gifted neurodivergents.

Research on IQ and autism can further inscribe these binaries. A 2021 study, “IQ in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Population-Based Birth Cohort Study ”concluded:

Our data suggest that nearly half of individuals with ASD have average or higher IQ. Boys with ASD are more likely to have average or higher IQ than girls. Patients with ASD and higher IQ remain at risk for not being identified. (Katusic et al 2021)

According to the Autism Research Institute (2022), the findings indicated that, “The number of individuals who have autism spectrum disorders (ASD) without intellectual impairment is higher than previously believed.” While this is a somewhat progressive finding that combats historical misunderstandings of autism, it also demarcates “intellectually impaired” autistics from non “intellectually impaired” autistics. Autistics with higher IQs are assumed to not display the symptoms that would result in official diagnosis; autistics with lower IQs are assumed to be more obviously autistic. This sort of classification system seems to be reinforcing a divide that many autistic advocates critique: the oversimplified categorization of autistics as either “high functioning” or “low functioning.” Meanwhile, sex differences in the results mirror traditional gendered understandings of autism. To put it crudely: male autistics are destined for intellectual genius, while female autistics are simply intellectually impaired (i.e. stuck in a permanent state of childishness). I could not find a single (publically available) sentence that explained the limitations of relying on IQ as a measure of intelligence and ability.

While neurodiversity (particularly autism spectrum disorder) is a massive category, spanning individuals with vastly different support needs, the desire to sort neurodivergent people into categories like “gifted” and “high IQ” (and, by default, non-gifted and low IQ) is questionable. IQ science has often been used to justify existing inequalities. Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994) argued that social status was a direct reflection of IQ; the elite are not only financially superior – they are a “cognitive elite” (Slobodian 2025). More recently, alt-right thinkers have used IQ science to claim immigrants from the Global South are genetically inferior (hence, “hard borders” are justified) (Slobobidan 2025). As Silicon Valley has become increasingly powerful, we are seeing “a revenge of the nerds;” increasingly, people in tech see themselves as the rightful leaders of society because of their superior intelligence (Slobodian 2025). It is no coincidence that Elon Musk publicly announced that he has “Asperger’s” in 2021 – his autism is further proof of his genius.

If the neurodiversity movement desires genuine liberation for all neurodivergent folks – and for anyone who struggles to be productive under capitalism without becoming mentally ill– we must be attentive to the ways we participate in reinforcing genetic hierarchies. Hinging human value on our ability to be superior geniuses who contribute to the economy does not benefit disabled people - it benefits the capitalists. Moreover, who is to say how scientifically-grounded hierarchies of intelligence will be misused in the future….(cue clip of RFK Jr.’s demand to make an “autism database”…)

Towards a more nuanced relationship to science

The current vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, is the author of a bestseller: Hillbilly Elegy. Vance did not use his experience growing up in Appalachia as an opportunity to dispel “white trash” tropes or advocate policy that would help rural poor folks. Instead, Hillbilly Elegy is another book “in a long line of eugenicist poverty porn that whitewashes the region [of Appalachia] for a white bourgeois readership” (Willems 2021). Vance locates societal problems within the poor themselves; our backwards rural “cultures,” even our genes, are the reason for incredible wealth inequality. Therefore, upperclass readers can take a sigh of relief; wealth redistribution cannot solve inborn deficiencies (For further review, see Isenberg 2021 & Willems 2021).

Musk, the richest man in the world, has fathered at least 14 children. He has relied heavily on IVF, allowing him to select for '“desirable” outcomes (such as male-ness). I am reminded of sperm donors who become obsessed with “spreading their seed,” recklessly defying social and legal parameters in order to produce the highest number of offspring. What these individuals and Musk have in common: they conceptualize themselves as uniquely worthy of passing on their genes and view an “engineering approach to reproduction” (Zhavoronkov 2022) as a pathway for maximizing their results.

From Vance to Musk to advertisements on my social media feed, eugenic ideology is everywhere. Framing alt-right, anti-democratic, classist, racist, misogynistic, and ableist ideas in scientific terms is an effective political strategy. Who can argue with “scientific fact?”

Responding with more accurate scientific knowledge might not be enough to overcome widespread acceptance of eugenics and biological determinism.

To be clear, I am not anti-science. I love learning and knowledge, and I am often in awe of what science has accomplished. Yet, science is not doctrine; by definition, scientific knowledge is evolving and plastic. Moreover, scientific research does not occur in a vacuum; politics, economics, and “culture” have been inseparable from scientific development – these factors shape what questions are investigated, who gets funded, and how data gets interpreted. Not long ago, reputable scientists were measuring skulls. The more I learn, the more I see that it is impossible to “know” anything with absolute certainty. A world that escapes full knowing is beautiful…but also terrifying.

Unfortunately, in an uncertain world that demands clear answers, the complexity and fallibility of science is often lost. On the Left, we make use of hard science’s political efficacy, reiterating simple arguments to counterbalance outlandish right-wing claims. Human nature, for example, is often debated through a scientific lens. According to the right, humans evolved to compete and behave selfishly. According, to the Left, humans evolved to work cooperatively and care for one another. Personally, I think the Left has far more evidence to support its position. Nevertheless, both sides root their argument in a very religious idea of predestination. Humanity is supposedly destined to live in a particular way.

Science can be a useful tool for supporting progressive political arguments, but the fight for liberation should not presuppose that humans have a biological and evolutionary destiny. The human condition is (arguably) defined by our ability to imagine alternative ways of being and (re)shape the world around us. The innumerate ways of life humans that have developed throughout our existence is evidence of our vast capacity. If anything, we are creatures of habit; what we practice is what we become good at. Our liberation should be premised on building a world that is not “inevitable” and “biologically determined” but reflects the values we genuinely want to cultivate…

Leave a tip <3

References

Austin, Robert D., and Gary P. Pisano. 2017. “Neurodiversity as A Competitive Advantage.” Harvard Business Review, May-June, https://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-a-competitive-advantage.

Autism Research Institute. 2022. “Average or high IQ in individuals with ASD may be higher than previously estimated.” https://autism.org/average-or-high-iq-in-individuals-with-asd-may-be-higher-than-previously-estimated/.

Davis, Angela. 1982. “Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights.” Essay. In Women, Race and Class, 1st ed., 353–65. New York: Random House.

Dehlendorf, Christine, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, Kira Levy, Sonya Borrero, and Jody Steinauer. 2010. “Disparities in Family Planning.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202 (3): 214–20.

DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Lynn Dumenil. 2005. Through Women’s Eyes: an American History with Documents. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Fliesler, Nancy. 2016. “Autism and Evolution.” Harvard Medical School, 22 September. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/autism-evolution.

Fried, Marlene Gerber. 2000. “Abortion in the United States: Barriers to Access.” Health and Human Rights 4 (2): 174-194.

Isenberg, Nancy. 2021. “Left Behind: The Trouble with Euphemism.” The Hedgehog Review, Spring. https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/who-do-we-think-we-are/articles/left-behind#:~:text=As%20he%20aged%2C%20Caudill%20embraced,an%20economically%20conditioned%20class%20identity.&text=26xTucker%2C%20%E2%80%9CHarry%20Caudill,Vance%2C%20Hillbilly%20Elegy%2C%2029.

Kalomiris, Megan. 2022. “Unfit to Breed: America’s Dark Tale of Eugenics.” National Institute of Health, July-August. https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/29/4/unfit-to-breed-americas-dark-tale-of-eugenics.

Katusic, Maja Z., Myers, Scott M., Weaver, Amy L., and Robert G. Voigt. 2021. “IQ in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Population-Based Birth Cohort Study.” Pediatrics, 148(6), e2020049899. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-049899.

La, Lynn. 2023. “More pain for California’s forced sterilization patients.” CalMatters, 22 March. https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/03/forced-sterilization-california/.

Kircher-Morris, Emily (Host). 2022-2024. The Neurodiversity Podcast. https://neurodiversitypodcast.com/.

Project Prevention. Accessed 2026. “About Us.” https://projectprevention.org/about-us/.

Roberts, Dorothy, Bruce Baum, and Duchess Harris. 2009. “Margaret Sanger and the Radical Origins of the Birth Control Movement.” Essay. In Racially Writing the Republic: Racists, Race Rebels, and Transformations of American Identity, 196–211. Durham , NC: Duke University Press.

Slobodian, Quinn. 2025. Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. New Jersey. Princeton University Press.

Stein Lubrano, Sarah. 2026. “It’s Not a Loneliness Crisis or a Population Crisis…” Substack, 20 April.

My Subschtick

It's Not a Loneliness Crisis or a Population Crisis...

I was giving a talk recently and a woman asked me about the “loneliness Czar” of England. In truth, I had nearly forgotten there was such a thing, so rapid was the rise and fall of all the buzz around it. But as a result of her question, I found myself trying to explain, in just a few minutes and in front of 150 people, something that is fairly complica…

Read more

4 months ago · 69 likes · 13 comments · Sarah Stein Lubrano

Willems, Adam. 2021. “’Pure America’: Eugenics past and present: Interview with ‘What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia’ author Elizabeth Catte about her new book.” Scalawag, 2 March. https://scalawagmagazine.org/2021/03/elizabeth-catte-pure-america-interview/.

Zhavoronkov, Alex. 2022. “Elon Musk’s Babies Were Conceived Via IVF And Surrogacy - Is It The Future Of Reproduction?” Forbes, 27 July. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexzhavoronkov/2022/07/27/elon-musk-and-other-billionaires-make-their-babies-via-ivf-and-surrogatesis-it-a-future-of-reproduction/.

Read more

In August 2015, I was one of ~500 college freshmen squeezed into the campus chapel—awaiting the president’s address. The air was hot and muggy, and I am positive I felt claustrophobic wedged in between two people I barely knew. But, the air was also full of optimism and excitement. The closeness seemed to signify a sense of intimacy—we were all in this together, experiencing a rite of passage. I had really “made it.”

The president ascended to the podium: a middle-aged, tall, clean-shaven, white man with…. the thickest, most voluminous silver hair I had ever seen. I have an exaggerated memory of how much hair was sprouting out of that man’s head – but imagine how JFK’s hair would be depicted in a cartoon – it seemed that extreme. Then, when the president smiled, glistening white teeth made him seem even more surreal. I saw him as a politician, which, in retrospect, was a fairly accurate reading of an elite college administrator.

The speech was “progressive.” Like every class that came before and after the Class of 2019, we were supposedly the most “diverse,” exceptional, and qualified students that had ever gained admission to the college. We would undoubtedly become leaders and change-makers in the world. The president talked about the injustices plaguing society, making direct references to gender and racial inequality. Nothing was abhorrently wrong with his speech; I recall agreeing with much of what he said. Yet, I started to feel uneasy. This guy was claiming to be on the side of the marginalized despite his position of immense power. We were crammed into a space often reserved for religious ritual, listening to a charismatic orator. In a phone call home, I remarked that the whole experience was “weird.”

The president was doing politics: communicating a unifying message; instilling hope; championing equality and progressive values while not directly alienating anyone who happened to be white and/or rich; and compelling listeners to align themselves with his vague vision of an inclusive world.

My (socioeconomic) class status shaped my skepticism. I understood I was not the target audience for the speech. Yes, I was a new member of the student body, white, and materially privileged when compared to most people in my hometown. However, there were more students at the school from the top 1% of family income levels than the bottom 20% (Aisch et al 2017). And, throughout the college’s history, “legacy students” had been given priority in admission. The president spoke explicitly to bourgeois individuals – people who see themselves as responsible and uniquely suited for shaping society. I was closer to the demographic my new classmates would be taught to “help” and “lead” than I would ever be to the bourgeois cohort overrepresented in the chapel. For an 18-year-old who believed college admission was supposed to be based on meritocracy, this was just the beginning of a deeply alienating college experience. I was plopped into an alien, highly homogenous environment, unprepared to make sense of a conservative institution that was packaged in a progressive veil.

I was probably not the only one who experienced uneasiness that day in the chapel. In particular, first gen students, Black and Brown students, and students from colonized nations were in a position to see through the false promises of bourgeois progressivism.

A few years later, a student “whistle blower” would post a public message about his experience with one of the college’s underground fraternities. (The college boasts to prospective students that fraternities are banned, while seeming to turn a blind eye to their underground continuation and the alleged involvement of alumni). After reading his account, one thing stuck with me: the young fraternity men conceived of themselves as responsible for upholding tradition and shaping the campus; they asserted the good of all of us hinged on their maintenance of power. I am not exaggerating when I say people who espouse Liberal values are not necessarily committed to democracy and equity. People at (or near) the top of the socioeconomic ladder are not interested in a redistribution of wealth and power.

I was right to feel suspicious.

This anecdote demonstrates two different interpretations of Identity Politics.

1. According to current mainstream discourse, the president was engaged in “identity politics.” He appealed to anti-racism and feminism as a way to bolster elite class power. Accordingly, world problems will be resolved as the bourgeois becomes more “diverse.”

2. According to feminist standpoint theory, I was engaged in Identity Politics. Although I did not yet have the language to articulate my politics, my identity informed my political commitment to class struggle. My class position shaped what I could see. I was a painfully naive first year student with MANY blindspots. Still, I had the knowledge that emerges from a lived experience of inequality. This knowledge made me less susceptible to bourgeois messaging.

In this essay, I will…

In this essay, I will be reflecting on the meaning of Identity Politics in 2026. The Left seems to have reached a consensus that engaging in “identity politics” is outdated and a deterrent to class-based organizing. I agree that the bastardization and weaponization of “identity politics” in service of elite interests should be rigorously critiqued. However, I will argue that the original meaning of Identity Politics remains deeply relevant to the Left; throwing out the concept is a capitulation to reactionary racist and anti-feminist conservatism. A failure to engage with Identity Politics will lead to the replication of the Left’s historical oversights, while a strategic deployment of genuine Identity Politics will make the Left stronger.

Doomscroll and the rejection of “identity politics”

In the last couple months, I have consumed nearly every (free) episode of “Doomscroll,” a podcast hosted by Joshua Citarella. Interviewees include a range of political actors, from artists critical of AI to anticapitalist academics to Leftist podcast hosts to conservative political commentators. Although I can disagree drastically with certain guests, I have appreciated the escape from my social media “echo-chamber.” Having my personal ideologies challenged has forced me to get clearer on why I think what I think. And, sometimes, I am persuaded to think differently in a way that I have found productive.

One of my favorite aspects of the show is Citarella’s commitment to critiquing elite progressivism. He centers the class struggle, pointing out how the bourgeois class has used “identity politics” to distract from the need for wealth redistribution and universal social programs. While Democratic Party members and Liberal elites have largely abandoned the poor and working class, Citarella’s podcast forces the Left to self-reflect and earnestly ask, How do we get more people on board with a Left socialist project? Compared to internet Leftist influencers who seem more interested in moral righteousness than praxis, Citarella seems earnest and has woken me up to the reality that we are running out of time to effectively organize. (Will we still have labor power if AI replaces large portions of the working class?)

Through this reflective process, an uncomfortable theme keeps re-emerging: “normal people” do not like “identity politics.” Accordingly, the Left has been ineffective because of [X]. X might be “woke-ism” (see episodes with Dasha Nekrasova & Jennifer C. Pan); “[calling] people racist” (see episode with Amber A’Lee Frost); “defund the police” (see episode with Francis Fukuyama);1 feminism and the deconstruction of the gender binary (see episode with Emily Jashinsky); trans women in sports (see episode with Ana Kasparian); increased LGBTQ+ visibility (see episode with JJ McCullough); or decolonization discourse (see episode with Amber A’Lee Frost).

This theme reminds me of my personal conversations with people who self identify as progressive. I am often told some version of, “I hear you, but the average Joe won’t understand.” I become especially exasperated when I hear, “People aren’t ready for that.” Often, I find people view me as a political unicorn and not someone who represents a segment of the working class. I am reminded of David Graeber’s (2011) essay, “Revolutions in Reverse,” in which he explains how words like the “the public,” “the workforce,” “consumers,” and “population” are used to construct an imaginary opposition to progressive ideals (59-60). Interestingly, the perspectives and demands of marginalized poor and working class people are always excluded from the amorphous “public.”

While reflection on the Left’s messaging strategy is essential, I take issue with the implication that there is an imaginary “average Joe” who is the arbiter of what’s palatable for everyone else. When the Left says “normal people,” who are we talking about? And, who are we leaving out?

Who are the “Normal People” ?

Side comments on Doomscrool shed more light on who qualifies as the “normal people.” In two instances, interviewee and host share sarcastic comments about “Misogynoir” (see episodes with Amber A’Lee Frost & Brace Belden). In at least three episodes, the “R word” is used (see episodes with Catherine Liu; Andrew Callaghan; & Kyle Kulinski). In one interview, Citarella remarks that “Me Too” might be making young men afraid to initiate sex, motivating the guest to make a rape joke (see episode with Adam Friedland). One guest unabashedly recalls that he got into weightlifting so that he could earn the right to date a fit woman he saw on the internet (see episode with Yung Chomsky), while another jokes about his teenage self sneaking into lesbian online chat rooms to ask for women’s nude photos (see episode with Adam Friedland). During several conversations, Citarella deplores that conservative uncles are being excluded from Thanksgiving dinners. (I am not arguing for “canceling” these individuals nor for the dismissal of their ideas; rather, I am trying to draw attention to a pattern).

Personally, I find these comments off-putting. I am not a pearl-clutching Liberal whose entire political project is to police what others say. In fact, I have been in environments where people are not “politically correct” and still managed to build meaningful relationships. I felt comfortable in such spaces because I was on fairly equal footing with my counterparts and could call them out directly without fear of retribution. These power dynamics shift when the transgressor is a tenured academic or established political commentator. I have started to wonder if Citarella, and some of his guests, are primarily interested in building bridges with a white, right-leaning audience (and not very worried about how they could be alienating or further marginalizing women, queer folks, Black and and Brown people, and the disability community?).

As I have continued to consume Doomscroll, I am realizing that “normal people” often means white, relatively middle-class, relatively non-politicized American citizens. During the interview with Jennifer C. Pan, Citarella (2025) says something clarifying about his political project: “...To say the quiet part out loud, it [disdain for “identity politics”] is the most effective form of recruitment for downwardly mobile white working class men who were previously middle-class.” As these individuals are proletarianized, they become susceptible to right-wing populism – and we can see Labor’s shift to the right happening in real time across the U.S. and Europe. As Citarella continues,

If you’re concerned about a rising fascist movement in the United States…fascism is the middle-class run a muck without the ability to express their economic woes through organization. So, talking about this thing, diffusing the primary means of recruitment and folding those people into an organized labor movement…that is basically the task right now… (Citarella 2025: play at 1:00:00).

There is a political imperative to figure out how to speak to the working class people being pulled towards fascism – and draw them back to the Left.

I agree that this project is vital. There is a total lack of class discourse in the U.S. Even on the Left, race and class are often conflated. Reducing class to racial inequality is confusing and alienating for anyone who is both white and poor. Although Black and Brown people are disproportionately poor and working class, roughly two-thirds of people living below the poverty line in the U.S. are white (Adair 2000: 588). Hence, the Left needs to be more nuanced in its messaging about how capitalism and white supremacy are interlocking systems. White men on the Left, like Citarella, are well suited for this work of communicating across political lines.

Is this the end of “identity politics”?

However, my problem arises when this need to appeal to the sensibilities of “proletarianized” white men mandates a marginalization of Black and Brown people, women, queer people, immigrants, colonized people, and disabled people. The American right-wing has a bold white nationalist (yet somehow also neoliberal and libertarian….), imperialist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, anti-immigrant, anti-Earth – EUGENICIST – pro-capitalist platform. Any robust Left platform needs to be capable of naming (and fighting!) this reality. A strict economism will not be enough to defeat political forces that have successfully dehumanized large portions of the poor and working class, exacerbating divisions and creating downright hostile organizing conditions for anyone who is not a straight white man.

To be clear, I do not think Citarella is explicitly arguing for the marginalization of all identities in favor of class reductionism. In fact, as he discusses with Pan, universal economic programs – such as medicare for all – are very effective at addressing social issues like the racial wealth gap (Citarella 2025). Yet, at times, it is unclear (at least to me) if the podcast is launching a valid critique of the bastardized version of “identity politics” or throwing out Identity Politics altogether. The fact that one Black person, zero Indigenous people,2 and zero academics from women’s/gender/queer studies3 have been included in forty-two episodes makes me uneasy. The Left I want to be a part of would not dismiss Identity Politics wholesale but would work to internalize the concept’s original meaning.

Where did Identity Politics come from?

The socialist Left has egalitarian ideals and has stood on the side of the oppressed long before it was “fashionable.” In the Origins of the Family (1884), Engels laid the groundwork for feminists to theorize “reproductive labor” and how capitalism exploits women’s unpaid labor. Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917) demonstrated how class struggle is connected to the struggle of all colonized peoples. In the early 1900s, the U.S. Communist Party took a principled stance against anti-Black racism, explicitly connecting the struggle against capitalism to the struggle against white supremacy (Wallace 2020).

This commitment to fighting oppression does not mean the Left has always lived up to its principles. The Left has been guilty of reproducing hegemonic power dynamics. The moments in which we fail to center the most marginalized among us, our organizations and platforms suffer. American trade unions have often aligned themselves with imperialism, supporting colonial projects as violent as Zionism (Schurke 2025). Such collaboration with the U.S. Empire has been essential to the de-fanging of union power. The Black Panther Party was revolutionary in its capacity to center and organize poor Black folks, but it embraced a patriarchal organizational structure. Despite outnumbering men and doing a bulk of the labor necessary for the BPP’s community programs, Black women were denied leadership roles and subjected to abuse; as more and more women exited the party, the organization broke down (Seither & Blain 2008). Recently in 2024, a segment of the German Left Party broke off and formed The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), adopting an anti-immigrant platform (Höfgen 2024). This decision did not result in the BSW’s victory during the European Parliament election; furthermore, the co-signing and amplification of dangerous right-wing xenophobia will undoubtedly lead to the new party’s internal rot. Dividing workers on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, ability, citizenship, and nationality is a cornerstone of capitalism’s perpetuation — NOT a stepping stone to socialism.

Therefore, the Left needs to have consistent engagement with how the class struggle is interlocking with all systems of oppression. This essential project is the origin of Identity Politics. In the 1970s, a group of Black, queer, feminist, socialist women – building on the extensive history of Black women’s resistance to exploitation – formed the Combahee River Collective (Táíwò 2020). Because white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism “simultaneously” shape Black women’s lives, these systems cannot be disentangled and fought against individually; they constitute and reinforce one another. In their 1977 “Collective Statement,” the Black feminists and lesbians explicitly state their goal to fight multiple forms of domination:

The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. (Combahee River Collective 1977)

We are not convinced…that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation. We have arrived at the necessity for developing an understanding of class relationships that takes into account the specific class position of Black women who are generally marginal in the labor force. (Combahee River Collective 1977)

The Left, white feminists, and Black men have repeatedly demonstrated that the liberation of Black women is (at best) secondary to their causes, necessitating the Combahee River Collective’s creation. Stating, “We realize that the only people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us” (Combahee River Collective 1977), the Black women recognized the importance of identity and feminist standpoint theory in the struggle for freedom:

This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression. (Combahee River Collective 1977).

Nevertheless, the collective was against separatism. They critiqued white feminist separatists who sought to cut all relations to men, emphasizing Black women’s solidarity with Black men in the struggle against white supremacy. They also made an ardent commitment to people of non-Black identities, explaining: “The inclusiveness of our politics makes us concerned with any situation that impinges upon the lives of women, Third World and working people” (Combahee River Collective 1977).

The collective agreed with “Marx’s theory,” and they had no intention of marginalizing the class struggle: “We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy” (Combahee River Collective 1977).

In a nutshell…

My main takeaways from Identity Politics are fairly simple:

1. Experiencing multiple forms of oppression often leads to an intimate knowledge of how systems of domination operate; people at these intersections are in a position to see the patterns of the world clearly and have a vested interest in revolutionary change.4

2. A revolutionary movement that centers the most privileged among us fights for the liberation of the few. A revolutionary movement that centers the most oppressed among us fights for the liberation of all.

From Identity Politics to “identity politics”

Like other contributions Black women have made to progressive thought and organizing, Identity Politics has been co-opted, watered-down, misrepresented, misused, main-streamed, divorced from class struggle….and then chauvinistically thrown out by the type of class-reductionist Leftists it originally critiqued. (Consider the similar cooptation/appropriation of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Intersectionality;”5 Audre Lorde’s “self-care;” Tarana Burke’s “Me Too;” Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi’s “Black Lives Matter;” or African American Vernacular English’s “Woke”).

Identity Politics was never intended to mean that oppression could be resolved through women CEOs, Black presidents, and LGBTQ+ television shows. It was never intended to imply that an (elite) individual of a marginalized identity could represent, speak on behalf of, and make decisions for an entire community. It was never intended to render anyone’s voice infallible or divine. It never called for the exclusion of men and white folks from class struggle. Perhaps most importantly, it was not created to distract the Left from class struggle. Yet, voices across the political spectrum seem to conflate Identity Politics with any nefarious deployment of identity for political gain.

According to Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò (2020), Identity Politics has been stripped of its socialist origins because of “elite capture.” The interests of the most powerful members of a group determine the terms on which oppression is fought. For example, elite women are “incentivized” to fight for what their male counterparts have rather than dismantle the class system that oppresses far more women than it elevates. Thus, we have gotten the mainstreaming of “girl boss” bourgeois feminism over proletarian feminism(s) and third world feminism(s). It is easy for elite forces—progressives and conservatives alike—to weaponize identity because they have a monopoly on power. An elite would have to become a class traitor in order to align with the Combahee River Collective’s mission.

When in doubt, blame the CIA

Blaming “identity politics” for the U.S’s inability to discuss class is an incomplete argument. Not only does this critique sound a lot like right-wing hammering (enough of this race and feminist and gay stuff already!), it obscures the systematic sabotage of Left intellectualism. A new book I am fascinated by (although still skeptical of) is Gabriel Rockhill’s6 Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism, which examines the CIA’s involvement in manufacturing a “compatible Left.” Rather than outright repress Marxism, it has been more effective to shape Left thought into a form that does not actually threaten Western hegemony. Our beloved Foucault and the Frankfurt School were often implicated in the CIA’s anti-communist project and helped facilitate the intellectual Left’s shift away from dialectical materialism and towards ideology and culture.

In this landscape, a public intellectual can be both “socialist” and deeply tied to elite power. Noam Chomsky, for example, has been elevated by elite circles because his critique of capitalism is accompanied by a delegitimization of prior socialist revolutions and the tools people used to achieve these historical victories; his socialist ideals are not a threat because he effectively “[disarms] the working class” (Mottas 2026). So long as the intellectual Left stays busy arguing about high-brow theories and failing to engage with the masses, class struggle will continue to fall deeper into the “dustbin of history.” There have been decades of waning interest in class. The recent focus on identities outside of class filled a pre-existing, manufactured void in the Left’s discourse.

My (preliminary) theory is that as academics were incentivized to treat class and class struggle as taboo – and as the composition of departments became more diverse – feminist studies and critical race theory became increasingly popular ways to make sense of structural inequality. These theoretical paradigms can be tools for launching critiques of capitalism. Rather than viewing this focus on gender and race as some sort of catastrophic distraction from class struggle, I see this development as a testament to (certain) feminist and anti-racist scholars’ commitment to interrogating material inequality.

Personally, I am a product of a “cultural studies” department that was ruthlessly critical of capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, white supremacy, and patriarchy. Although my peers often conflated class with race, I still gained the analytical skills to understand how oppressive systems work and how they might be overcome. By centering the struggles of Black and Brown women, I learned to sit with uncomfortable contradictions and move away from white saviorism. Living in a white supremacist settler colonial/imperial nation has granted me undue privileges and implicated me in the oppression of other people, but I still suffer at the hands of capitalism and patriarchy. I learned to see solidarity with all the victims of capitalism as the only logical and moral course of action. I reached a conclusion that I still hold: the end of capitalism is tantamount to every struggle for human freedom.

A politics rooted in the idea that the poor and working class is primarily composed of backwards and unchanging people will never be liberatory

Citarella’s show argues that “identity politics” have been a distraction from class struggle. I agree that the elite capture of Identity Politics is a major challenge for the Left to overcome. Nevertheless, by returning to the Combahee River Collective’s philosophy, the Left can find guidance on how to proceed. Rather than throwing out Identity Politics and capitulating to the worst tendencies of the American working class, I believe there are better, more liberatory, ways to build a mass movement. Here are some principles that might help us draw more people to the Left:

The girls and the gays determine what’s popular. Women do a majority of the money management in most households, accounting for 85% of consumer spending (according to several sources, such as Carter 2024). Teen girls are the leading trendsetters for mainstream culture (Simms 2024). As evidenced by the popularity of “Heated Rivalry,” the idolization of “sexually ambiguous” men in Hollywood (Factora 2026), and the growing number of Gen Z individuals who identify as queer, mainstream culture is ready for LGBTQ+ visibility. If a Left movement wants to be massively popular and facilitate mass actions such as a general strike, it will have to appeal to the girls and the gays. Do not take us for granted.

Disability will only become a more and more salient “identity” to organize around. In The Right To Maim, Jasbir Puar (2017) theorizes how the Israeli State maintains order by purposefully disabling Palestinians. A population is easier to control if people are missing limbs, suffering from other traumatic injuries, and overall ill. Before October 7, 2023, Israel was less audacious about its genocidal project; settler violence often had the goal of “maiming” Palestinians rather than outrightly killing them. For Puar, disability is not an inborn condition but something produced and reproduced through violence. Considering Palestine is often treated like a “laboratory,” enduring the weapons and violent tactics that become exported all around the world (Loewenstein 2023), it is logical to assume that other fascistic regimes will weaponize and profit from disability. As we are subjected to the long-term effects of Covid; the next global pandemic; the psychological damage of social media and AI; the ramping up of war; a lack of clean air and water; natural disasters that collapse infrastructure; the brutality of ICE and police; limited healthcare options; the gutting of social welfare; the renewed popularity of eugenicist policies that use “science” to pathologize “inferior” populations; mass unemployment that encourages people to endure hazardous work conditions; a relentlessly stressful, vacation-less way of life that ultimately leads to clinical burnout; and other catastrophes we are clearly unprepared for….disabled and incapacitated human bodies will become increasingly normal. It is imperative the Left continues to form coalitions with the Disability Rights Movement and build strength in numbers.

Black and Brown women community organizers are the blueprint. Out of necessity, Black and Brown women organizers have been resisting and fighting white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalist exploitation for centuries. They have found ways to build community and networks of care despite limited resources and against extreme odds. “Community” and “mutual aid” have become buzzwords on the Left – with a lack of attention to the people who have long been doing the labor of community care. Women of the Black Panther Party, for instance, were running free breakfast programs across the country before public schools took on this initiative (Seither & Blain 2008). At the 2020 Beyond the Bars conference, I learned about community organizers who would fight to shut down local prisons and then reclaim the buildings for community use; this ensured old prisons could never again be used to incarcerate people. From my perspective, Black and Brown women community organizers are the most organized part of the Left. Treating Black and Brown women as afterthoughts is simply unacceptable for a Left program.

A politics rooted in the idea that people are stupid, static, lacking agency, and exclusively self-interested will never be liberatory. Class consciousness is the antidote to hate. Some of my favorite Doomscroll episodes have been unexpected. There are two interviews with young white men who spent their childhood/teen years as right-wing internet trolls and then radically shifted their politics toward the Left by their twenties (see episodes with Faraday Speaks (Caleb Cain) & Peter James Fowler). Both individuals had difficult childhoods in rural, economically-deprived, highly-religious, racially-homogeneous areas of the country. Both had a (valid) sense that the world was against them. Without class consciousness and the language to make sense of their experiences, they turned to the internet. Misogyny, racism, and xenophobia filled the void; the internet exacerbated and exploited their prejudices and sense of disenfranchisement. However, through building meaningful human relationships, finding new sources of political information, and genuine personal growth, both came out the other side oriented against capitalism and towards compassion. They were not merely lost to a pipeline and rendered “unsaveable.” As Cain emphasized, he never completely lost his agency or ability to think. If such individuals exist, I refuse to believe that “normal people” cannot change their minds and/or hold progressive values on issues pertaining to race, gender, sexuality, imperialism, and disability. Through class consciousness, anger can be directed away from groups of people and towards the systems that oppress us all.

When I reflect on my own political trajectory, I was primed to be progressive in some ways but very reactionary and conservative in others. I have changed my mind on so many topics. I am still a fallible human, and I continue to learn new things that challenge and reorient my thinking. I assume that all humans are just as complex and evolving as I am - and I have built my political ideology on this assumption. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I do not know how the Left can achieve true democracy without putting more trust in the masses.

Promoting literacy should be a cornerstone of Left and anti-fascist organizing. Throughout my college education, well-intentioned peers proclaimed that our readings were “inaccessible;” there was a bizarre consensus that accessibility required simplifying academic concepts. First, it is hilarious that 18 to 22 year-olds (who often only read the abstract) assumed that the masses were too dumb to understand complex theory. Second, accessibility starts long before an academic puts pen to paper – it starts with expanding literacy and arming people with the tools and resources to make sense of complicated ideas. This notion of accessibility also applies to political organizing. Rather than assuming every aspect of the Left’s political message needs to be reduced to a bite-sized social media post - maybe we should be more interested in building literacy and allowing the masses to draw their own conclusions.

In, “You’ve been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress),” Ismatu Gwendolyn (2024) writes:

There are histories, blueprints, stories we can only access through the pages they’ve been printed on. If that was not important, we would not lock university libraries behind several hundred thousand dollars paywalls. If there was not agency and power to be found in reading, the empire would not work so hard to burn your hands away.

The distinction is pretty clear: fascists, like the nazis, burn books and thrive in an illiterate society; socialists, like Cuban Revolutionaries, promote literacy and education so that democracy can thrive. According to 2024 data, 21% of American adults are fully illiterate; 54% of American adults read below a 6th grade level, meaning over half of the adult population is functionally illiterate (National Literacy Institute). As Gwendolyn explains,“You never have to burn the books if no one ever wants to read them in the first place” (2024).

A one-size-fits-all strategy is not going to work. If Citarella’s goal is to speak to proletarianized and disenfranchised white men to prevent the rise of fascism, I support his project. But, the Left should not exclusively focus on this demographic and their demands. It is unethical to expect queer folks, women, and Black and Brown people to be martyrs and endure mistreatment/abuse/hate in the name of achieving socialism.

The sort of messaging and organizing that will attract some parts of the working class will not work for others. Considering people are increasingly online and atomized into more and more distinct political ideologies—we seem far past the point of being able to easily predict what will appeal to the largest number of people. Perhaps, the best antidote to our divisive online world is the nurturing of in-person human relationships. A 30 second instagram reel has never caused me to radically change my mind; relationships with people who have different experiences than me have been far more instrumental for my development. Most importantly, when Leftists engage in community, showing up to fight the bosses and the landlords, people gain a totally new understanding of communism and socialism and anarchism.

In conclusion…

As the U.S. and Israel bomb Iran, I am reminded (yet again) of how important it is for a mass Left movement to be in solidarity with all victims of imperialism. I remember the military recruiters who were constantly present at my high school. They came to our lunches, friended us on facebook, and gave us free merch. For poor and working class teens in a de-industrialized mill-town, joining the military was a respectable ticket out. Even then, I suspected that we were all pawns in a very sick game. Today, I do not know how to focus on paying rent amidst so much needless death and suffering and destruction. Better yet, I do not want to.

Some might argue that if the Left focuses on the suffering of people “in other countries,” “normal” Americans will feel alienated. But, if we internalize the lessons from Identity Politics and coalition building, it becomes obvious that the interests of Americans and victims of U.S. imperialism are intertwined. The United State Military budget takes money from working Americans—money that could be used for programs like universal healthcare. (Furthermore, war has global impacts including environmental damage, economic catastrophes, and the threat of nuclear weaponry…)

During the thick of Covid-19 Pandemic, I was working in a pizza shop. When the 2020 election rolled around, I overheard my favorite grill cook say to another coworker, “Vote for Biden if you do not want to lose your healthcare.” She did not get any pushback, and I was struck by the power she wielded. A woman who would be dismissed and exotified by most “educated” people was better at communicating with poor and working class Trump supporters than I will ever be. When the Left finally offers something more than, “Vote for Biden,” I have confidence the masses will be ready.

If you read this far and are not a paid subscriber, consider sending the author $2+:

• Venmo @ catledue

• Cashapp $catmandue96

References - (improper format but I’ll fix later!!!)

Aisch, G., L. Buchanan, A. Cox, and K. Quealy. 2017. Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/colby-college.

Adair, Vivyan C. 2005. “Class Absences: Cutting Class in Feminist Studies.” Feminist Studies 31 (3): 575–603.

Citeralla, Joshua. 2025-Present. Doomscrool (available on youtube & substack & patreon…)

Graeber, David. 2011. “Revolutions in Reverse” In Revolutions in Reverse, 48-52. Minor Compositions, Automedia.

Seither, Robert James, and Keisha Blain. 2008 .”Women in the Black Panther Party: An Internal Struggle for Power, Equality, and Survival.” Journal of Gender & the Law 9 (2008): 404. https://joss.tcnj.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/176/2015/04/2015-Seither.pdf.

The Palestine Laboratory, Antony Loewenstein

The Right to Maim, Jasbir Puar

Who Paid The Piper on Western Marxism, Gabriel Rockhill

https://www.idcommunism.com/2026/02/the-truth-about-noam-chomskys-anti-communism.html

https://www.gale.agency/blog-posts/forbes-why-teenage-girls-are-the-key-to-cultural-relevance#:~:text=Consumer%20behavior%20is%20ever%2Devolving,embraced%20this%20new%20audience%20too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/03/07/who-runs-the-world-women-control-85-of-purchases-29-of-stem-roles/

https://americanstudies.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Keyword%20Coalition_Readings.pdf

Wallace https://www.leftvoice.org/black-liberation-and-the-early-communist-movement/#:~:text=The%20Communist%20Party%20of%20the%20United%20States,period**%20*%20**Popular%2Dfront%20turn**%20*%20**Right%20turn**

Höfgen https://jacobin.com/2024/04/sahra-wagenknecht-bsw-migrants-pensions-populism

https://www.threadings.io/youve-been-traumatized-into-hating/

https://jacobin.com/2025/10/afl-cio-zionism-israel-palestine-solidarity

https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/

https://www.them.us/story/sexual-ambiguity-celebrity-actors-queer-roles-metrosexuality-essay

https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-literacy-statistics

I do not have a critique of any of these positions. In fact, I think anyone who is capable of nuance can see how each of these ideas contain truth.

Still, in addition to the grief and utter overwhelm that comes from having a modicum of empathy at this historical moment, I feel unsettled. Whether by design or not, the algorithm made it even more difficult to process what had happened and effectively obscured what collective action needs to look like in the immediate future.

Diversity of Tactics, Sure

As a general principle, I find Anarchists’ emphasis on a ”diversity of tactics” compelling. In the spirit of being contradictory and messy (Anarchists and Communists love to hate each other), I would say this anarchistic ideal corresponds with Marx’s slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” I would never tell someone not to vote or call their representatives because it is a “waste of time.” I would also never berate the Black Panthers or the Young Lords for arming themselves in the face of police brutality and white supremacists. Revolutionary change comes from activating multiple pressure points in the system.

Moreover, more radical, militant strategies often benefit those exercising pacifist forms of resistance. Martin Luther King Jr. and the demands of the Black middle class became increasingly palatable to whites, in part, because Malcolm X and Black Radicals were used as a foil in popular discourse. Similarly, liberals and conservatives of the Global North continue to cite the effectiveness of Gandhi’s pacifism (at nauseam) without the knowledge of his contemporary, Ambedkar – a Dalit (i.e. a member of the lowest caste in India) who represented a more revolutionary and progressive segment of India’s anticolonial struggle (Thomas 2018). I digress - but the point is: change can come through a variety of people employing a variety of political strategies. Everyone has a role to play.

The Limitations of Spontaneity

Yet, as I write this, I am reminded of Lila Abu-Lughood’s article, “The Romance of Resistance.” She warns against idealizing and equalizing all forms of resistance. There are material limitations that have to be contended with when analyzing the effectiveness of political strategies. For example, Robin D. G. Kelley (1994) points out in Race Rebels a number of ways that the Black working class has resisted exploitation, from doing the “bare minimum” at low wage jobs to adopting clothing styles that demonstrated their opposition to middle class ideals. I do not think Kelley explores these everyday forms of resistance as a way to argue for the effectiveness of atomized, individual acts. Rather, he is pointing out the propensity people have to fight back – he is showcasing the radical potential of the poor and working masses, who often demonstrate a capacity to defy authority and act cooperatively. The Left needs to tap into the people’s anti-authoritarian energy and figure out how to organize it around a collective political goal. Otherwise, spontaneous resistance strategies may help individuals or small groups of people cope with unjust circumstances — but they are rarely enough to restructure society into a more democratic form.

And, certain strategies can have unintended, negative consequences.

Consider Paul Willis’s Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs (1981). Willis captures how working class boys, he dubs “the lads,” carve out an empowering working class identity and culture. The lads reject middle class norms, opting to demonize education and glorify the masculine role of working on the factory shop floor. They cultivate an anti-authoritarian culture that keeps them at the ‘top of the food chain’ while in high school; temporarily, they are the cliche rule-breakers who can coast by without doing any work. However, enthusiastically accepting their destiny for manual labor, the lads ultimately participate in their own class-based exploitation. Resistance does not bring the lads freedom but reinforces their subjection (Menair 2019; Willis 1977: 3-4, 145-155).

My point is not to villainize working class teens for doing their best to negotiate their limited opportunities. (I remember thinking the book may overemphasize the role culture plays in solidifying the lads’ futures; recalling Michel-Rolph Trouillot, elites have often blamed systemic racial and class inequality on “culture,” suggesting people are poor simply because they grow up without ‘good role models’…). Still, Willis’s ethnography demonstrates that even when we think we are “fighting the system” – without a coherent and coordinated political strategy, we are likely changing little materially or structurally. It reminds me of how “consciousness raising,” a cornerstone of second wave feminism, ultimately got used to promote “individual empowerment” over the collective and material improvement of women’s lives. A “you do you” and “everyone keep doing their best” attitude does not result in the radical redistribution of wealth and power.

The Modern Democratic Party and the Performance of Helplessness

While members of the working class always find spontaneous, creative, and inspiring ways to resist their exploitation – capitalism has not only remained dominant but has taken a stark fascistic turn. (Fascism has always been embedded in colonial nation sates, but we can still recognize this moment is an acceleration of violence). In terms of political might and control of the economy, the right-wing and elite classes are very much “winning.” Despite all the online debates and arguments, I think everyone Left of the Democratic party agrees on one thing: there is no longer a robust, organized, powerful working class, socialist organization in the United States. Hence, much reflection and revision of political strategy is in order.

Previously, I have asserted that the contemporary Democratic party is simply… bad at politics. The representatives I vote for may espouse similar values to me; yet, when implementing policy, they have no backbone and make hefty compromises. Unlike the “evil” hard-headed Republicans, Democrats are humble actors who “reach across the aisle” even when it is politically disastrous. When it comes time for presidential elections, the oh-so-silly Democratic party seems incapable of learning from its so-called “mistakes” (if only the Democrats could see that there is a public desire for figures like Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani…). They offer their constituents yet another centrist political platform (or no real platform at all, as was the case with Kamala Harris), expecting all marginalized people will vote for them because they are the “good guys.” Unsurprisingly, the Democratic candidate loses to a charismatic cult leader who has a populist rhetoric, leverages the anti-authoritarian tendencies of young men, and always says the quiet part out loud. Liberals decry that working people vote against their own interests, seemingly unaware that the majority of low-income people (over half) do not ever make it to the polls (Hartley 2020; Price 2024). The Democratic party, recycling disproven political approaches again and again, seems doomed to accomplish little for poor and working class people.

This analysis has some truth – but it does not lead us anywhere beyond concluding that the Democratic Party is incredibly stupid. Perhaps, Democrats are better at politics than we give them credit for. If their primary political goal is to preserve the status quo, protect free-market capitalism, and appease the donor class – all the while seeming like benevolent actors – they have absolutely achieved this end. If their political strategy is to be perceived by the public as “not having the power” to do anything too radical, losing an election is not a problem at all. Maybe we should start believing Democrats when they fail to offer a progressive platform; the modern Democratic party has no intention of implementing one.

This point becomes especially sinister when we look to the history of fascism. From Germany to Italy to Spain, liberal and centrist forces have often made catastrophic compromises with right-wing fascist regimes rather than join the struggle against capitalism and authoritarianism.

In the end, whatever the intentions of individual Democrats, the party is clearly not loyal or accountable to “the poors” (i.e. most Americans). Historically, when Democrats have implemented policies that significantly benefited the lives of the poor and working class – such as the New Deal, they have done so amidst the pressure of a powerful, Communist-influenced Labor movement. The threat of the masses turning to Communism has been quintessential to progress. Today, the Democrats are a party bold enough to support the mass murder of Palestinians – and know I will still be coerced into voting for them.

Modern American Leftists are the Losers (Literal)

It is worth critiquing the Democratic party - but there are more difficult questions to start asking. If both the Republicans and Democrats have so little to offer the poor and working class, why is the American Left not a more appealing alternative? Are the Leftists the ones who are bad at politics?

Undeniably, there are systemic reasons for the Left’s catastrophic loss of power: decades of Cold War propaganda; the FBI’s strategic murder and incarceration of key Leftist leaders, particularly Black radicals, throughout the end of the last century; the systematic dismantling of union power; the role academia has played in delegitimizing marxism and/or divorcing intellectuals from mass movements…

However, it would be naive to blame the current reality wholly on repression. As someone who grew up in a lower-middle-class household; has had extensive exposure to political theory via an elite academic institution, personal reading, and publicly available educational resources; is an adult member of the working class; periodically supports the work of organizations like the DSA and PSL; AND identifies very strongly with the project of socialism, I am STILL frequently off-put by Leftist discourse and discouraged by Leftist organizing. If someone like me remains unable to identify the American Left’s political agenda – there probably is not one. Somewhere between hearing “abolishment of the family;” encountering that one vegan Anarchist who will not get out of your Instagram DMs; getting caught up in niche political debates and extreme sectarianism; experiencing the insanely patronizing and morally righteous attitudes of Internet Leftists; getting told you should start saving money you do not have in case there is a general strike; realizing the “vanguard party” you joined is actually just a book club; and never getting a succinct answer to the question, “What do we do now?”, many working class people rightly determine that much of the modern American Left is NOT engaged in a compelling and coherent political project.

Hence, a familiar pattern ensues: a rupture in the system occurs; people protest in the streets in record numbers; and the mainstream discourse becomes somewhat radical. Elite entities — such as the Democratic party and corporations — then copt the energy of the masses and revolutionary demands dissipate into votes for Democratic candidates; DEI training; movies with female leads; Target and Walmart manufacturing clothes for us to wear at Pride…

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò’s outlines this process in Elite Capture (I still need to read the book, but have listened to him summarize his argument on various platforms; see O’Shea 2022 and Democracy Now! 2023). It would be reductive to claim any moment of rupture, from Occupy to the George Floyd Uprisings, was an objective “failure;” future historians will likely categorize such events as key breaking points that contributed to…wherever we are going from here. Nevertheless, if we want this current moment of rupture to result in something more than Biden 2.0, the Left needs to compete with opportunistic forces.

Recently, I discovered the podcast, Doomscroll. My brain chemistry will never be the same. I was especially struck by an interview with Catherine Liu, professor of Film and Media Studies at UC Irvine, in which she says that today’s self-proclaimed Leftists, much like liberals, are great at blaming their failures on the working class (Citarella 2024; 2025a). Similarly, Vivek Chibber, professor of Sociology at New York University, makes several comical jabs at the voyeuristic nature of college-educated American Leftists who often have little stake in overthrowing capitalism. Chibber emphasizes that academia often reinforces a mythical notion of the working class: a class supposedly composed of inherently racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic white men who are supposedly not ready for the grand ideas of socialism. He explains the working class is far more “cosmopolitan” than this imaginary, traversing people across all identities who live and work together (Citarella 2025b; 2025c). Individual workers have bias and prejudice and are capable of reinforcing systems of domination (like racism, nationalism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism). A strong worker movement would have to seriously contend with the power imbalances and varying levels of precarity among its members. Yet, the working class has never been homogenous, deplorable, and devoid of critical thought. Throughout American history, workers have successfully organized across lines of difference – and we can do it again (Citarella 2025b; 2025c).

A Working Class Party

Half joking, Lui says: “We need a Left Project 2025” (Citarella 2024; 2025a). Chibber insists that we need a socialist, genuinely working class party that has “ideological coherence” (Citarella 2025c).* He continues, “You need to stand for something ... .You need a program and a platform” that “comes from the working class” and a “trained cadre that proselytizes to the constituency”(Citarella 2025c). He is clear that this party is not to be separate from the working class but composed of working class members who are disciplined in their struggle against capitalism (Citarella 2025c).

Often, I have struggled to see how a party constructed to “lead” the working class could ever be genuinely liberatory. The model seems deeply patronizing and doomed to reinforce hierarchies of knowledge and power. However, like Chibber, I am persuaded by the Gramscian definition of the “organic intellectual:” a member of the working class who “gives [their] class homogeneity and awareness of its own function, in the economic field and on the social and political levels” (Ramos 1982). A disciplined socialist party would not necessarily be dominated by people of middle and upper-class status with masters and PHDs; it could be dominated by working class thought leaders. Such individuals are in an ideal position to: understand the exploitative nature of capitalism; communicate effectively with the masses; leverage their labor power in the form of strikes; and maintain long-term commitment to the cause because they have a clear material stake not just in radical transformation but also in every piece-meal change along the way.

If the American Left would like to capture my involvement, these items are essential:

• Working class leadership

• A clear and direct platform that demystifies the socialist project and combats Cold War propaganda; a vision that is NOT illusive, utopian, or frightening to ordinary people**

• A coherent political strategy that is informed by the past but also grounded in the conditions/limitations of our current reality

• The capacity to (1) lead coordinated collective actions on a mass scale, such as general strikes, tenement strikes, and/or tax resistance; and (2) protect participants from eviction, hunger, and arrest

• In-person organizing that seeks to include parents and their children, people who do not work a traditional 9-5, and disabled individuals

• Commitment to the safety of the most exploited workers, particularly undocumented workers as well as Black and Brown women and gender-nonconforming folks

• Material support for poor and working class people through tenement and union organizing

• Solidarity with all colonized peoples, domestically and abroad

• Solidarity with incarcerated and previously incarcerated people

• Strategic engagement with other political actors if it means an immediate improvement the lives of poor and working people, such as the fight for free healthcare and/or a reduced work week

• A continuation of the Left’s tradition of study and self-criticism

• No purity politics or staunch sectarianism; the freedom for members to be wrong and imperfect

Storytelling as a Starting Point

One month into the year, and Luis Gustavo Núñez Cáceres, Geraldo Lunas Campos, Víctor Manuel Díaz, Parady La, Luis Beltrán Yáñez–Cruz, Heber Sánchez Domínguez, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti are dead (Hellman 2026).

As the weeks have progressed, I have felt increasingly scared and unprepared for this historical moment. Nevertheless, Minnesotans’ ferocity and coordination has demonstrated people will not easily be terrorized into inaction and conformity. Nearly everyone I talk to is earnestly asking, “What do we do?” For the first time in my adult life, this phrase feels genuine.

Mark Fisher and David Graeber have covered in detail how the media landscape, hegemonic cultural narratives, and the coercive nature of the police military state make it extremely difficult for people to imagine alternative ways of being – let alone feel empowered to take action (Fisher 2009; Graeber 2011).

The Haitian Revolution is a key case study of how to win against impossible odds. When new boatloads of enslaved Africans arrived in Haiti, Black Haitians told newcomers about their history of resistance. In the forty years leading up to the Revolution, Enslaved people and their descendants continuously proselytized about a successful slave rebellion led by François Mackanda. People who seemed to have little power strategically shaped the collective imagination of the masses. Without storytelling, the David versus Goliath fight would have never appeared winnable.***

On my literal doomscroll of contradictory hot takes, I did find one piece of content helpful: a short history of how German white women leveraged their power and achieved the release of their Jewish husbands from the Nazis. I agree that the comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany is a little overdone and reductive — but the Holocaust is the one atrocity of history that American schools cover with any detail. Americans will know what you are talking about if you bring up this period of history. Spreading what ordinary people have done under dire circumstances is an effective and needed political strategy. In this moment, our collective stories do not need to be perfect — they need to be impactful.

I do not know what will happen in the months and years and decades ahead, but I refuse to believe that this techno-feudalistic, capitalist hellscape represents the end of history.

I refuse to believe that revolutionary change cannot happen in a world that is constantly changing. I refuse to believe there is one “natural” trajectory for human society in a world with innumerate examples of how to organize human life.

I refuse convenience for the elite classes. I refuse a “peace” that requires my own slow death.

I have no right to adopt nihilism, and I seek to be a good ancestor to those who will come after me.

I love humanity enough to believe in the collective power of the masses. I believe in ordinary people. We have the numbers to win.

*Chibber explains that DSA is not a party but a “mass organization;” such entities are useful but not sufficient; I would have to understand the DSA more deeply to explain its shortcomings - so to be continued!

**I added the word “frightening” because I was recently a victim of the fiction book, Woman on the Edge of Time. It was written in the 70s by a member of the New Left who called herself a feminist and Marxist. The Utopian vision she presents is quite startling: racism is “solved” through a bizarre gene mixing process that is supposed to “separate race from culture;” gender inequality is “solved” through growing babies in labs; there is no distinction between public property and personal property; everyone dresses in similar jumpers; young children openly have sex with one another; and polyamory is the dominant mode of relating to others.**** There are several thought-provoking and positive aspects of the fictional world the author presents, but I ultimately think the book reinforces common misconceptions about communism and re-entrenches Cold War era fears. If legitimate Leftists do not do the work of explaining what socialism and communism actually mean — other sources will fill the void and these words will continue to seem scary and authoritarian.

***I cannot find the lecture in which I learned this; hoping I will be able to find it and properly cite it in the future.

****I think polyamory would exist in a more just world — and, maybe, it would be far more common than it is today. However, I do not think polyamory would be hegemonic or compulsory.

If you read this far and are not a paid subscriber, consider sending the author $2 (or more) dollars:

• Venmo @ catledue

• Cashapp $catmandue96

References

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1990. “The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations of Power through Bedouin Women.” American Ethnologist 17 (1): 41–55.

Citarella, Joshua. 2024. “Catherine Liu: Trauma, Virtue and Liberal Elites | Doomscroll.” Youtube video, 1:36:40. September 11, 2024.

*NOTE: I am still unsure about how I feel about Liu’s use of the “R word,” but I see that she is making a point about the over-policing of language in liberal spaces

2025a. “Catherine Liu: the Psychology of Liberalism | Doomscroll” Youtube video, 1:20:07. May 27, 2025.

2025b. “Vivek Chibber: How the Left Got Lost | Doomscroll.” Youtube video, 1:10:56. April 16, 2025.

2025c. “Vivek Chibber: What is Socialism Today? | Doomscroll.” Youtube video, 1:29:26. December 9, 2025.

Democracy Now!. 2023. “Elite Capture: Philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò on How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics.” YouTube video, 12:23. January 18, 2023.

Fisher, Mark. 2009. Capitalism Realism. Zer0 Books.

Graeber, David. 2011. Revolutions in Reverse. Minor Compositions, Automedia.

Hartley, Robert Paul. 2020. “Unleashing the Power of Poor and Low-Income Americans: Changing the Political Landscape.” The Poor People’s Campaign. https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PPC-Voter-Research-Brief-18.pdf

Hellman, Melissa. 2026. “Eight people have died in dealings with ICE so far in 2026. These are their stories.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/28/deaths-ice-2026-.

Kelley, Robin D.G. 1994. Race Rebels. New York. The Free Press.

Menair, Suzanne. 2019. “The Anthropology of Work.” Course at Colby College, Waterville, ME, Spring 2019.

O’Shea, Brett (Host). 2022. “Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else) by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò.” Revolutionary Left Radio, May 14, 2022. Podcast, audio, 51:48. https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/elite-capture-how-the-powerful-took-over-identity-politics-and-everything-else-by-olfmi-o-tw.

Price, Devon. 2024. “They Don’t Really Want You to Vote: Low voter turnout is by design -- and leftists aren’t the reason Dems lose.” Substack.

Devon Price

They Don't Really Want You to Vote.

As I logged into the Howard Brown Clinic’s Patient Portal to check in for my STI screening, I was greeted with a cheery reminder: Studies show that voters have better health outcomes than non-voters. Register to vote today using the Vote-ER platform…

Read more

2 years ago · 262 likes · 32 comments · Devon

Ramos, Valeriano, Jr. 1982. “The Concepts of Ideology, Hegemony, and Organic Intellectuals Gramsci’s Marxism.” Theoretical Review No. 27, March-April 1982. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/theoretical-review/1982301.htm.

Thomas, Sonja. 2018. “South Asian Feminisms.” Course at Colby College, Waterville, ME, Fall 2018.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2002. “Adieu, Culture, A New Duty Arises.” Chapter. In AnthropologyBeyond Culture 2^nd ed., 57-80. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.

Willis, Paul. 1981. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working ClassJobs. New York City, NY: Columbia University Press.

I do not think men, when viewed as as a social category, are afraid of emotional intimacy. I am also not convinced that men are as emotionally inept as often assumed.

In my early twenties, I was shocked to find out men were eager to initiate emotionally intimate moments with a woman they had just met and/or never intended to do more than sleep with. Not …

Read more

Cat, age 22, spent four years at a small liberal arts school in New England. Majoring in Anthropology and minoring in Women’s Studies, she had little reason to associate with heterosexuals. While 90% of her cohort were women and nonbinary students, roughly 0% were straight women. Somewhere between reading Audre Lorde’s poetry, observing that all her professors said they had “partners,” and spending all her free time at the thrift store, Cat stopped believing straight women existed at all. 

Post-graduation, Cat finally had time for a new hobby: watching reality dating television. Drawing on her anthropological research methods, she noticed a strange pattern. One woman participant described her type as, “Large biceps, facial hair, and dominant.” Another proclaimed she was always drawn to the tallest man in the room. A number of women explicitly stated they were looking for an “alpha male.” Cat noted: subjects are NOT attracted to men based on who has the prettiest face.

Cat recalled that her mother exclusively dated men who had a large amount of chest hair. At her cousin’s wedding, every beautiful woman had been coupled up with a man who looked like he had never used lotion in his life. In the straight world, were wolverine traits considered desirable and not terrifying?  

In her quest to understand her subjects, Cat started having real life conversations with women who identified as straight. The “exotic” interlocutors revealed chilling insights. One reported that, although she had to ask her boyfriend to take regular showers, he was a keeper. Several explained they wished they could date women but “loved d*** too much.” Cat is still recovering from an incident in which a woman told her, “Jeff from Community [Joel McHale] is realllllly hot.” 

Although she still suspects heterosexuality is a patriarchal conspiracy, Cat has been forced to reckon with the fact that some women are genuinely attracted to men who lack traditionally feminine features.

When she attends grad school, Cat plans to continue her anthropological research. She is hoping that her work can raise awareness about an under-studied and misunderstood demographic. 

If you read this far and are not a paid subscriber, consider sending the author $2 (or more) dollars:

• Venmo @ catledue

• Cashapp $catmandue96

*Easily achievable if it is raining and you happen to be running laps around a cemetery after dark.

Read more

Recently, I heard on a podcast (O’Shea 2024) that a weakness of the (socialist) Left is a lack of appeal to “family values.” Despite the use of such a loaded term (often, “family values” is a euphemism for upholding heteronormativity and patriarchy), I think I agree: The Left has often failed to attract potential comrades on the basis of improving the lives of parents (particularly, mothers) and their children (although, most progressive agendas do support this end). In my experience as an American with a special interest in Leftist politics, a masculinist “stick it to the man,” union-centered discourse is often dominant. The private “feminine” sphere of the home seems to garner less attention (at least, when it comes to Leftist propaganda and organizing). 

This point about “family values” reminded me of how Leftist men often seek liberation without addressing the gendered burdens placed on the women in their movements. Childcare, food preparation, and housework — i.e. the “feminine” labor that allows men to leave the home and be radical organizers in the first place — has often gone undervalued even in the most progressive of circles. During the Spanish Revolution, for instance, women were marginalized by their male comrades insofar sexual harassment was rampant and “women’s issues” were considered secondary to the revolutionary cause. Women and girls were explicitly told to wait for their emancipation, if not completely dismissed (Ackelsberg 1986: 7-11; Ackelsberg 1991: 88-89; 2000: 111; Nash 1995: 79). To the dismay of the anarchist men of Catalonia, Spanish women formed a women-only anarchist group called “Mujeres Libres,” organizing to address concerns such as childcare, sexual liberation, women’s health, and women’s employment (Kaplan 1971: 108; Ackelsberg 1985: 71-72; 1991: 94, 135-139; 2000: 103; Nash 1995: 80). 

Decades later in the United States, Black women of the Black Panther Party had a similar experience (Grant & Nelson 2015; Seither 2015). Women eventually outnumbered men in the organization and did a bulk of the feminized “behind the scenes” labor (such as “food and clothing drives and educational programs for Black youth”), yet they were marginalized by misogyny and blocked from holding the highest leadership roles (Grant & Nelson 2015; Seither 2015). In addition, like in Catalonia, several revolutionary men treated women like “sex objects” and were not held accountable for their abuse of women (Grant & Nelson 2015; Seither 2015). Several prominent BPP women ultimately made the painful decision to leave the party (Grant & Nelson 2015; Seither 2015). 

A similar relationship – fighting for the emancipation of one group while relying on the oppression of another – also exists between women. Mainstream bourgeois (i.e. “girl boss”) feminism achieves the “liberation” of (often, white) middle and upper-class women by replicating the oppression of working class and poor women. As their wives achieve career success, husbands do not (on average) undertake more childcare and household responsibilities. Instead, this labor is displaced onto lower socioeconomic status and immigrant women —disproportionately, women of color (Romero 2001). Nannies, au-pairs, and other low paid childcare workers are the backbone of upper-class women’s careers; this dynamic re-entrenches rather than challenges patriarchy and class inequality (Romero 2001). While certain women have attained more power in society, there has not been a re-imagination of the value of care-work itself (Romero 2001). Leftists are not immune to the pervasive social and economic norms that devalue traditionally feminine labor. 

As many feminist and socialist thinkers have pointed out (Black feminists frequently leading the way), progressive pursuits do not naturally lead to an overthrow of sexism, classism, or racism. Women make up a bulk of the world’s workers, yet popular Leftist discourse (and, mainstream feminist discourse) often fails to center and speak directly to the needs of working class and poor women. To avoid the failures of past revolutionaries and mainstream feminism, a robust revolutionary movement must make a concerted effort to center working class and poor women as well as place a higher value on so-called “feminine” labor.  

However, I think there is another group of people we are often overlooking when discussing “feminine” labor: children. We often discuss division of labor when it comes to childcare, yet the status, humanity, and freedom of children is under-discussed in Leftist discourse. This reality is ironic considering few other demographics (such as, those who are incarcerated and/or victims of modern slavery) have less access to democracy. The subservience and dehumanization of children is alarmingly normalized. In a society in which every-other Gen Z-er and Millennial is trying to heal from their childhood trauma, not enough of us are talking about the cycles and conditions that create such trauma in the first place. 

A politic that fully embraces children goes well beyond “investing in our future” rhetoric. Children are at best seen as “future” members of society; someday they will grow up and change the world. As hopeful as this sentiment is – it negates the fact that children are current members of society with their own thoughts, needs, experiences, and understandings. Life is easier if kids can just be quiet, compliant, docile – even, invisible (attributes that do not serve children but instead prime them for abuse). A genuinely revolutionary movement values children as they are and recognizes their rights to safety, expression, purpose, community, and autonomy. 

Modern teenagers, in particular, are often held in contempt by Western society. Their “inconvenient” behaviors — which often reflect trauma and serious mental health conditions — are dismissed as “teens being teens.” Drawing on my undergrad thesis (at the risk of sounding INCREDIBLY annoying), I would like to point out the history that has produced the American adolescent subject. Widely viewed as “undisciplined, disrespectful, and unfriendly,” teenagers’ are rarely taken seriously (Benson et al 1998: 141). Yet, the teenager life stage, allegedly fraught with “emotional turmoil” and irrational behavior,” is a relatively new social invention (Allen 2012: 40-42, 55; also see Cox 2015: 11-12; Feixa 2011). As the United States has industrialized, kids have lost their productive roles in society; in stark contrast to earlier time periods, the “socialization of children” occurs predominantly in private spaces, such as in the home and in schools (Benson et al 1998: 140-142). Isolated from their broader communities, kids are stuck in “holding tanks” and are not integrated into the “productive economy” (Benson et al 1998: 142). Often, teenagers, particularly if they are Black, Brown, and/or (I would add) low-income, are seen as “threats to the social order” to be managed and repressed (Cox 2015: 12-13). 

There is ample research to throw this modern invention on its head. Anthropologists and historians emphasize the non-universality of the “teenager,” which is a culturally specific and historically contingent social construction. This identity category does not exist in all parts of the world nor across time periods (Allen 2012: 41-42; Feixa 2011). Even within contemporary Western society, studies on familial relationships disprove the idea that adolescents are “particularly difficult” (Allen 2012: 41-42). Teenage identities are not only a result of biological changes marking the transition into adulthood but emerge “out of negotiations between the individual and wider social context” (Allen 2012: 41-42). In other words, societal expectations and narratives in the United States shape “teenage” behaviors as well as the lens through which these behaviors are interpreted. Although key biological and developmental changes are real (however, these changes are ongoing and extend into our twenties), the modern teenager is a new social phenomenon. 

Davina Allen (2012) argues in “Just a Typical Teenager” that the concept of the pesky teen lives on “because it provides a ‘vocabulary of motive’” (41). She continues,  

…appeals to “normal adolescence” provide sense‐making resources with which to manage the contradictions that shape the transition from childhood to adulthood, as long as the actions of young people are understood as outside of individual control rather than as a rational response to a social problem[,] then the normative order remains unchallenged. (Allen 2012: 41).

In Shapeshifters, Aimee Meredith Cox makes a similar point, emphasizing how even programs intended to help teens assume that “bad” behaviors are merely a reflection of adolescent rebellion:

In programs that serve high-risk youth populations it is easy for terms like acting out, having a bad attitude, and thinking she’s grown to take the place of more accurate assessments such as depression, anxiety, and fear that really define these young peoples’ behaviors. (Cox 2015: 206-208)

In summary, the social construct of the teenager provides an avenue to explain away kids’ actions. I think this understanding applies to all childhood stages. How many of us have heard people refer to children as inherently manipulative, spoiled, lazy, disengaged, or annoying? As it turns out, kids have legitimate reasons for their “inconvenient” behaviors. They are not master manipulators who need to be “taught a lesson” but are often behaving in ways that directly reflect their physical, emotional, and/or social needs. Regardless of their age, children are communicating vital information. American society cannot hear kids because we collectively see them as subhuman. 

The conditions many children in the United States are living in do not support their physical wellbeing, let alone their emotional and social development. Just a few of the relevant statistics: 

• “Adverse childhood experiences” (i.e. “ACEs), which are “stressful or traumatic events stemming from abuse, neglect, household dysfunction[,] and toxic stress,” are (basically) commonplace (NICHQ 2024). According to the National Institute for Children's Health Quality and CDC, “34.8 million children (ages 0-17)—nearly half of American children—are exposed to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that can severely harm their future health and well-being….exposure to six or more ACEs can lower an individual’s life expectancy by nearly 20 years” (NICHQ 2024). ACE frequency increases when factors such as gender, race, and income-level are accounted for (NICHQ 2024; also see Swedo et al 2023 for a further discussion of the CDC research). 

• The CDC (2024) reported, “At least [italics added] one in four girls and one in twenty boys in the United States experience child sexual abuse” (CDC 2024); the perpetrators are nearly always (90% of the time) a “trusted” family member or family friend. 

• The American Institute for Research (2014) found that a “staggering 2.5 million children are now homeless each year in America. This historic high represents one in every 30 children in the United States. 

• The USDA (2023) published, “Household food insecurity affected 17.3 percent (6.4 million) of households with children in 2022.”

• Juvenile detention – incarcerating CHILDREN – continues to exist, disproportionately affecting Black and low-income kids. As stated by the Sentencing Project (2023), “Forty-two percent of youths in placement are Black, even though Black Americans comprise only 15% of all youth across the United States.” 

Kids who “act out” are in tune with the social, economic, and political factors shaping their lives. Do we, as Leftists, exercise and advocate for the compassion kids are entitled to? And, when will we have the courage to actually ask kids what kind of communities they want to live in – how will we figure out what conditions would make them feel both safe and needed? When will we perceive children as fellow humans who are suffering, just like adults, under late-stage neoliberal capitalism? 

By insisting that Leftists take kids seriously and include them in community building, I am not implying that children should be held to adult standards of conduct. In actuality, I would argue the adultification of certain children – specifically, girls and Black and Brown children – is simply disturbing. We have all seen the news stories, referring to literal children as anything but children: “young women,” “dangerous youths,” “juvenile delinquents.” It is also not my intention to connect children’s value to their productive capacity; the labor movement is a key reason we even have child labor laws (I can just imagine how right-wingers and anti-communists would assume some socialist wants to take children away from their families to turn them into “productive” members of society; note, that this essentially describes the Indian Boarding School system, which was put into law without any assistance from communists). Rather, I see children as particularly vulnerable members of society who we should all be committed to — regardless if we choose to have our own kids or not — including, protecting, raising, and supporting. 

Overall, I am arguing for the humanization of children and recognition that they are living, breathing members of our modern communities — and any future communities we hope to build. Modern children and future children deserve not to just be considered but actively included in our imaginations of the future. 

To achieve the inclusion of children, I think three key steps are necessary:

1. Positively value traditionally “feminine” care work and obliterate the gendered division of labor; 

2. Address the cultural bias that often justifies mistreating children and actively include children in community building; 

3. Reimagine and reconfigure responsibility when it comes to raising children, creating a world in which reliable communal support for parents and children is the norm. I will reflect on this step below. 

A few weeks ago, the surgeon general released a report indicating that becoming a parent has adverse heath consequences. I often think about whether or not I want to (someday, far, far, FAR in the future) have my own children. I work with kids in my current job —I love them and their questions and their capacity to teach me new things. Still, when I think of the impossibly high and unhealthy expectations put on mothers, I think better not. I would love to be a dad, but I would hate to be a mother. 

I think about how the structure of the patriarchal nuclear family often fails mothers and children alike. I think about how the economic relations and social isolation of the modern family unit creates prime conditions for burnt out moms and traumatized kids (not to mention, allows domestic abuse to go unchecked). I think about how Engels, in the Origin of the Family, was spot on in his analysis of how capitalism has ravaged human communities. The alienation of the peasantry from the means of production necessitated the creation of individuated, patriarchal nuclear families to replace communal, collective, and often more egalitarian ways of being (If you are unfamiliar, look into the origins of private property as well as how capitalism requires social reproduction – the  free labors of raising new productive citizens, maintaining the home, and providing care for male workers). Ultimately, I think about how I might actually desire parenthood if I lived in another time or society. If it was normal for the community around me to share the responsibility for my future children’s well-being, I would not feel so scared and overwhelmed. 

As we work towards a post-capitalist world, I urge my comrades to think more deeply about their relationship to parents and children in their communities. Declaring “I hate kids” is a tad too socially acceptable among those of us questioning our desire for parenthood (I have been guilty of making similar jokes). Deciding to be child-free is not only valid but a natural and beautiful part of human evolution; we are certainly not the only species in which non-reproducing members exist and contribute to the species in meaningful ways (see Eliot Schrefer’s Queer Ducks for a further discussion of how Western culture (mis)informs our conceptions of what is “natural” and evolutionary advantageous). Still, I think we each have an obligation to children – regardless if we share a direct biological relationship to them or not. Creating the communities that we want to live in requires care and support for all people, regardless of their ages or how squeaky their voices. Staunchly maintaining “children are not my responsibility” and “I do not owe anyone anything” reproduces the exact individualism so many of us claim to hate. 

I do not know exactly what a post-capitalist world would look like, but I think it would place a high value on children as well as caretaking roles. I think raising children would never be the sole responsibility of two biological parents, let alone a single parent. I think the emotional and physical labor of child-raising would be shared in creative and innovative ways. I think being born would be enough to guarantee community care and a sense of belonging. I think that although human conflict would not end, our issues would be much more manageable if everyone’s material, social, and emotional needs were not subordinated to capitalism. I think kids would not be desperately waiting to grow up and escape their oppressive schools and households; I think adults would not be burnt out, longing to return to a fantastical childhood without “bills” and “adult responsibilities.” Call me crazy, but I think humans just might find a way to enjoy our day-to-day existence at every life stage.  

If you read this far and are not a paid subscriber, consider sending the author $2 (or more) dollars:

• Venmo @ catledue

• Cashapp $catmandue96

References

Ackelsberg, Martha. 1984. “Mujeres Libres: Individuality and Community, Organizing Women During the Spanish Civil War.” Radical America 18 (3/4): 7–19.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 1985. ""Separate and Equal"? Mujeres Libres and Anarchist Strategy for Women's Emancipation." Feminist Studies 11 (1): 63-83.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 1986. "Women and the Politics of the Spanish Popular Front: Political Mobilization or Social Revolution?" International Labor and Working-Class History (30): 1-12.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 1991. Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 1993. “Models of Revolution: Rural Women and Anarchist Collectivism in Civil War Spain.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 20 (3): 267-288.

Ackelsberg, Martha. 2000. “Mujeres Libres: Identity, Community, Sexuality, and Power.” Anarchist Studies 8 (2): 99–117.

Ackelsberg, Martha. 2009. “Martha Ackelsberg - Mujeres Libres.” YouTube. Lecture presented at the 2009 Dublin Anarchist Book Fair, March. 1:07:51.

.

Allen, Davina. 2012. “‘Just a Typical Teenager’: The Social Ecology of ‘Normal 

Adolescence’—Insights from Diabetes Care.” Symbolic Interaction 36: 40-59.

Bassuk, Ellen L., Carmela J. DeCandia, Corey Anne Beach, and Fred Berman. 2014. “America's Youngest Outcasts: A Report Card on Child Homelessness.” American Institute for Research. https://www.air.org/resource/report/americas-youngest-outcasts-report-card-child-homelessness. 

Benson, Peter L., Nancy Leffert, Peter C Scales, and Dale A Blyth. 1998. “Beyond the ‘Village’ Rhetoric: Creating Healthy Communities for Children and Adolescents.” Applied Developmental Sciences 2 (3): 138–59.

Bunk, Brian D. 2003. “Revolutionary Warrior and Gendered Icon: Aida Lafuente and the Spanish Revolution of 1934.” Journal of Women's History 15 (2): 99–122.

Bunk, Brian D. 2007. Ghosts of Passion: Martyrdom, Gender, and the Origins of the Spanish Civil War. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 

Cox, Aimee Meredith. 2015. Shapeshifters: Black Girls and the Choreography of  Citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Feixa, Carles. 2011. “Past and Present of Adolescence in Society: The ‘Teen Brain’ Debate in Perspective.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35 (8): 1634–43.

​​Grant, Laurens, and Stanley Nelson. 2015. The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution. Directed by Stanley Nelson. United States: Firelight Films.

Kaplan, Temma E. 1971. “Spanish Anarchism and Women’s Liberation.” Journal of Contemporary History 6 (2): 101–110.

Lines, Lisa Margare. 2012. Milicianas: Women in Combat in the Spanish Civil War. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Linhard, Tabea Alexa. 2005. Fearless Women in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Nash, Mary. 1995. Defying Male Civilization: Women in the Spanish Civil War. Denver, CO: Arden Press.

National Institute for Children’s Health Quality (NICHQ). Accessed 2024. “Did You Know Childhood Trauma Affects Nearly Half of American Children?” National Institute for Children’s Health Quality. https://nichq.org/insight/bringing-trauma-forefront-early-childhood-systems#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%2034.8,future%20health%20and%20well%2Dbeing.

O’Shea, B. (Host). (2017-present). Revolutionary Left Radio [Audio Podcast]. Spotify. https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/#.

Romero, Mary. 2001. "Unraveling Privilege: Workers' Children and the Hidden Cost of Paid Childcare." Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 76: 1651.

Rovner, Joshua. 2023. “Black Disparities in Youth Incarceration.” The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/black-disparities-in-youth-incarceration/. 

Seither, Robert James, and Keisha Blain. "Women in the Black Panther Party: An Internal Struggle for Power, Equality, and Survival." Journal of Gender & the Law 9 (2008): 404. https://joss.tcnj.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/176/2015/04/2015-Seither.pdf. 

Swedo EA, Aslam MV, Dahlberg LL, et al. 2023. Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences Among U.S. Adults — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2011–2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:707–715. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7226a2 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a2.htm. 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Accessed 2024. “About Childhood Sexual Abuse.” USA.gov.  https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/about/about-child-sexual-abuse.html#:~:text=Quick%20facts%20and%20stats&text=At%20least%20one%20in%20four,234. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023. “Key Statistics & Graphics.” Economic Research Service: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/#:~:text=million)%20in%202021.-,Food%20Security%20Status%20of%20U.S.%20Households%20with%20Children%20in%202022,households%20with%20children%20in%202022.

...the election will not so much be about who gets to lead the country to a better future, but rather how we can support ourselves and our own ability to continue to organize and place pressure on those in power. And I don’t think there’s a question about which candidate would allow that process to unfold. (Goodman 2020) 

The Democracy Now! interview transcript is titled: “Angela Davis on Abolition, Calls to Defund Police, Toppled Racist Statues & Voting in 2020 Election” (Goodman 2020). The paragraph in which this quote was taken began with Davis’ declaration, “I’m not going to actually support either of the major candidates” (Goodman 2020). Davis was one of many Leftists grappling with how to deal with electoral politics in a country where voting has never brought about anyone’s liberation; her preference for Biden was part of a larger discourse about the limitations of the U.S.’s two-party “democracy” (Goodman 2020). People took Davis’ words out of context and reposted them with the goal of encouraging others to vote for Biden. The same attention was not given to spreading Davis’ more radical positions. 

I am doubtful that those who I witnessed “discovering” Davis in 2020 then picked up a copy of Are Prisons Obsolete? or started supporting the work of BIPOC and women-led abolitionist organizations such as “Incite!” (Although, I would be thrilled to be wrong). I made a social media call for those reposting Davis’ quote to actually center, study, and learn from the work of Black feminist Leftists (I suggested starting with The Cite Black Women Collective). No one responded to me directly; and, interest in Angela Davis did not continue. It was a stark reminder: self-proclaimed liberals will co-opt and sanitize the messages of Leftists, ultimately favoring a reformist and centrist agenda. 

In 2024, we find ourselves in the same position. Again, we are urged by Democrats to choose the “less evil” option. 

In the face of life-threatening outcomes of climate change; the U.S.-backed genocide against Palestinians; the U.S.’s haphazard exit from Afghanistan; the militarization of U.S. borders; the blatant corruption of the Supreme Court; the increased criminalization of homelessness; the under-regulated rise of AI and surveillance technologies; the galvanization of white supremacists and men’s rights activists; the war on reproductive rights; rates of economic inequality so grave that we arguably live in an oligarchy (Nichols 2022); and the looming threat of “Project 2025,” Democrats remain absurdly cowardly in their promises. They primarily speak to the interests of centrists and take the votes of their most vulnerable constituents for granted (for further discussion of this theme, see Shirazi & Johnson 2017-present). 

I do not purport to know how best to deal with electoral politics, especially when our current president is enabling war crimes. Vote blue? Vote third-party? Refuse to vote as a protest measure against the American Empire? Vote because it is a privilege that marginalized individuals (such as, incarcerated and previously-incarcerated citizens) are frequently denied? I do not have answers. What is clear: there is no winning. 

What I do know is that electoral politics will not save us. As countless others have long pointed out, we cannot vote our way out of this hellscape. There is simply not enough time. People are suffering in the U.S. and around the world now. The climate crisis is already here. I refuse to participate in discourse that tells people to wait – that tells us our liberation will come naturally in time. Political progress has never been the product of some benevolent leader who came to power through existing legal and political structures. What has changed history? Terrifying political leaders into action; large-scale boycotts; refusing to work; breaking existing laws; the threat of uprisings; actual uprisings. The collective power of the people at the margins is what changes history (see O’Shea 2017-present for historical case studies of revolutionary movements). Ordinary individuals fed up with the status quo – particularly, those with the least to gain under capitalism – are who I am counting on. 

My genuine question for everyone in my life (or anyone reading this) – particularly, middle-class white folks – is at what point will you take to the streets (either literally or by finding ways to materially support a revolutionary movement)? How much more has to happen for you to have a vested interest in radically transforming the systems we live under? How many more people – (better yet, do they also have to be white, middle-class Americans? Your kids? Your friends?) – have to be impacted before you will take action? Furthermore, what will it take for you to actively disinvest from the societal institutions involved in replicating white supremacy and economic inequity domestically and worldwide? At what point will you be willing to sacrifice socially and economically? These questions are not intended to be rhetorical or inflammatory. I genuinely want to know. 

When I went to college, the fallacy of American meritocracy radicalized me (i.e. I went to a “prestigious” institution in which there were more students from the top 1% of family income levels than the bottom 20%; see Aisch et al 2017). After graduating, the exhaustive nature of living paycheck to paycheck under late-stage neoliberal capitalism has only galvanized me further. Having parents who have worked hard their entire lives only to earn a semi-livable wage; interviewing jail inmates whose primary “crime” was using drugs; losing a research participant to a fatal overdose; witnessing a police officer and fire-fighters try to intimidate my Black co-worker for the “crime” of setting off fireworks; working with minors who had been incarcerated and subject to facilities that can legally use “restraints” on children; calling my representatives to demand an end to the genocide of Palestinians only to be met with generic and vague scripts that imply I am a delusional conspiracy theorist…countless experiences have only added to my horror and disillusionment. 

I am reluctant to conclude that we live in a dystopia, but my dearest friend from college told me she has been seeing birds fall from the sky dead due to India’s extreme heat. About a week later, Democracy Now! covered a story on monkeys and parrots falling out of trees dead due to a record-breaking heat wave in Mexico (Goodman 2024). I feel like I am living in a simulation. I live in a country built and sustained by violence and exploitation. Meanwhile, my primary purpose is to make enough money for rent and food.

Following the example of Angela Davis, bell hooks, Mariame Kaba (see Hayes & Kaba 2024; Golds 2022; The South End Press Collective 1998), I see hope not as an emotion but as a political project. Believing that the world could be better is an intentional act. As bell hooks emphasized, “Hope is essential to any political struggle for radical change when the overall social climate promotes disillusionment and despair” (The South End Press Collective 1998). Hopefulness is not synonymous with delusion; acknowledging the facts of our daunting situation does not negate hope. Rather, criticizing the way things are is a hopeful act. Refusing to accept things as they are and demanding something better is not rooted in negativity and pessimism–but in the belief that another world is possible.  

I am starting this substack, in part, because I miss being in a classroom. I miss having professors and classmates who helped guide me to better questions and more complex conclusions. I miss learning in community. The privilege to study and engage in discourse is something I take very seriously; education has been central to countless revolutionary movements (For example, consider the Black Panthers’ insistence on the importance of study; see Peoples & Foster 2020). I did not read an innumerate amount of books and articles about the failings of neoliberal capitalism only to graduate and become another “cog in the machine.” 

Carol Hanisch’s (and many feminists’) insistence that the “personal is political” is a lesson that has influenced me both inside and outside of the classroom (Hanisch 2006). I apply what I learned in whatever ways my daily existence allows; although I am not always successful, I seek to implement the politics I want to see on a broader scale into my everyday interactions and choices. What I will write about future posts is not merely an intellectual exercise. I write with the intention to (1) put words to my experiences and challenges; (2) continue learning and honing my theoretical understandings; (3) build community and foster solidarity; and (4) contribute (although in a self-consciously, meager way) to our collective political imagination and tool-bag of strategies for radical change.

In a world that makes me feel small and powerless, I write because I still believe in the power of knowledge production, discourse, and storytelling. As cliche as it is to mention, there is a reason fascists prefer an illiterate society and burn books to maintain control. The spread of ideas – particularly, the knowledge that our struggles are overlapping and interlocking – is dangerous to a capitalist, imperial world order that thrives on social isolation, hyper-individualism, social stratification, and chronic cognitive dissonance. A cornerstone of revolutionary change involves ordinary people talking to one another and activating social networks of care and togetherness. As one very ordinary girl, I hope to be a part of the collective process of dreaming bigger and struggling for the human race and our planet Earth. 

If you read this far and are not a paid subscriber, consider sending the author $2 (or more) dollars:

• Venmo @ catledue

• Cashapp $catmandue96

References

Aisch, G., L. Buchanan, A. Cox, and K. Quealy. (2017, January 18). Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/colby-college. 

Golds, A. (2022, May 29). Angela Davis on Social Change: "No Movement is Possible Without Hope." CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/angela-davis-on-social-change-no-movement-is-possible-without-hope/. 

Goodman, A. (2020, June 12). Angela Davis on Abolition, Calls to Defund Police, Toppled Racist Statues & Voting in 2020 Election. Democracy Now!: Independent Global News. 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/6/12/angela_davis_on_abolition_calls_to. 

Goodman, A. (2024, June 7). Deadly Heat: Record Scorching Temperatures Kill the Vulnerable, Worsen Inequality Across the Globe. Democracy Now!: Independent Global News. https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/7/extreme_heat. 

Hanisch, C. (2006). The Personal is Political: The Women’s Liberation Classic with a New Explanatory Introduction. Carolhanisch.org. https://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PersonalIsPol.pdf. 

Hayes, K. and M. Kaba. (2024, February 19). Hope is a Practice and a Discipline. Nonprofit Quarterly (NPQ). https://nonprofitquarterly.org/hope-is-a-practice-and-a-discipline-building-a-path-to-a-counterculture-of-care/. 

Nichols, J. (2022, September 29). It’s Official: The United States Is an Oligarchy. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cbo-american-wealth-inequality/. 

O’Shea, B. (Host). (2017-present). Revolutionary Left Radio [Audio Podcast]. Spotify. https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/#.

Peoples, L. Q., and L. Foster. (2020). Revisiting and Learning from the Legacy of Black Communities’ Education for Liberation Efforts: Part 1. New York University. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/revisiting-and-learning-legacy-black-communities-education-liberation-efforts#:~:text=The%20Black%20Panther%20Party%2C%20originally,necessity%20involved%20with%20educating%20themselves. 

Shirazi, N & A. Johnson (Hosts). (2017-present). Citations Needed [Audio Podcast]. Spotify. https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/#.

The South End Press Collective. (1998). Talking about a revolution : interviews with Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bell Hooks, Peter Kwong, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Urvashi Vaid, and Howard Zinn. South End Press, Cambridge MA. https://archive.org/details/talkingaboutrevo00sout. 

Organizations Referenced

Incite! @ https://incite-national.org/

The Cite Black Women Collective @ https://www.citeblackwomencollective.org/