We need to set a collective intention; otherwise we are lost.

Green Liberty Affirms Egalitarian Proposition to Remove Rich from Power

Previously posted at Greenlibertycaucus.org: https://greenlibertycaucus.org/egalitarian-proposition-remove-the-rich/

I am writing to make clear the Green Liberty stance on the problem of power and domination by the plutocratic oligarchy. I personally accept, with some qualifications, the radical egalitarian proposition that we remove the rich from power so we can have real and not fake democracy. Society would be organized around the golden rule, cooperative economics, mutual aid, and solidarity for all. There would be no rich and no poor. I would add ecology and regeneration of nature as an additional provision for what would constitute the better society.

Whether a radical egalitarian society is achievable under the current weight of a plutocratic power structure is irrelevant to the need to collectively state an intention for a possibility that functions as a north star.

Green Liberty, in its founding principles, accepts the necessity of a mass movement of workers and all other people to form a liberation coalition and fight for freedom. John Spritzler’s argument for an egalitarian revolution gets to the heart of what is required to build a mass movement: solidarity around an idea and principle, which in Spritzler’s egalitarian reasoning, is to remove the rich from power so there will be no rich and no poor, and we can have real and not fake democracy

Spritzler has canvassed now approaching 1000 people with the query, “Do you agree or disagree with the proposition that we remove the rich from power so we can have real and not fake democracy…and no rich and no poor…” and the vast majority of people say yes and agree to have their picture taken holding a sign that says so. He invites us all to do the same thing and know what he knows: a majority of people want to ditch the rich. Spritzer understands that agreeing to a proposition is not a movement, but he insists that a movement for freedom cannot succeed unless a mass of the people agree on the end goal and the means to get there.

And he is impatient with anyone who does not think a mass of people could agree that we should remove the rich from power (since he knows from personal conversation that a majority do want to remove the rich from power), and he is impatient with people who protest but do not connect the dots of class warfare and assert the need to fight against the plutocracy and make a goal of removing them from power.

It is fair to say that for the past several generations, activists fighting for justice, peace, and equality have engaged in what amounts to a game of whack-a-mole. Today we have more war; wealth disparity has increased, with more and more wealth aggregating to a few, and the plutocracy is deploying AI and other digital measures to consolidate its power over the people.

By prefacing our activism with a denunciation of the plutocracy and stating an intention to remove them from power, we increase the chances of winning tactical victories for reforms that orient toward greater freedom from the plutocratic power structure. The idea of removing the rich from power is a stand-alone proposition, meaning it is not contingent or tied to any issue other than the issue of removing the rich from power for the purpose of creating a better society.

Consequently, as an organizing strategy, the freedom movement needs to clearly and forthrightly state the intention, “remove the rich from power,” and organize at the local level, in our cities, counties, and regional areas, and nationally, to accomplish that end. In addition to organizing locally, it will be necessary to also develop the confederal body that would provide administrative connectivity to free cities and build out a new society, free from the oligarchy.

Spritzler reports on this at his Substack and People for Radical Democracy websites.

So, just as Green Liberty can hold the goal to fight the corruption of the plutocratic deep state and also hold the goal of removing the rich from power and establishing a real democracy, then so can, and so should, many other organizations. Radical egalitarians can invite the organizations they participate in to adopt the proposition to remove the rich from power.

Many, if not most, of the things we want—peace, health, wealth, a thriving society and culture, and economy—are blocked by the plutocracy, which advances war, poisons the earth and society with effluence and toxins, and treats the people like dirt.

Green Liberty suggests we can grow our ranks by calling out state crimes. However, ultimately, we cannot get accountability and justice for the state crimes (JFK, 60’s assassinations, September 11th, the anthrax attack on the Senate to pass the Patriot Act, Covid, and more) without removing the rich from power because without the removal of the super-rich cabal, no true accounting can occur; they won’t allow it.

Removing the rich from power can occur through a popular uprising: we the people could vote out all members of Congress who don’t accept the egalitarian aspiration and organize to convert others to pick up the mantle of overthrowing plutocracy. It might take 10 years, but it could be done.

It could also mean a mass movement of citizens developing libertarian municipalism, where citizens vote egalitarians into city, county, and state offices and implement policies that remove the rich from power and create a real democracy at the local level.

Some egalitarian reformers call for democratizing the money supply to liberate from the banking cartels; other egalitarians, like Georgeist economists, call for land tax reforms. While egalitarian in practice, they don’t explicitly call for removing the rich from power, a radical egalitarian call. Where do conservative, more cautious, egalitarians fit into the radical egalitarian scheme?

Conservative egalitarians could adopt the radical demand but work to advance their ideas as transitional programs.

Green Liberty supports building a liberation coalition, and this means finding points of common ground across the political continuum. Spritzler has plenty of warnings about this, raising concerns that an ally today can become an enemy tomorrow, all because of seemingly minor differences that later develop into an unbridgeable divide.

Getting from here to there, from our current condition that tends toward a techno-totalitarian, globalist-dominated society to something democratic and ecological and free, means we will have to transition from where we are now to where we want to be.
Spritzler emphasizes that people need to know they are not alone in desiring to have a better society based on there not being a rich ruling class.

Therefore, we need to make talking about removing the rich from power a normal course of daily conversation.

So, the Green Party US, and all the state Green parties, and those in the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties, and other groups, should discuss amongst themselves the proposition that we remove the rich from power and discuss why, or why not, the organization should accept the proposition.

I, as chief proponent of Green Liberty, accept the radical egalitarian proposition. But getting from here to there will naturally involve concessions and accommodations, or maybe not.

Spritzler has written about how a radical egalitarian society would foster entrepreneurial projects, and people in society would have more freedom to choose livelihoods than is presently afforded in our current society.

Green Liberty Caucus is a collective voice calling for egalitarian possibilities and accepts that only from a mass movement that acts against the deep state plutocracy and the oligarchy that secretly steers society, can we get accountability and justice for the state crimes and end the corrupt domination of our government and build a better society.

Regards,

Chuck

Chief proponent for Green Liberty sensibility