CREATING THE WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN

 

                                                      

A note about this blog:

Steve Bhaerman, AKA Swami Beyondananda, is a comedian with a message. His humorous style belies a serious effort to help enlighten the receptive to the possibilities of a better world. This is one of his e-blasts, which features an excerpt from Birthing the Symbiotic Age: Ancient Blueprint to Uniting Humanity by Richard Flyer. 

In keeping with a recent recurrent theme of this blog, the book discusses how to change the collective consciousness in a direction that is life-affirming (and potentially world-saving). It is based on recognizing and affirming the ancient wisdom that is common to both the great religious traditions and the principles of secular humanism

This message, originally entitled The Parallel Polis: An Alternative to Polarized Paralysis, explores how creating a just society is the first step in creating a just world. It is reproduced with permission of the Swami.

“We have a deeply-divided body politic. Half the people believe our system is broken. The other half believe it is fixed.” – Swami Beyondananda Dear Friends and Co-Hearts: If you’ve been following my Great Upwising mission and Signs of the Upwising posts, you know that I’ve taken on a challenging – some would say impossible – task: addressing and amplifying the universal longing for unity in the midst of an ever-more-polarized system and world. That’s why I have spent the past three years helping my colleague and co-heart Richard Flyer write his book, Birthing the Symbiotic Age: Ancient Blueprint to Unite Humanity.  I first met Richard in 2007 when I was writing Spontaneous Evolution. I was intrigued with the Conscious Community Network he founded in Reno, Nevada that created buy local, local food, and neighbor-to-neighbor “symbiotic networks” – projects that transcended political divides to bring people together to “connect the good” and create mutual benefit. Bruce Lipton and I even devoted a section of our chapter Healing the Body Politic to his work. I stayed friends with Richard over the years, and when he told me in 2021 he was considering writing a book, I not only encouraged him but I jumped in to help. That book is almost done, and I believe it takes the promise of Spontaneous Evolution, and grounds it in real world practice – and what Richard has come to call “the Ancient Blueprint” that can be found in the teachings of Jesus and the early Christian communities; the work of Gandhi, who himself was influenced by the Sermon on the Mount; Dr. Ariyaratne’s 67-year-old Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka; and in what you will be reading below, the Parallel Polis that emerged in Communist Czechoslovakia in the 1970s. At a time when people seem pathologically possessed by polarizing political narratives, I have found it curious how few people have heard of Sarvodaya or the Parallel Polis – both of which offer practical and powerful pathways to transcend the trance of separation. For the past 14 months, Richard has been releasing the book chapter-by-chapter on his Substack post. If you’re looking for ways to step off the battlefield and animate a new playing field, I highly recommend you subscribe to his posts. Because the Parallel Polis offers such promise in contrast to the “polarized paralysis” we face today, I am featuring Richard’s most recent blog post as my Upwising post this week. May it inspire you as much as it has inspired me!

Living in Truth: Building a Parallel Polis Within a Spiritually Hostile Regime By Richard Flyer Throughout this book, I have cited Sarvodaya as a living example of the Ancient Blueprint in action, a parallel society and culture approach that took hold in a third-world Buddhist country. Understandably, you might wonder if Dr. Ariyaratne’s work is an anomalous, one-of-a-kind experiment or if anything similar has ever emerged within a modern, Western society—other than our Symbiotic Networks in Reno. Surprisingly, the answer is yes—it is found in the Parallel Polis, a faith-based movement in Communist Czechoslovakia in the late 1970s. The Parallel Polis' mission wasn’t to topple the totalitarian “godless” regime through protest or opposition but to quietly build a parallel culture.  This living countercurrent inspired, strengthened, and reawakened the hearts of millions numbed by authoritarian despair.

This effort was spearheaded by two Václav’s: playwright and future president Václav Havel and Catholic philosopher Václav Benda. Together, they gave birth to the concept of "Parallel Polis"—a society within a society where truth, beauty, and freedom could thrive outside the grasp of the Soviet-controlled state. While not overtly religious, Parallel Polis was profoundly shaped by Benda’s Catholic faith and the tradition of Catholic Personalism, a worldview affirming the inviolable dignity of every person made in God's image. Benda articulated the movement's purpose as a return "to truth and justice, to a meaningful order of values, and to value once more the inalienability of human dignity and the necessity for a sense of human community in mutual love and responsibility."

Václav Havel is on the upper left, and Václav Benda is on the upper right.

Instead of directly confronting the regime on its terms, Benda’s Parallel Polis created practical, alternative economic and social structures that met the people’s needs, particularly recreating the social and economic relationships severed by the Communist authority. These “counter-institutions” included independent education, cultural life, and media – art, literature, and music – that reflected real life and enduring traditions, in contrast to state propaganda. A parallel economy – trade, barter, and commerce outside the monopolized system – likewise addressed the real needs of real people. Perhaps most importantly, community networks emerged that re-established shared virtues and ethical responsibility. The Parallel Polis was not a literal new government (although it eventually led to one) or city, but a metaphorical space—a society within a society—where truth, freedom, culture, and human dignity could flourish independently of the authoritarian regime. “The strategic aim of the parallel polis,” Benda wrote, “should be the growth and renewal, of civic and political culture—and along with it, an identical structuring of society, creating bonds of responsibility and fellow feeling.” Václav Havel asserted that the movement’s spiritual foundation—a “sense of the transcendent”-- was the only hope for uniting diverse, multicultural societies. Parallel Polis was in response to a materialistic, “spiritually hostile” regime, where citizens were forced to deny the Divine Love they knew in their hearts publicly. The news agency in the Soviet Union, for example – Pravda, meaning “truth” – was notorious for its propaganda and misinformation. This led to the disheartening and dehumanizing practice of what was called “hyper-normalization” – everyone knowing they were being lied to, yet unable to express their truth openly. Václav Havel used the word “totalizing” to describe a system that survives by imposing an all-pervasive lie that the people must accept, NOT because they believe in it but because all paths of resistance seem futile. “If the main pillar of the system is living a lie,” he wrote, “then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living in truth.” “Living in Truth” meant building a society that reflected transcendent virtues—dignity, Love, and responsibility—even in the shadows of a godless regime. Consequently, one of the ways the Parallel Polis “re-heartened the heartland” and hastened the collapse of the Communist regime was by beginning to share the truth first inside their protected silos and then more boldly by creating parallel networks in the society at large. As Havel wrote, “The point where living within the truth ceases to be a mere negation of living and becomes articulate in a particular way is the point at which something is born that might be called the ‘independent spiritual, social, and political society.’” The Parallel Polis had a primary task — to re-establish civil society based on truth, integrity, and mutual benefit powerful enough to overcome the barriers set up by the totalizing, authoritarian Communist regime.

1989 Velvet Revolution—The revolution was peaceful and smooth. There was no large-scale violence or bloodshed, which is rare for political overthrows. 

Václav Havel waves to thousands of demonstrators gathered on Prague’s Wenceslas Square, celebrating the communist capitulation and nomination of the new government formed by Marian Calfa, 10 December 1989. Photograph: Lubomir Kotek/AFP

The Parallel Polis echoed the spirit of the early Christian communities, who saw themselves as a “beachhead” for the Kingdom of God, an earth-based “Colony of Heaven” planted within the harsh soil of the hostile Roman Empire. Rather than confronting empire with force, they lived out the radical ethic of “Love God, love thy neighbor”—a practice so expansive it reached beyond their ranks to embrace both Christians and non-Christians alike. The early Christians viewed themselves as a "city within a city," forming their parallel polis that operated alongside, yet distinct from, the Roman Empire. Like Václav Benda’s parallel polis under communism, early Christians believed in a higher moral order above the state, making them a subversive societal force. Their faith itself was an act of resistance—they refused to worship the emperor or participate in pagan state rituals, instead establishing autonomous networks of worship, charity, and education beyond the reach of imperial control. Functioning as a self-sufficient underground network of small groups, the early Church created an alternative society that met its members' spiritual and material needs. House churches were central hubs for worship, learning, and mutual support, while communal living (Acts 2:44-45) fostered economic self-sufficiency: “They had everything in common... and distributed to anyone as they had need.” Early Christians rejected dependence on the Roman imperial welfare system, instead developing independent charity networks that provided food, healthcare, and aid to widows, orphans, and the marginalized. Like Benda’s movement, Christianity thrived under persecution, not by directly confronting the empire but by building an alternative social and moral order rooted in faith, service, and communal care. Their tightly knit communities offered a compelling contrast to the corruption and brutality of the Roman system. They demonstrated that another way of life was possible, based on shared Virtues, sacrificial Love, and an unwavering commitment to truth. Are we seeing a pattern here? Yes, and I am happy to share this universal pattern from the Ancient Blueprint — re-emerging in different eras from early Christian communities … reiterated by Gandhi as the “Law of Love” in India, Dr. Ariyaratne through Sarvodaya in Sri Lanka, and the Parallel Polis in communist Czechoslovakia, all faith-based movements that impacted the society at large. Could the Parallel Polis model provide a new civic playing field to lift us out of the polarized battlefield that has pitted us against each other? Václav Havel thought so. “These informal, non-bureaucratic, dynamic, and open communities,” he wrote, “are a sort of embryonic prototype or symbolic micro-model of future political structures.” Interestingly, today, contemporary activists on both the left and right have taken up the “embryonic prototype” that Havel referred to, as more changemakers recognize that the system—and the Culture of Separation—cannot be transformed from within.

One of the first references I found to the Parallel Polis came from the left — from author and “psycho-social therapist” Indra Adnan. In her 2021 book, The Politics of Waking Up, she cites the work of Havel and Benda as a model for what she calls “soft power.” She acknowledges the failure of party politics and established institutions to address the existential crises we face today and proposes cultivating our collective wisdom and imagination to “nurture and develop a new socio-economic-political system that makes the old one obsolete.” Although she acknowledges the Parallel Polis’s use of “broad moral arguments about dignity and freedom,” she doesn’t mention the underlying foundation of Catholic Personalism. Reading her account, it would be easy to imagine Parallel Polis as a purely social, economic, and political movement and its “broad moral arguments” as merely tactical. Now imagine for a moment an account of Sarvodaya that fails to acknowledge the movement’s spiritual change strategy, which is based on Buddhist Virtues, or one that suggests that Gandhi’s work was purely secular! In the largely progressive mainstream milieu of social change, Christian or religious influence remains invisible, unacknowledged, and unwanted. Meanwhile, on the right, there has been a similar awakening regarding the futility of “politics as usual” and the need to “stop funding think tanks” and begin working with real people in real communities. Conservative commentator N.S. Lyons acknowledges the Parallel Polis as “an ultimately successful strategy of resistance to Communism developed by Czech dissidents in the Cold War to counteract atomization, isolation, and degradation. He seems to describe our contemporary Culture of Separation, doesn’t he? Lyons opposes top-down governmental “social engineering” and a dysfunctional, oppressive bureaucracy, and lauds the Parallel Polis approach for cultivating personal responsibility, self-discipline, spiritual commitment, and civic obligation. And … he seems to be fully cognizant of something I’ve referred to several times in this book – those people already meeting community needs. He acknowledges the unsung leaders of existing communities, such as those in impoverished neighborhoods who work out of storefront churches, possessing “moral, not credentialed authority.” Understandably, someone who advocates “less government, more personal responsibility” would seize on this approach to supporting local agency. And yet – interestingly – Lyons likewise fails to highlight the religious foundation of the Parallel Polis! Someone who DOES emphasize the religious is Rod Dreher, author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, who offers his plan for a Christian Parallel Polis as a means for “cultural and spiritual survival in a secularizing world.” Like Benda, he suggests withdrawing from institutions undermining Christian values and building a countercultural community that affirms the Christian faith and way of life. Just as the Czech Parallel Polis provided both a refuge and a way forward, Dreher sees an entire Christian communal way of life – including churches, community centers, and Christian-owned businesses – as a counter-cultural island inside a materialist, secularist empire. Here's the problem. We have three movements and three communities, each calling for a parallel polis for their agenda, but NOT for the community at large. Once again, the Culture of Separation permeates even the most well-meaning attempts at creating a new culture of connection! Each of these three potential applications of the Parallel Polis above (progressive, conservative, and Christian) seems to be captured by a political or religious belief that confines them to what I have called separate networked silos and will not bring about the Culture of Connection we all seek in our heart of hearts. Each seems to be a reaction against some aspect of the Culture of Separation – yet fails to recognize that separation itself is the fundamental problem. For Indra Adnan, the existential threat is the “climate emergency.” And yet – because that term has been “politically captured” by the progressive side -- that phrase alone will exclude 50% of the potential community. On the other hand, a phrase like “preserve, restore, and regenerate a healthy environment” would get almost universal buy-in. For the right, the existential threat is a worldwide, unelected global elite that seeks to impose their secular culture and materialist values onto all of us, essentially de-platforming not just God but human sovereignty and self-rule

Although they acknowledge borrowing community organizing strategies from the left, they still see that side as the “enemy.” Dreher’s “Benedictine option” would seem to reflect the early Christian approach of living in the Kingdom of Heaven inside the empire of man. However, it is still exclusively Christian and, in my opinion, not up to the task of thriving inside a postmodern, multicultural, and pluralistic society. It fails to recognize the universality of the Ancient Blueprint and that Divine Love, not just the institution of Christianity, is the ultimate “prize.” It’s a subtle distinction but significant. Benda’s Parallel Polis, Sarvodaya, and Symbiotic Culture all are built on a firm foundation of Transcendent principles and Virtues —but extended beyond any particular institution, such as the church —in Symbiotic Kinship. No religious or ideological buy-in was required, just the desire to Live in Truth, practice the Virtues, and work together to meet the community's needs. While Christian morality and ethics influenced the original Parallel Polis movement, it was more about defending truth and moral responsibility than promoting religious conversion. Underground church networks provided safe spaces for gatherings, discussions, and moral support. Many participants appreciated the role of faith in resisting Communist materialism, even if they were not believers. The movement encouraged the development of parallel institutions, including alternative education, independent publishing, underground seminars, and community support, where religious and non-religious individuals could cooperate to resist Communist oppression. So here is an immodest proposal—a radically inclusive Symbiotic Parallel Polis in each community for everyone willing to embrace and practice self-giving love and mutual benefit. No ideology or religious belief is required – just loving action to build a Symbiotic Community. As discussed in Chapter 8 of my book, our Conscious Community Network in Reno asked, “What will unite us?” and crowd-sourced the answers, which evolved into our Symbiotic Culture DNA. In addition to a tacit unity around intentional mutual benefit, all three “sides” (progressive, conservative, Christian) share particular common views about the nature of the problem and potential solutions.

They each, for example: Reject centralized control by governments, corporations, or global institutions and seek local community autonomy. Recognizing that the system cannot be fixed from within, they are attracted to Parallel Polis as a way to gain agency and essentially “replace” or, as I say, “undergrow” the system. Favor local economies, parallel financial systems, and alternative markets to reduce dependence on centralized corporatism or government bureaucracies and regulation. Are concerned about Big Tech, corporate monopolies, and digital control limiting personal freedoms and economic choices. Agree on the importance of self-governing communities with decentralized decision-making. Tend to be anti-globalist and anti-consumerist. Notice that all of the above reflect the Christian principle of Subsidiarity (local autonomy), the Ordo Amoris (the Order of Love), and Gandhi’s concept of swaraj (self-rule), and are entirely resonant with Symbiotic Culture DNA. And … whether explicit or implicit, all affirm the sacredness of the human person and the dignity of each individual – in contrast to a system that reduces them to economic or political units to be manipulated. That brings me to what I believe is the fundamental reason for my life’s work—the “re-platforming of God” (via Divine Love) in the public square to permeate every institution in society, reflecting the true purpose and ultimate potential of the Parallel Polis. Above and beyond all the issues and concerns mentioned earlier, there is a spiritual crisis and a profound spiritual need. That’s what Benda and Havel’s original Parallel Polis was addressing. Rather than opposing an oppressive, dehumanizing regime, they transcended it by activating the Transcendent. This Higher Power is instrumental in helping us recover our Divine connection, revealing our true human nature, and reconnecting us as stewards of Planet Earth. I am reminded of the Merck Family Fund study from 30 years ago, which I cited in Chapter 7. In it, people reported that the materialist aspect of the American dream was out of control. They felt dehumanized by the “machine” and consumerism. We have not collectively confronted that spiritual malaise—until now. The Culture of Separation has continued to offer material and technological “solutions” that cannot address the problem. Our materialist Culture of Separation has created a crisis of the spirit, promoting anti-virtues and leveraging us to adopt values antithetical to the traditional religious and spiritual views of humanity.

So, here is the original challenge that the Parallel Polis movement in Czechoslovakia called forth: Stop Living a Lie. Let’s come together to LIVE IN TRUTH! Now, consider that in the light of these surprising statistics: 63% of Americans identify as Christian, 6% as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or “other,” and 20% as “spiritual, but not religious.” That adds up to nearly 90%. If we do the math, the “aftermath” is evident—there is a vast, untapped resource longing for expression: the Transcendent power of loving coherence. Given this overwhelming desire – and potential – for Symbiotic Kinship beyond our familiar tribes and silos, we no longer need to put aside our Divine nature, the best part of ourselves that has been eviscerated and evacuated by “taker” culture. Reflecting on more than 40 years of my community work to bring that Divine nature to real-world communities, I realize now that I have not been trying to solve man-made problems by using man-made systems and structures. Nor was I trying to solve any single societal problem directly — economic, ecological, or political — on the battlefield of the Culture of Separation. Instead, I intended to re-platform LOVE for its own sake! Put another way, Love needs no reason – Love is THE reason. Again, remember Saint Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 13 – without love, we have nothing. Without Love, we are nothing. The virtues we practice are for their own sake because they put us in the right relationship with God, with Divine Love. Everything else we seek are “collateral benefits.” So …imagine a multi-faith Parallel Polis, led by those who Love Jesus and Love Others, to cohere a sane and sacred center in each community as society's failing institutions are either deconstructed or crumble under their own weight. Imagine those within religious organizations (especially Christianity) and secular service groups coalescing and cohering around a new, non-coercive moral authority in communities worldwide, Connecting the Good and promoting mutual benefit. Imagine a new Symbiotic Age founded on an Ancient Blueprint that has emerged time and again – from the Sermon on the Mount and early Christian communities, through Gandhi’s movement and Dr. Ari’s world-renowned Sarvodaya, inside the Communist Czech regime, and even within the urban Reno, Nevada, community. Perhaps this emerging Parallel Polis, as a living fractal of Symbiotic Culture, is not a rejection of Western civilization but its long-awaited fulfillment. Maybe experiencing the depths of the Culture of Separation was necessary to rediscover the early Christian vision: the Kingdom of God is not built by reforming or toppling empires, but by transcending and then transforming them—through lives rooted in eternal truth, self-giving love, and sacred community. Subscribe to Richard’s Substack here.

Go here to support Front and Center with Steve Bhaerman and Michael Maxsenti (https://frontandcenter.locals.com/) Join the Upwising! Welcome to the 2025 Love and Laughter Tour

LIVE THE WORLD YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE

                                                                    




However hard we try to deny or forget it, we are facing twin existential threats: the climate crisis and nuclear war. These are not unrelated. Wars are fought for resources, none more important than fossil fuels. They create prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases, and divert money that could be spent on climate mitigation and creating a just transition away from fossil fuels We cannot address the climate crisis until we end war.

Most people, including many of those who have spent decades trying to eliminate the scourge of war, believe that war is inevitable. We had better get over that in a hurry unless we are prepared to face the end in our lifetimes. If there is still hope to avoid both of these existential threats, it will require Americans to wake up to the reality that their fates are inextricably intertwined with those of everyone else.

This kind of tectonic paradigm shift in our collective consciousness would a tall order on any time scale, but as Kuhn showed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, such shifts may occur rapidly when conditions are right. The urgency of the moment requires us to assume that is possible and to do all we can to promote it if we are to prevent nuclear war and/or environmental collapse.

To create a new world, we must first envision what that world would look like before developing a strategy to get there. If we want a world where most people implicitly recognize our interdependence, we must shed our violent habits of thought. Treating politics as warfare, where those of different ideologies are "the Other," if not enemies outright, is to perpetuate the world that we want to change.

Whatever strategy we develop to achieve our ultimate goal of universal justice, we must assume that some of those who currently oppose us are potential allies. Liberals and progressives alike seem to have given up on the idea that minds can change as circumstance do. By isolating from each other, both have allowed their worldviews to diverge to the point where the seem to have nothing in common with those who view the world differently.

We must be prepared to listen and acknowledge points of commonality in our opposing worldviews in a spirit of respect if we are to create the kind of movement capable of stopping our headlong rush toward oblivion. 

I wrote the following for my local newspaper, but it hasn't been published yet. If it doesn't change your mind about the value of trying to treat the "other side" respectfully, I hope that you will at least consider the arguments carefully.



The suppression of free speech on campus took an ominous step toward fascism with the recent arrest of a nonviolent student protester in New York. This should concern any American who assumes they are protected by the Bill of Rights.

On March 8, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent U.S. resident married to an American, was abducted by plainclothes DHS agents in front of his eight-months pregnant wife. His family and lawyer were not told where he would be taken. Eventually, they discovered he had been transported to an ICE facility in Louisiana that is notorious for detainee abuse. He has not been charged with any crime.

Khalil’s offense was that he had been a student leader in last year’s Columbia University protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Columbia has been a prime target of government pressure to suppress campus protest against US complicity in Israeli war crimes. The site of the first Gaza encampment, students there remain defiant despite draconian efforts by the university to coerce them into silence. These include mass arrests, academic sanctions including expulsion, and banning of student groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace.

Khalil’s arrest came one day after Columbia was notified that $400 million in federal grants had been cancelled. The government outrageously claims that Columbia has made insufficient efforts to combat “antisemitism.” That’s the term both the Biden and Trump administrations have used to characterize student protests against Israeli atrocities. To emphasize the message to others, 60 more universities have received warning letters that they are also being investigated.

America has seen a lot of protest in recent history, from across the political spectrum. Most complaints concern problems rooted in the corrupting influence of money in politics. The ability of corporations, the ultrarich and unregistered agents of foreign governments like American Israeli Public Affairs Committee to spend virtually unlimited amounts to influence elections has become a danger to the Republic.

Most politicians pay far more attention to the wishes of the donor class than to the needs of voters. As a result, people on both sides of the political divide demand radical change. From the rise of the Tea Party to insurgent campaigns by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, signs of revolt are everywhere. This terrifies the political and economic elites. That is why our rights are being trampled by both parties.

Active suppression of free speech is nothing new. Remember Biden’s Ministry of Truth proposal? He tried to create a State Department office that was to be tasked with determining what information is “misinformation.” Its principal purpose was to censor any evidence that the government was misleading the public in its efforts to demonize Russia after Trump “threatened” to normalize relations.

Whatever one’s opinion on Israel’s actions in Gaza and elsewhere, each of us should be concerned about arbitrary abuse of power to punish individuals who are doing nothing more than peacefully protesting government policy. If we permit this, the First Amendment rights of anyone to assemble, speak publicly, and petition the government for redress of their grievances will be threatened.

Or, as Michelle Goldberg commented in a New York Times editorial entitled This is the Greatest Threat to Free Speech since the Red Scare, “….a government this willing to disregard the First Amendment is a danger to us all.”

Ideological warfare has kept us fighting each other instead of the real enemy among us. Due to our system of privately financed elections, those of means who consistently put profit over the American people are close to destroying any prospect of representative government in the United States.

Americans must unite to save it.

TRANSCENDING PARTISANSHIP TO FORGE A REAL REVOLUTION

I attended the February 50501 protest in Salem (OR) just to see if anyone besides me would show up in a keffiyeh. Predicably, I was alone in a sea of F*** Trump signs and others indicating outrage at the Republican-dominated government. I wondered what, if anything, the organizers planned to do with all that anger. That got me to thinking about something that had been percolating in my mind since I took the picture above, which made me ponder how the couple that lived in that house managed to live together despite being on opposite sides in the 2024 election. People who are serious about defeating authoritarianism are coming to understand that to succeed, the struggle needs to be nonpartisan. Americans cannot rule themselves as long as they are fighting each other instead of the oligarchy. How can we claim to represent the popular will when we won't talk to anyone with a different political outlook?

To speak of the 99% is farcical when those invoking it don't even represent a clear majority. Fortunately, a lot of people are starting to look beyond the artificial Left-Right dichotomy to see the way forward. That starts with abandoning identification with any party. There's nothing wrong with working within parties to support candidates willing to represent our interest over those of the oligarchy. Such people exist but are not given the support they need to be in a position to change things, as I learned when I ran for the US Senate in 2010. For those who recognize that whatever else we do, we still need to elect a government that serves us, here is my advice: Look for candidates willing to forego corporate backing who will support a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood and the the Supreme Court doctrine that money spent to influence elections is speech protected under the First Amendment. Ask elected officials and their challengers if they will pledge to do that, and hold them responsible. Check out the Pledge to Amend campaign to see more. I had been meaning to expand on these ideas for some time. I was pleased to learn that Scot Nakagawa has already explored the problem and how to address it in the article below.

Fighting Authoritarianism Beyond Left vs. Right

A People-Powered Movement

Scot Nakagawa

The U.S. is teetering on the edge of authoritarianism. As Trump consolidates power and Musk moves to privatize governance itself, we are seeing the makings of an administrative coup—one that threatens to dismantle democracy and replace it with corporate feudalism. But here’s the problem: too many people see this crisis as a partisan issue, as if authoritarianism is just another battle between Democrats and Republicans. That framing is a trap.

The fight against authoritarianism must be nonpartisan, and more than that, it must be rooted in something deeper than political ideology. It has to be built on the fundamental understanding that you are me and I am you—that our fates are intertwined, and authoritarian rule threatens all of us, regardless of our party affiliations. If we don’t organize around this truth, we will remain divided, leaving the door wide open for the ruling elite to consolidate their control.

Reframing the Struggle: Authoritarianism as a Ruling Class Problem

Authoritarianism is not a grassroots movement. It’s not an uprising of the people. It’s a top-down, elite-driven power grab designed to strip us of our rights, concentrate wealth, and silence dissent. And it’s not exclusive to the Republican Party or the political right—it’s a tool used by the wealthy and powerful to dismantle democracy and replace it with a system where they make the rules, and we just suffer the consequences.

When Trump and Musk undermine the administrative state, stack courts with loyalists, and privatize public institutions, they aren’t doing it to serve working people. They are doing it to cement an elite-controlled government that serves billionaires, not citizens and residents of the U.S.

This is why authoritarianism isn’t a simple left vs. right issue. It’s a ruling class vs. the people issue.

The mistake we must avoid is treating this struggle as just another partisan battle. That plays right into their hands. Authoritarians thrive on division. If we allow our resistance to be framed as a Democratic project, we alienate millions of people who oppose authoritarian rule but don’t trust the Democratic Party. And let’s be honest—the Democratic Party’s historic failures to stand up for working people, its ties to corporate donors, and its lackluster defense of democracy haven’t exactly inspired confidence.

We have to build a movement that is independent of party politics. A movement that speaks to people’s lived experiences, not just their political beliefs. And that means organizing around shared values, not party lines.

The Problem With a Purely Partisan Resistance

1. It leaves millions of potential allies behind. Not everyone who opposes authoritarianism identifies as progressive or leftist. Many conservatives, independents, and libertarians value democracy, civil liberties, and local self-governance. A partisan approach alienates people who should be standing with us.
   
   

2. It allows authoritarians to manipulate divisions. Trump and Musk frame democracy as a leftist project to keep their base in line. By allowing this narrative to dominate, we make it easier for them to mobilize their supporters against democracy itself.
   
   

3. It ignores the role of corporate elites in driving authoritarianism. Neoliberalism has concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an unaccountable elite, creating the conditions for authoritarian rule. The fight against authoritarianism is also a fight against corporate control over public life.
   
   
   

How We Fight Back: A Nonpartisan, People-Powered Resistance

1. Build Coalitions Based on Shared Democratic Values, Not Ideology

This movement isn’t about being progressive or conservative—it’s about protecting the democratic potential of the U.S, individual freedoms, and community control over public life. We need to unite people around fundamental democratic principles like free and fair elections, the right to dissent, and the idea that government should serve the people, not corporate oligarchs.

Ask people: Do you believe in freedom? Do you think billionaires should run the government? Should workers have rights, remembering that whatever employment we have, our employers aren’t just buying our labor with our wages, they are buying our free time, our freedom? Should the law apply equally to everyone? These are the questions that build broad-based solidarity.

2. Connect the Fight Against Authoritarianism to Economic Justice

People experiencing economic hardship are more susceptible to authoritarian strongmen who promise order and stability. If we fail to address economic injustice, we leave millions of working-class people without a reason to resist authoritarianism.

We must expose how Musk, Trump, and the billionaire class use authoritarian tactics to suppress labor, privatize public resources, and control information. A movement that fights authoritarianism without fighting economic exploitation is doomed to fail.

3. Take Back the Meaning of Freedom

Authoritarians manipulate the language of “freedom” to justify authoritarian rule. They claim that “freedom” means deregulating corporations, gutting public institutions, and silencing opposition. We must redefine freedom as something that belongs to the people—not the state, not corporations, and not billionaires.

💡 True freedom means:

• The freedom to vote without intimidation.

• The freedom to earn a living wage without corporate exploitation.

• The freedom to make personal decisions about your body and future.

• The freedom to organize, protest, and speak truth to power without fear of violence or repression.

• The freedom to balance work with time with our families, friends, communities, and ourselves and our free thoughts, musings, and imaginings.
  
  

4. Prepare for Mass Direct Action & Economic Disruption

Authoritarianism will not be stopped through elections alone. We must be ready to disrupt the economic and political systems that sustain it. That means:

• Organizing general strikes to shut down the economy if an authoritarian government tries to consolidate power.

• Creating sanctuary states and cities that refuse to comply with anti-democratic laws.

• Mass mobilization in workplaces, schools, and communities to resist authoritarian policies before they take root.

Learn from global movements—from the labor strikes that helped defeat Pinochet in Chile, to the protests that toppled authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. We must build the capacity for large-scale, coordinated resistance.

The Takeaway: We Must Build the Future We Want, Not Just Fight Against the Present We Fear

The fight against authoritarianism cannot just be about stopping Trump or Musk. It has to be about creating a world where democracy is real—where ordinary people have power, where corporations don’t rule, and where freedom isn’t just a slogan used to justify oppression.

This is not an argument we can only make through discourse. We must tap our deepest desires, embrace our sensual selves, and inform our dreaming selves while building bridges between that which we dream of and direct political engagement.

We must make democracy tangible in people’s everyday lives. That means investing in community-based governance, economic democracy, and local resilience networks that prove another way is possible. If we don’t offer people a vision of the world we’re fighting for, they will settle for the world that’s being imposed on them.

The resistance must be nonpartisan, broad-based, economically grounded, and people-powered. If we succeed in making it so, we can win.

This article originally appeared in The Antiauthoritarian Playbook on Substack February 5, 2025.