As some of you have pointed out, it can be challenging to understand certain articles—especially when they analyze recent events or explore a particular school of thought that has not yet been clearly explained to readers who may be unfamiliar with these concepts.

I want to respond to this need by showing in this article how I am going to navigate different audiences in my personal dispensation of Marxism and Revolutionary Politics for my family and friends.

A lot of this has already been done in my Introduction article, which, if you have not read I highly recommend doing so as this is more of a narrower dive into what I talked about in that article.

A Broad Overview of My “Audience”

One of the issues that arises in starting a new channel, and in gaining a larger audience, is the different levels at which my viewers engage with my work. I don’t have a special graph, and I cannot quite capture from my dashboard logistics for Substack the actual demographics or social spaces of those who view, read, and subscribe to my work. At least, not yet.

Nevertheless, based on the people I talk to, and those of you whom I know personally, I can put forward a basic idea of three (3) different kinds of readers who are supporting my work.

1. Political Supporters. Some of you are already decided in your political viewpoints and seek to read my work to inform yourselves on the thoughts of Marxists generally and perhaps on what we may be up to;

2. Marxist Supporters. Some of you are already decided Marxists and have learned many of the basics of Revolutionary Politics and only seek to support me as a way to grow our network online (which is deeply appreciated); and

3. General Supporters. There also some of you who are politically undecided, philosophically curious, and willing to learn something new in the areas that have served as the bedrock of my daily studies.

I want to write to all of you, each in your own time, with articles that are uniquely tailored to your interests as well as the worldwide, national, and local events that are unfolding in our history.

This is not to say that some articles should not be read by one audience or another—please, read all of them, I welcome your viewership and interaction.

After all, I created this channel as a form of communication to you, but also as a form of interaction, if indeed you find my work to be insightful and worth your time.

That being said, I also want to give some of you an easier time navigating these ideas within the Marxist perspective.

Share

Navigating an Audience Requires Transparency

In order to do that, I as an author must make my writing ambitions known and be explicit about what audience I intend on speaking to as my topics and levels of dispensation shift from article to article.

This is not creative or fiction writing, neither is it some kind of personal blog where I just spill words onto a digital screen at pure random for my own amusement alone.

This is a political channel in the form of a blog for political propaganda and agitation toward a public audience. Thus, it is not good for me to keep you guessing, to leave you hanging, or to hide “spoiler alerts” as though that were appropriate for a political channel.

I want to explain ideas, have dialogue, and help create conditions for a community that is focused on political education and empowerment. That will not come from this channel alone, but it will come from yoking this channel to a broader social trend.

And I want to connect you to this broader social trend, one article, and one lesson, at a time.

Marxism and Revolutionary Politics: The Broader Social Trend Against Imperialism

The broader social trend I want to situate this work within is the global reaction to the accelerating aggression of imperialist powers against people’s right to self-determination and a dignified existence.

This social trend—embraced by millions across the world, though often in disconnected ways—centers on Marxism and revolutionary politics. But what do these terms actually mean?

As stated in my Introduction, Marxism is a political and analytical framework committed to the cause for humanity and the environment in a way that aligns with material reality, equitable justice, and revolutionary politics. It employs the doctrines of dialectics and historical development to achieve a material understanding of human civilization—past and present—in order to identify the most equitable and liberating path forward.

A revolutionary political program, then, is any program that challenges the status quo—bourgeois democracy, fascism, and imperialism—while systematically discarding obsolete ideas in favor of new ones, based on historical change and material conditions. This process is not arbitrary; it is grounded in material reality and the pursuit of justice.

Revolutionary politics therefore involves advancing policies, programs, and tactics that empower the working class to transform society as a whole. That is to say that revolution signifies fundamental historical change, and revolutionary politics is the political orientation toward achieving such change in the interest of a better world.

As I wrote in my introductory article:

“A better world is a post-colonial order completely free of capitalism and imperialism—a world in which freedom of movement exists within societies grounded in revolutionary politics, science, art, and culture.”

In other words, we currently live in a colonial world order defined by global capitalism and imperialism, enforced by a handful of powerful states against the rest of the world.

While I will explore these geopolitical realities in future articles, the central point here is that we are living through a deepening global political crisis. This crisis is the result of a self-destructive economic and political system rooted primarily in Western imperialist countries, particularly in North America and Europe.

Since World War II, the United States has emerged as the dominant imperial superpower, shaping the economic and political conditions of millions—if not billions—of people worldwide. With the support of European allies such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, it has exercised an unparalleled capacity to divide and dominate the planet.

Through war, economic strangulation, political pressure, and mass deprivation, the U.S. and its allies impose global hegemony in regions of strategic importance. Global hegemony refers to political, economic, and cultural dominance on an international scale, sustained through a combination of coercion and manufactured consent, whereby hegemonic norms and “values” are internalized by the very populations being exploited.

For this reason, I describe the purpose of this Substack as “deconstructing Western hegemony in promotion of internationalism and revolutionary politics.” My goal is to expose these realities responsibly and materially—something that requires the correct perspective. That perspective is Marxism.

The global situation, however, is not without contradiction or resistance. Countries such as Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, and others refuse compliance with imperialist hegemony, with some actively resisting the long-term damage inflicted by U.S. and European foreign policy.

Even within imperialist countries themselves—including the United States—resistance movements are developing against finance capital and militarism. People are organizing, protesting, studying revolutionary theory, and beginning to act collectively.

This is the motion of history itself—and I hope you will join me in aligning with it.

Subscribe now

The Staples of Marxism

For those of you who are curious, then, about how Marxism is a useful and the correct way to view the world, and how it can be our bedrock for revolutionary politics, I am creating the “Staples of Marxism” series to better explain these ideas.

I will still be writing analyses and agitations as events go on. There are new events happening everyday and it will be difficult to keep on top of everything while also catching up my general audience in the ideas of Marxism and revolutionary action.

But these articles within the Staples of Marxism will connect you to other websites, Substack channels, and people who are experts at explaining the basics of Marxist terminology and theory.

I believe that my general audience, those of you who are viewing out of curiosity, can learn so much from the revolutionary work that we have inherited over the generations of struggle against capitalism and for the construction of socialism for all people.

I will also be creating new threads in the channel’s chat feature to facilitate dialogue for anyone who wants to discuss any specifics within the ideas and perspectives made in the articles. You can also leave a comment in the articles to begin a discussion.

Closing

I will likely begin the Staples of Marxism series with a brief dive into the terminology of Marxist theory as used by different theoreticians, resistance groups, and socialist states around the world and across history.

More will follow from this general aim of political education. If you have any questions, you can DM me on Substack and I will answer you at my earliest convenience.

In the meantime, the next article will likely be a dive into the complete disaster that is the U.S.-Israeli joint operation in Iran, where two settler-colonial states are waging war of aggression against the people of Iran.

The escalation is so desperate (that is, the U.S. is losing so badly) that our leaders are now threatening nuclear extinction for the people centered in the most geopolitically strategic but also most significant, oldest civilization in human history.

In Solidarity,

Mizael

Leave a comment

Share Pointed Dialectics: Analyses & Agitations

In mid-March 2026, several laws students at the law school I attend managed to pass the “procedural requirements” necessary to form an officially chartered student organization: Turning Point USA.

Angelina DeVellis (March 2026), New England TPUSA Rep., celebrating TPUSA officiation at RWU/RWU Law.

RWU Law’s Student Bar Association (SBA) allowed for TPUSA to form behind our backs, a week earlier than their official announcement at a “Town Hall” meeting, despite a petition and several voices opposing the charter over the last few months. I was among many who signed the petition.

This is not the first time TPUSA was brought up as a proposal for a new law society at RWU Law, but SBA reheard it again this past December before granting it the legitimacy it needed to form itself.

I knew this was coming because the entire prospective “e-board” of that chapter sat behind me in our Race and the Foundations of American Law class. They’re answers in response to our professor’s questions on matters of race, gender, slavery, and money betrayed their American supremacist chauvinism. There were also incidences of other law students in other classes on the same subject pushing against the educational dispensation of a critical historical perspective of American jurisprudence.

Pushes against the realities of chattel slavery for an entire population stolen from the African diaspora, pushes against the systematic continuities of the same settler colonial society against people of color and women—pushes against the historical realities of the United States as the people experienced and continue to experience it.

I remember a discussion on immigration, for example, where a Chinese immigrant law student spoke about how expensive our healthcare system is in the United States. One of TPUSA’s supporters waved her remarks away with a comment about how “there’s a difference between a paid-for healthcare system and a free healthcare system” and that “just because it’s free doesn’t mean it’s high quality.” Further, he wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of U.S. medical knowledge and healthcare by making a joke about immigrants leaving their country to study medicine in our country.

Another class discussion, this time on women’s reproductive rights, involved several takes on Roe v. Wade and its legal facilitation of federally protected access to abortion procedures. One of the prospective members of the now TPUSA chapter quipped about the overall consensus of the class that agreed with the positive rationale the U.S. Supreme Court Justices gave on women’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy as an implied fundamental right under the Constitution. He waived any consideration of the Justices’ arguments, and of our classmates’ supporting takes, for the empty-headed legal rationale overthrowing that fundamental right in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

He said, “Just wait until Dobbs, juts wait until Dobbs!” as though he were a desperate boot licker just waiting for the big men in the Supreme Court of the United States to throw women’s rights away for him. Otherwise, he would have no power and no argument in the matter, never mind a boot to lick.

Huge eyeroll I know, but these kinds of men can’t possess an intellectual space worthy of even a fly. One logical fallacy after another to jibe at “government-owned” or “government sponsored” welfare programs any chance they got. And don’t even get me started on their talks about “morality” and “capital punishment.” They could not wrap their empty heads around the realities of poverty and gang violence, and the ineptitude of retributive correctional systems in “deterring crime.”

It was exhausting.

The Controversy of TPUSA and Free Speech

Obviously, RWU Law’s decision to accept a TPUSA chapter at our campus caused a stir within the student body.

I could belabor the points already made against TPUSA as an organization and the increased polarization that came with its founder, Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated last year while engaging in the very bigotry he promoted. So many writers, however, have covered the subject.

I’ll likely address them in a separate article and tag other writers who wrote comprehensive pieces on the history of TPUSA and the political career of Charlie Kirk up to his death.

New York Times (2025). Charlie Kirk shortly before his assassination.

But the main issues my classmates have with TPUSA is its record for political harassment and bullying of marginalized communities.

This is contrasted with TPUSA’s argument for acceptance on the basis of “free speech” and the chance to argue its “values” in the “marketplace of ideas.” After all, as some supporters argued, “the whole point of a TP chapter is to have conversations, debates, with people we disagree with. If you disagree, and you want to talk, we will cut you to the front of the line.”

But the issues go much deeper the further you dive into its history. To Summarize:

(1) The youth-wing conservative organization stemmed from the Tea Party, which was a conservative reactionary response to the 2008 global financial crisis. Hopping off the eroding credibility of the state and the sufferings of the masses, the Tea Party sought to propagate a political message around American exceptionalism, Western superiority, White supremacy, and the revitalization of evangelical Christian culture and education.

(2) These concepts are grounded in the settler colonial relations inherent in the society of the United States. It is a system of oppression and extraction that the U.S. government, on behalf of the white-dominant population and the white bourgeoisie, has perpetuated for centuries. And this perpetuation was only possible because of “the Law” and the authoritarian nature of the bourgeois state. Therefore, such concepts undergird the conventional history behind the Constitution, the legislative framework of all state jurisdictions, the religious and cultural institutions of the imported Anglo-Saxon population, and the intertwined systems of patriarchy, private property, and capitalism that has funneled the genocide and enslavement of hundreds of millions of indigenous and African peoples.

TPUSA was Charlie Kirk’s way of implementing this political program, with all of its heavy weight, for the youth. He went to high schools and colleges to interview and engage with students on the basis of “conservative politics” in an already morally and politically unsalvageable system. He thereby served as the grand usher for the political movement that would give rise to Trumpism and the victory of MAGA pundits in 2016 and later in 2024.

What followed, in the political period we find ourselves in today, is an anti-intellectual and heavily financed stifling of the political development of millions. It is one of the primary causes for the infighting of bourgeois establishments in what we term “the culture war” and it helped to create an avenue for the bourgeoisie (the ruling class) to consolidate power in Congress and the White House.

With every stage of political instability, there is reactionary propaganda and indoctrination to obfuscate the material basis for that instability and to absorb the people’s anger back into the system, and TPUSA is in the business of doing both. Having already mentioned their stated aims, then, I must also cover who they target as part of a way of achieving those aims.

Specifically, they target political dissidents, women, queer people, black people, Hispanic and Arab immigrants, Muslims, and many others who either refuse to adhere to the chauvinistic political framework or are involuntary casted as the scapegoat for whatever failure the Trump regime, or any American political regime, faces under late stage capitalism.

Which is why many of my classmates, and many people in the country, oppose TPUSA on account of them either being among or having concrete relationships with those communities.

The Social Tendency of Neoliberalism

Nevertheless, despite popular opposition to TPUSA, that opposition is not coming from the same place—that is, from the same class position, or on the same grounds.

On the contrary, many so-called “allies” in the American population are so effectively propagandized by the imperial machine of the U.S. and/or benefit from the system (whether by being a part of the colonizing population or adhering to them as the colonized) that they cannot understand the deeper mechanisms behind organizations like TPUSA and why the United States was inevitably going to espouse their views and their leadership so long as the imperialist settler colonial society remains unchanged.

GMA (July 2019). Trump salutes troops aboard the USS Wasp in Yokosuka, Japan. Photo by Jonathan Earnst @ Reuters.

They don’t “put two and two together” and see that the views pushed forward by TPUSA and Trumpism are not unique to either of those movements but are inherent in U.S. society as unavoidable, logical conclusions from the colonial and supremacist premises created by their ancestors hundreds of years earlier. They fail to see the material basis for TPUSA’s ideology to take hold, how the conditions of our society as provided by the U.S. government, and law schools in this case, are manufactured to protect the system and to ensure its continuity in the furtherance of these ideological, political, and economic features.

It is not because they are magically more stupid than others or are suffering from some kind of nebulous “human nature.” Those are not explanations. Rather, they are uniquely susceptible to conservative harassment, fascist governance, and imperial ideology because of their indoctrination and absorption into the U.S. empire as both “cogs in the machine” and as citizen-beneficiaries.

The tendency people have to both act on their humanity and see the woes of society but fail to act on the realities of their causes, or worse, to supplement and reinforce the very imperial culture and system that perpetuates those woes is the tendency of neoliberalism.

Under capitalism, the social tendency of the people to become neoliberal in their political development is a byproduct of the artificial and sanctimonious nature of the bourgeois state as a state “beyond the people” and “beyond the classes.” It is a consequence of their belief in the ability of the state to represent “both” interests of opposing classes and social forces with “objectivity.”

In other words, neoliberalism is an ideological tendency within bourgeois society, which stems into not just the business owners and the college managers but also the professors and the students themselves.

But it is a delusion.

The reality is that the state is a tool for the ruling class to condition society to yield to its control under anarchical conditions of economic turmoil that are features in the broken system of capitalism. For what purpose? Ultimately, for the purpose of keeping the society that feeds the ruling class in existence, no matter the human or environmental cost sustained by the manipulated and the exploited.

This is why we call them “capitalists” and “the bourgeoisie” and us “the workers” and “the proletariat.”

Arguments over the role of “free speech” in our society is ultimately kicking the can down the road to addressing the real problem in our society, namely, the political suppression of the working class and oppressed nations (the indigenous and black populations) under the guise of “keeping the peace” and “upholding the rule of law.”

Which is why my classmates stumbled over themselves in an attempt to stop RWU Law from doing what it was always going to do as a bourgeois institution keeping in line, not with Trumpism, but with U.S. societal [and constitutional] norms.

A Call to “Boycott”

In response to TPUSA’s acceptance, one classmate, David Salzillo, who is also the president of RWU Law’s American Constitution Society, wrote to many others (including myself) in a long emailing list to call for a “class boycott.” Some of the TPUSA supporters in our law school reported this fact to a radio host, John DePetro, who simply published David’s email on the internet.

John DePetro (March 2026). Controversy over TP USA at law school.

The boycott was basically a student walk out on all doctrinal classes for just one day, this past Monday, with the exception of our Constitutional law classes (because we are covering free speech at time of writing).

He gave several reasons for opposing RWU Law’s acceptance of a TPUSA chapter.

Among them, (1) TPUSA’s infamous “professor watchlists” to intimidate teachers who either specifically challenge the Trump regime or are simply not adherent to the “values” that TPUSA wants to promote in its followers and in every American; (2) TPUSA’s deep ties to U.S. government officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, as a political supplement to the MAGA movement, despite being a 501(c)(3) organization required by law “to refrain from participating in…any political campaign on behalf of…any campaign or office”; and (3) the fact that TPUSA has not been established in any other law school in the country outside the Deep South.

He also added a fourth (4) reason in his P.S., citing to the fact that RWU Law is a private institution and is not as narrowly obligated to free speech protections on its campus as opposed to public educational institutions. [In theory, RWU Law could oppose TPUSA’s chapter for its own purposes, depending on the circumstances].

The aim of David’s so-called “boycott” was to pressure the law school administration to appoint another in-person “Town Hall” meeting to address his three points with the student body in attendance. Every so often, RWU Law has a town hall meeting for administrators, like Dean Greg Bowman, to respond to students’ questions and concerns about important school-related matters.

Some of his recipients responded favorably to his notification, because anyone who didn’t attend the initial Town Hall meeting wasn’t notified of TPUSA’s acceptance. But these recipients, for reasons aforementioned, responded in different ways, some taking on the opposition vocally but not agreeing to boycott, some taking on the opposition vocally without addressing the boycott, and one acknowledging David’s thoughts but calling against the boycott.

Several students, including Dean Bowman, also spoke about missing classes and how impractical or inconsiderate such a demand on students would be given their unique financial and educational situations.

But while I don’t agree with the conservative reactionaries who criticized the boycott, nor the neoliberal vacillations as demonstrated by Dean Bowman, the student president of HAA (Humanitarian Action Alliance), and other students, I also find David’s pronouncement of a boycott to be rather problematic. Just for different reasons.

My Problems with David’s So-called “Boycott”

I don’t see how a student-led boycott would’ve held water under these conditions. In fact, it was utterly superfluous to announce it at all.

In the first instance, it was announced out of nowhere, in the middle of the night, to an audience that was not even fully aware of what was going on. There was no way to account for participation and thereby no way to determine if the boycott was selected as an option by students or was of any effectiveness whatsoever.

Just because Dean Bowman responded to the influx of messages from students concerning the acceptance of TPUSA—in part, to address the “concerning” language that David espoused—that in no way demonstrates that the boycott was executed or successful.

A boycott isn’t just some tactic you throw around when a scandalous decision is made. It’s not the pressure valve one thinks it is, as though a walk-out would immediately affect an educational institution that is financially protected by (mostly) student loans already dispensed with. [Schools are also incentivized to crack down on organized student responses by federal grants and private sponsorships that come with expectations for that institution to regulate student expression and direct action].

The tactic of a boycott is one to be discreetly and sparingly utilized as a form of escalation for a certain aim, in a certain moment, with certain logistics on your side. Like a negotiation, or even a war, there must be a scale of planned activity, plus a set of tactical options that are tailored to certain scenarios that would realistically arise if a path was chosen, or if the target institution or government reacts a certain way.

Additionally, you must have social momentum with the community you are galvanizing through community involvement, a propaganda series tailored to the purpose of whatever aim you’re achieving, and a democratic structure allowing for people to voice their opinions and make decisions in a politically efficient manner.

Any survey of historical activity against an institution for systematic wrongs—whether it be in labor, in warfare, or in revolutions—reveals a calculus of tactics (that is, a theory) that must be tapped into with an intellectual and social rigor that was not at all accomplished here.

CNN (2019). New Yorkers marching in the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots, 1973.

Here, one person, David Salzillo, took matters into his own hands to call for a community action in a community he has not garnered support in, has not engaged in a series of propaganda against TPUSA and RWU’s acceptance of it, and hasn’t worked within an organization that is accessible to the student body to take collective action.

It was David alone who created his “reasons” for the boycott, and it was David alone who decided that the sole aim of the boycott would be to challenge the law school administration to respond to his “reasons” against a TPUSA chapter.

One walk out, one day, for a one-way response. That is not a sufficient aim, nor were his reasons sufficient, for a boycott to become a popular choice or for it to become successful. Hence, nobody wanted to do the boycott, despite their gratefulness for being notified by him that something was going on.

David only spoke in his capacity as a law student, not as a member or leader in a law society, or even an unofficial law student organization that, for example, could have been promoted for the confrontation of RWU Law for this particular issue only (like a temporary action group).

That is to say that he spoke for himself, attempting to garner our support for his own mission against TPUSA’s acceptance. This is very self-centered and comes across as very entitled.

David may push back to say that he acted on his own accord but on behalf of the student body, but there is no evidence to indicate that his actions empowered the student body to advocate for its own interests [apart from mere notification]. He mainly cited to his own disappointment and to the view that TPUSA’s values are irreconcilable with RWU Law’s values and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. [Without really showing how].

Not only that, but given the conservative article on DePetro’s show, no doubt the result of a conversative law student sharing David’s emails and his position within the ACS to DePetro, David now claims he is being “doxxed” by proponents of TPUSA. Imagine that!

Not only has David taken matters into his own hands while trying to rope others into his own activity, but now he pulls on their sympathy for him as classmates and as people who are generally concerned about TPUSA by claiming he is being doxxed as proof of TPUSA’s incompatibility with RWU Law campus culture.

Let’s be clear: David is not being doxxed. He alone gave his boycotting call to every law student he could find, including those who are now leading a TPUSA chapter on campus. He himself stated that their inclusion in the email was an intentional decision.

Unless we are going to claim that Dean Bowman is also being doxxed. His email message in response to David’s “boycott” call is also in DePetro’s article.

That’s the other thing about actually calling for a boycott—secrecy. Because boycotts are inherently more risky than other tactics, secrecy and privacy is necessary to get the ball rolling for students who want to participate but are naturally at risk of being disciplined by the law school or any institution they are challenging. David didn’t give two shits about that because he does not care about privacy or the safety of other students, never mind himself.

They made an article about him, so what? He made his views potentially open for public consumption and for the consumption of his opponents as it was in a wide email chain. He thereby intended for this to happen. Because that is not what doxxing is, and he would not really create conditions for himself to be doxxed. That would be very anti-social behavior and further speaks of his entitlement and white privilege.

How many real revolutionaries, real leftists, and real fighters speak of the horrors of being doxxed, harassed, stalked, etc.?! This is no unserious matter.

But David does not face any consequences with that article. There is no stalking or harassment occurring here. It’s just publicity.

This is the kind of neoliberal nonsense that Mao Zedong himself criticized in the revolutionary movement to liberate China from imperialist oppression. I might as well mention this real quick since David keeps foolishly comparing TPUSA “infiltration” of universities to the cultural revolution Mao led with the students against the backwards bureaucratization that David himself would not have appreciated.

Wikipediae (circ. 2026). Mao Zedong, official portrait, 1950.

Specifically, this is what Mao had to say about liberalism in general and liberals in particular:

On Liberalism: “Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension…”

Because liberals like David “place personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second.”

That is to say that liberals tend to fall prey to individualist and adventurist tendencies that go against the interests of the collective; in this case, against the interests of the law student body.

Even these simple statements from Mao make the matter very clear in today’s circumstances.

David does not intend to make political change, nor does he focus on the Constitutional and societal norms that allow for TPUSA to exist in the first place.

Instead, he pushes against TPUSA for things that it can provide plausible deniability for because it’s a new chapter in the State of Rhode Island, its professor’s watchlist in this state has been removed, and the views they espouse are so vague and idealist that nothing concrete could be offended under RWU Law’s student conduct policies.

Even in the same breath by which he pushes against TPUSA’s “values” (again, not concretely), David could not help but to pronounce himself as a “free speech absolutist,” an acceptable view within American jurisprudence, to be sure, but the most unpopular view in the American populace.

Ironically, such a posture towards “free speech” issues puts David a lot closer to the political views of someone like Elon Musk (that is, the bourgeoisie), than the average American worker and the marginalized individual.

Only a privileged white man who has been indoctrinated in U.S. imperial ideology and social chauvinism, the very roots from which TPUSA has come into existence, could feel entitled enough to push for a boycott solely for the sake of addressing his own arguments; arguments that do not even challenge the institutional conditions that allow for TPUSA’s existence but in fact supports it.

Indeed, David, and neoliberals like him, legitimizes the very mechanisms that protect organizations like TPUSA by pretending as though those mechanisms are diametrically opposed to it.

Thinking he opposes fascism, he actually protects it, because David cannot see the wood for the trees. He knows something is wrong, but he cannot acknowledge the material realities behind the wrong he sees. David is a neoliberal and a fascist collaborater. The only person who cannot seem to accept this is David himself. And for this reason, he will butt heads with RWU Law on what is essentially pedanticism.

In fact, at the Town Hall meeting from this past Thursday, scheduled to address people’s opposition to TPUSA, the Dean, the Assistant Dean, David himself, and several others spoke to the same, typical, and idealist neoliberal line.

The problem with their typically idealist neoliberal line is that it is out of touch with reality, utterly tone deaf, and politically unviable.

The Role of Law Schools in Our Bourgeois Society

RWU Law is a neoliberal-conservative institution that is not in the business of advocating for political resistance to a rising fascist regime in a declining economy.

No, RWU Law, like all other law schools, is in the business of perpetuating the “rule of law” for “all people” and for a “respectful,” “fair,” and (silliest of all) a “neutral” attitude toward competing views in the “marketplace of ideas.”

Vectors.com (2026). Gavel, Scales of Justice, and Law Books on Wooden Desk. Photo by Tatyana Makarova.

That is, pursuant to Constitutional norms demanding respect of free speech and “open markets,” not just in the anarchical economic sense but also in the political sense, RWU Law will allow for student organizations to exist that adhere to those norms and advocate for its views within the bounds of law school regulations. RWU Law will allow for this regardless of how controversial or unpleasant the views of a particular student organization are.

Why? Because the views of TPUSA are palatable enough to survive SBA’s procedural review, RWU Law’s regulatory system, and the U.S. Constitution. This is not hard to understand if you are familiar with the history of U.S. colonialism and imperialism.

So long as the values of TPUSA involve the continuation of American supremacy, which is already facilitated by the U.S. Constitution, the government, and its institutions: the law, and RWU Law, will be indifferent.

They will not care about external factors relating to the political infrastructure of TPUSA, and they will not bother censoring ideas or conversations on behalf of the people, of marginalized communities, for the sake of facilitating constructive, materialist, and socially progressive politics only.

To do so is not palatable to U.S. society, it goes against constitutional norms, and would not survive SBA review or RWU Law’s regulatory system.

Therefore, RWU Law is not a law school for the people, and it can never serve as a platform for the advocacy and solidification of the interests of the downtrodden and the forgotten.

For those sufferings, they will only pay lip service, just as they do in any public event when they speak about the indigenous tribes that used to occupy the grounds where their campuses currently reside.

The contradictions inherent in a capitalist class society is demonstrated best at RWU Law. It can have a class on race and its role in the foundations of American law, acknowledging that the political crisis we face today is stemming from a capitalist, patriarchal, racist, and nationalist society. Our professors can even spend hundreds of hours lecturing about the very real and concrete history that demonstrates these corrosive trends in our settler colonial society which have led us to our current public issues and world affairs.

But, at the end of the day, it’s an American law school.

To follow through with the political, philosophical, and social changes necessary to act on the information we claim to know is to equip ourselves for a societal revolution with the aim of overthrowing the current system for something better.

It would involve challenging the power of the ruling class, the representatives of their state, and their “rule of law.” Such a grand task is simply not in the purview of any law school or any neoliberal like David, who fancies himself as a “progressive” fighting against fascist corruption.

The role of the law school in a bourgeois society is to uphold the rule of the bourgeoisie through their laws. This means that RWU Law must sacrifice the interests of the working class for the appeasement of the ruling class, as these two distinct classes are in an exploitative relationship with irreconcilable differences.

As for RWU Law’s “progressive” posture, as a law school supposedly focused on social justice and public interest law, they only engage with the interests of the working class, and the oppressed nations, when the former and the latter are ready to dilute their demands, retreat from their anger, and negotiate with the people in power through the rules of their system (the law).

It is precisely because RWU Law must serve this role in order to be an accredited academic institution that Dean Bowman responded to David’s boycott by calling it “concerning” and reminding the student body of its ground rules of engagement.

Specifically, he said:

“We are a law school. Our shared responsibility is to model the rigorous, respectful, and professional discourse that defines the legal profession. Our obligation is to create space for respectful disagreement and dialogue.”

What defines the legal profession is a “rigorous, respectful, and professional” collaboration with capitalists, fascists, imperialist warmongers, and genocidaires. Not to mention child rapists.

And our obligation is to create space for our fascist counterparts to say and do whatever they want, less we ourselves “destroy the foundations of democracy” and become “no better than them.”

Therefore, we must model this neoliberal tendency, this rotten role in the profession, for those who either cynically support these horrible elements of our society or are just too blind to see that that is what they’re doing when they sign up for TPUSA, the Republican Party, or even the Democratic Party and the American Constitution Society.

It means sitting by the sidelines while a Trump regime reeks havoc upon the people, until the system “finds something” worthy of bringing him into account. It means following the rules even when it puts you in direct danger with the police and federal agents [on top of homelessness and hunger and all that].

So, while legal actors like David and the law school continue to legitimize the very political system that is eroding in this fashion, we are left to fight for ourselves.

This is true for the law school: where our students have no choice but to “engage” with TPUSA, to advocate for our humanity and our values, without the administration’s help. And this is true for society: where the working class have no choice but to “engage” with conservative reactionaries, no matter the context, and no matter how dangerous they become.

Closing

The political system of the United States is a recipe for disaster. And like any disaster of a recipe, the normal thing for a cook to do is to grab the messy dish, throw it away, and start over.

Verso Books (Dec. 2016). Acts of Dissent Through History.

We already have the “ingredients” we need to create a wonderful dish. We have the infrastructure, the technology, the science, the history, and the people.

But we have to throw out the failed experiment. We have to overthrow the ruling class in a socialist revolution.

The same people, even I, who are or who were duped into trusting the system, and into enrolling at a law school for misguided reasons, can learn and study the material realities behind our situation and can still correct themselves along the course of a people’s movement.

But in order to do that, we have to make ourselves proximate with the oppressed nations and the working class who suffer day by day at the hands of the ruling, imperialist class.

That’s my mission. What’s yours?

Leave a comment

About a month ago, we suffered a terrible tragedy at a local ice rink in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Associated Press (Feb. 2026). Police and ATF agents stand near the Lynch Arena in Pawtucket, R.I.. APNews.com. Link retrieved at https://apnews.com/article/pawtucket-hockey-rink-shooting-rhode-island-4e9c9df9c3a2b0a524f0e9bdd0908d45.

Roberta, a trans woman, shot and killed her ex-wife, Rhonda, her son, Aidan, and sent several others to the hospital in critical condition. Later details from the investigation revealed that those other victims were members of Rhonda’s family; namely, her parents and a family friend.

Then, as it often goes in these kinds of cases, Roberta pointed another handgun at herself and pulled the trigger, committing suicide. She did so as three bystanders attempted to tackle her to the ground.

Roberta’s act of gun violence was one of two gun violence incidents that occurred in short and successive fashion in the State of Rhode Island, just two months apart (the other being the Brown University shooting from December 2025). They have been a shock to our community, which has not experienced as much gun violence compared to the rest of the country, apart from gang-related skirmishes here and there.

The Guardian (Dec. 2025). A makeshift memorial for Mukhammad Aziz Amurzokov and Ella Cook near Brown University. Photograph: Bing Guan/AFP/Getty Images. TheGuardian.com. Link retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/19/brown-university-shooting-mit-professor-motive.

Even though Rhode Island is not the center of gun violence, the fact that these incidents occurred at all has sparked a thread of conversations reminiscent of the larger discourse around gun violence. That larger discourse consists of two separate threads: (1) gun violence as it pertains to mass shootings, and (2) gun violence as it pertains to gang violence.

However, there are subthreads within this larger discourse that are often ignored or at least not brought to the forefront by the U.S. government or mainstream media. One of those subthreads within the larger discourse of gun violence is gender-based violence with the use of firearms.

It is to this subthread, as it pertains to gender violence, that I speak to as a Rhode Islander, law student, and socialist activist.

My main point: It is the working class that should decide the future of their municipalities as it pertains to gun ownership and gender reconciliation.

Share

The Pawtucket Ice Rink Shooting: An Act of Gender Violence

Here, a former intimate partner came to a public location, carrying two firearms, with the intent to harm and kill her ex-wife and her entire family over a “family dispute.” Roberta’s malicious intent is clear enough from the fact that Rhonda and her family went to the ice rink on several occasions prior to the shooting, suggesting that Roberta knew where they’d likely be together.

When a person harms someone they had an intimate relationship with, along with any person connected to that intimate relationship, we can safely and confidently register their act as an act of intimate partner violence (IPV). So let’s make no mistake: this act, in the final analysis, was an act of domestic violence.

It was also an act of gender violence. Gender violence consists of harmful acts against individuals who are connected to a historically marginalized or oppressed group according to gender. Relevant to this situation, women, esp. mothers who separate from partners they deem unfit for companionship or parenting, are often the target of violence by men or those who have been effectively propagandized against women by patriarchal views and/or its accompanying social tendencies.

Additionally, it is also often the case that children who are connected to the subject of gender violence are also subjected to that violence. For this reason, children are also usually considered in the question of gender violence.

Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2026). Dashboard on Domestic Violence. RICADV.org. Link retrieved at: https://ricadv.org/data-dashboard/.

These are the facts on hand, the firsthand material basis from which we should form an opinion and a point of view.

Furthermore, once a material foundation is ascertained from the facts, we must turn to a deeper analysis of the facts, not in isolation, but in the context of a broader phenomenon that may provide even more explanatory power.

The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (RICADV), the National Center for PTSD, the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all speak to research demonstrating that gender violence is a serious issue in our society and in the world.

One would not have to venture long in their websites, in their many pages of statistics and reports, to find that cis-gendered men are predominately the perpetrators of gender violence against cis-gender women and children, and especially against non-binary and queer individuals. The prevalence of abuse becomes even worse as you continue to add other factors, like race and ethnicity, on top of their peripheral social conditions.

Along with several studies showing that men lead in the commission of gender violence against women, children, and queer people, there are supplemental studies from these same organizations that survey the consequences for these victims post-trauma.

World Health Organization (2026). Violence Info, Consequences of IPV. @who.info. Link retrieved at: https://apps.who.int/violence-info/studies?area=intimate-partner-violence&aspect=consequences.

The research literature on the consequences of domestic and gender violence show how such abusive tendencies in men yield from their victims depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, poorer educational and economic outcomes, and poorer health outcomes; all of which further compound upon the lives of others who are connected to them and the community wherein they live.

The same is all the more true when it comes to gun violence as a form of gender violence.

The Pawtucket Ice Rink Shooting: The Upshot

Not only are nearly half of all women murdered in the U.S. by a current or former intimate partner, but more than half of these intimate partner homicides are by firearms.

Which brings us back to Roberta.

In the link above, the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, summarized certain findings from recently published gun violence research.

They found that in 68.2% of mass shootings from 2014-2019, the perpetrator “either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence.”

What does this speak to if not to an entire anti-social trend within a certain sector of the population, of which Roberta’s actions serve as yet another manifestation? This is why a deeper analysis of the facts within the context of a broader phenomenon is important.

Why is this conversation important? Because gun violence of any kind, but especially when a perpetrator commits gender violence against another, is entirely preventable. Not only is it preventable, but it should be prioritized by our government on account of it being so uniquely preventable.

Boston Globe (Dec, 2025). Providence Police Searching for Brown University Shooting Suspect. BostonGlobe.com. Link retrieved at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/25/metro/ri-brown-shooting-providence-police/?event=event12.

Here’s an example.

The same site notes from another 2019 research publication that “in the three years leading up to an intimate partner homicide, police were in contact with the female victims…in 91% of the cases.”

That means that in almost every single case of domestic violence leading to a homicide, whether by firearm or not, the police were in contact with the female victims beforehand.

So far, the investigation has only noted that Roberta had “anger issues” and “mood swings” at work, according to those who worked with her. But what are the chances that a local police agency was in contact with Rhonda or someone in her family prior to this homicide and attempted famicide?

The chances are pretty damn high.

But despite the fact that gun ownership regulations directed at individuals who meet the risk factors for violence could directly affect these outcomes [up to 23% reduction, which is a start], our legislative bodies, whose laws directly influence the procedures of local police agencies and licensures relating to gun ownership, have yet to move a finger in the overwhelmingly prosocial and preventative direction.

The reason for this slack in our governance is due to a lack of a priority for women and women’s safety in a world where men dominate the social, economic, educational, and political spaces.

This is a serious problem because the lack of a decision in an important matter is also a decision in of itself.

And this is ultimately a political decision.

The Political Atmosphere Around Gun Violence, and thereby Gender Violence: A Deeper Dive

Of course, as a socialist, and a writer, my opinion here will always consist of an analysis and an agitation that is political in nature.

Wall Street Journal (May 2025). The Republicans and Democrats Pulling Off the Unthinkable: Staying Friends. WSJ.com; Cam Pollack/WSJ; iStock (2). Link retrieved at: https://www.wsj.com/politics/republican-democrats-congress-friends-57728f7d.

While many people in my personal life, and on the internet, generally push for an “apolitical” approach to these serious topics in the U.S., their pushes are without any power to shift the positions, and the instincts, of most people. Never mind myself.

For there is no such thing as “apolitical” in this society, nor in any society, when there are differing political views and competing power groups. Every society in our modern world is a class society: with material conditions that are distinctive according to one’s socioeconomic, ethnic, gender, and national backgrounds.

In a word: Every society operates off a certain format of exchange, an economic base, from which all other things are materially determined as we become more conscious of our needs and interests, not just as individuals but also as a class.

But the world develops unevenly from one person to the next, and from one class of persons to the next. This is how some people dominate others in various situations.

Moreover, when the source of this unevenness is structural, it is likely because one class of persons is asserting control over another class of persons.

These things directly influence our social, economic, and political life. Religion is tied to it, our poems are tied to it, and of course, our politics are tied to it.

Therefore, dealing with gender-based gun violence, at the end of the day, is a political task as well as a public health crisis.

And the people, even those who wish to hide it all away, know this deep down, not in their “hearts,” but from their own experiences in the real world. “Wishes and prayers” for the families of the victims are always immediately followed by vitriolic battles between different sectors of the community.

The general character of this “battle” is the tug of war between the people’s outcry and the government’s administrative clamp on that outcry.

We have been facing gun violence for decades, and there is always an opportunity for reactionaries to point fingers at each other in the most unproductive fashion. But when it is quickly revealed that the perpetrator was a trans individual, as in this case, suddenly there follows a quick and grand obfuscation, and from that obfuscation there then follows distraction and suppression. And with suppression, nothing further is accomplished.

Conservatives have already thrown bigotry after bigotry against the queer community, and will use this incident as yet another justification for their hatred, while liberals will fail to discuss the actual causes behind gun violence, save for the incomplete proposition that unregulated jurisdictions, which lead to more gun access, are areas wherein gun crime is more prevalent.

For sure, there are over 400 million firearms circulating in the country, but the fact that there is access to weapons in an unregulated fashion is only a quarter of an explanation for the problem of gun violence. Which is to say that it is not an explanation at all.

Moreover, in cases like these where one’s gender identity becomes a unique finding from an investigation, liberals tend to dispense with any discussion of gender altogether, as though stating on the gender dynamics of the perpetrator in any fashion would just feed the irrational hellhole that is conservative political discourse.

This is equally unhelpful because the gender identity of the shooter in any given case is very important when we are trying to understand the current crisis within the context of a broader social phenomenon. Or, as in this case, an anti-social phenomenon.

Despite the fact that Roberta was a trans woman, Roberta still grew up under a society that priorities men and devalues women. Roberta spent most of her life as a cis-man, even became a marine for a short period of time, was familiar with firearms (as of now still culturally a “man’s subject”), and was emotionally unstable.

Her resort to violence came out of a routine of misbehavior that was likely minimized and ignored because we normalize them for men in general. And we project our conditioned views of masculinity, toxic behavior, and disregard for safety unto everyone, especially trans individuals. The research literature cited earlier in this article is proof to that fact.

We could be having a serious conversation, then, about the patriarchal conditioning in our settler colonial society that affects every single person in the U.S., of all sexes, genders, and sexual orientations.

We could be using the Pawtucket ice rink shooting as an opportunity to address our familial relations as a community and how we can prevent further harm by sensible gun legislation and community programs that addresses these patriarchal vestiges directly.

But American politicians are more busy feeding their echo chambers and propaganda machines to keep their status of power and prestige alive than they are the development of a practical political science.

They would rather follow through with their prejudice, their established narrative, and go the path of least resistance, because that comforts them in the long run. They are allowed to have their privileges on account of their complacency only, not their class betrayal, a sin worse than that which was committed “in Sodom and Gomorrah.”

But while they rest, we suffer.

Surely, the people are tired of politicians speaking past each other, serving their own agendas, and not coming to the panel with any real solutions to offer the public.

There is constant fighting and infighting over these “hot button” issues, these “sensitive” topics, as though they capture the actual essence of the problems before us. This “culture war,” as scholars have come to call it, has become utterly manufactured from top to bottom, with nothing to discuss apart from fantasy problems, and not real problems.

They fight over ideology, but they do not generalize from the facts, not in any proper and scientific fashion.

Sadly, as far as “both sides of the aisle” are concerned, they project from their own idealism, their own unfounded predispositions, onto the material facts as they reveal themselves. And that is if they account for the facts at all.

Gender Violence, like Gun Violence, is a Byproduct of Capitalist Society

The United States is plagued by gun violence, but that is hardly a statement that accounts for anything in substance. For every situation that arises which results in gun violence always stems from material events that, from a critical point of view, can be and must be traced to their points of origin, or their “causes,” to get a better sense of the “essence” behind what is going on in these dangerous anti-social trends.

Violence Prevention Project (2026). Locations of Mass Shootings, 1966 to 2024. Hamline University. Link retrieved at: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database/.

Gun violence, in the form of mass shootings or targeted killings, is certainly an issue that plagues our society. And after this article, I am sure you know even more that gender violence is yet another plague that mixes with gun violence in the worst admixtures imaginable.

But when it comes to addressing these issues in a general manner, as opposed to leaving it to the particularities of each jurisdiction, or worse, to the dictates of one or two law enforcement agencies, whose idiosyncratic tendencies cannot often be generalized to a larger whole, our country continues to find itself helpless. The people have no choice but to climb the insurmountable inflammation of American bourgeois “democracy.”

That is to say that these issues continue to happen, in part, because we the American people cannot do anything substantial in the direction of changing our social and material conditions so as to discourage gun violence.

Our collectivized opinion – which by and large is leaning towards more walkable areas, better education, better integrated public transit, more communal spaces for co-living and recreation, and affordable housing – carries little weight in our “democratic” processes, even in a blue state like Rhode Island.

It doesn’t matter that the changes people want empirically lead to more prosocial behavior and better outcomes in every respect from generation to generation. Instead, we run into serious obstacles consisting of nothing more, but nothing less, than the convoluted levers of imperial discretion and legality.

These levers of imperial discretion are part of the infrastructure of federalism, a key feature of our constitutional republic. And the Constitution is the source of all the bourgeois legality that, while allowing us to move, does not quite allow us to breathe.

Under our current system, any choice with power behind it is left to a few people already curated for the stability of the interests of the ruling, capitalist class. If it were otherwise, we the people would have a more direct way of political contribution, of executive action, and judicial oversight.

How can it be, for example, that women cannot have universal access to reproductive rights or protection from abusive gun owners even as they continue to show growing representation in U.S. governance?

Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). Data collection on Women in Municipal office, State Legislatures and Congress. 2026. Rutgers-New Brunswick, Eagleton Institute of Politics. Link retrieved at https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data.

But the power of governance that comes with representation, as you can already see from the red and blue colors in each layer of American federalism, is created in such a way where the people’s opinions are diffused, filtered, and atomized (if not blatantly ignored).

For sure, many of these representatives “represent” overexploited or underdeveloped areas and constituencies. But apart from the reactionary conservative wing (indicated in red) being expressly oppressive, the remaining bourgeois establishment (indicated in blue) does not bring to the forefront of legislative or executive discussion any of the serious opinions or talking points that arise from the people’s experience down below.

The dedication our politicians have to this uniformity of political expression and representation doesn’t seem all too relevant to our everyday experiences, and that is because they are wholly dedicated to a different constituency.

This other constituency is of the kind that, once again, cares more about their own control over the markets, over their own profits, than the sensible distribution of resources and delegation of tasks necessary to run our society in a progressive, scientific, and prosocial fashion.

Executive power, too, is left to a whole other contrivance of its own, where the people cannot even hold discretion as to whatever regulation is strapped upon them unless they were to join the special apparatus of indoctrination and alienation that comes with the “armed forces.” And I include police precincts, and other armed men who operate under “police powers” of any given state, in the term “armed forces.”

Contrary to what our “forefathers” and American teachers and textbooks would have us believe, the function of federalism in our constitutional republic is not solely the “checks and balances” approach to ensure the adherence of each branch of government to the Constitution.

That is only surface level.

On a much deeper, and more real, level, the function of federalism in our society is the preservation of the status quo through the diffusion of people’s power by means of several sophisticated layers of political restrictions and legal barriers that prioritize the wealthy and the powerful.

It is for the assurance that our “top-bottom” structure of governance, which serves the rich, the sick, and the powerful, will not be upsetted to the degree that it would be “flipped on its head,” that these checks and balances would be rigorously laid aside by the people they claim to represent.

We may be able to pass laws here and there, and certainly political campaigns to pass sensible gun legislation would serve as harm mitigation.

But we are not allowed to do this on our own accord. Instead, we are working with the anarchical whims of finance capital, and finance capital—in a settler colonial society like the U.S.—could never result in a world where sensible preventative policies are weighed out by a politically educated population.

On the contrary, we are currently working against the grain, for a status quo that, upon the first opportunity, will be turned down once again by our overseers, our profiteers, and bloodsuckers, if it means more power and financial security.

Conclusion.

Gun violence is a lot more than just guns and bullets. It’s more than just senseless killing and untimely funerals.

When you look deeper into the broader phenomenon at play, we see a bigger picture of anti-social trends that are rooted in the patriarchy, in capitalism, and the degrading conditions that are inevitable consequences of the first two.

The only way for us as a people to change this—to prevent gun violence, and to prevent gender violence—is to bring about our own discretion, our own power, in a worker’s government.

We cannot wait for privileged, white, old, and slacking men to make decisions for us any longer. Too many lives are at stake.

A socialist revolution, proven by history and strengthened by theory, is our best chance at a better world.

A better world for women, a better world for the queer community, and a better world without gun violence.

Thank you for taking the time to read my work. I hope in this article to simply explain myself and what I intend to do with this channel.

After all that has happened over the last several years in world history—

• the destabilization of South-West Asia and North Africa (SWANA) by Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the West Bank,

• the decline of Western Imperialism as signified by the rise of neofascism in all of the Western world, and

• the resurgence of resistance movements by different people groups from across the Global South and the Imperial Core

—I feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility to myself, my family, my friends, and my community to express a political viewpoint that actively contributes to the cause for humanity and the environment.

What is the Cause for Humanity and the Environment?

The cause for humanity and the environment is simply the most wonderful and difficult mission that every person must place on themselves if they hope to bring about a better future for the world and the following generations of life.

That mission being to reserve oneself for the progress of human society and the betterment of the earth in a manner that comports with material reality, equitable justice, and revolutionary politics.

Such a mission has me and my fellow comrades to place our voices, our minds, and our bodies at the disposal of the masses, of the oppressed masses, to satisfy whatever needs they may have under this dark age of imperialism.

That is to say that I am at the disposal of my people, who are oppressed everywhere; to all indigenous groups, like the Palestinians or my own Puerto Rican kindred, who suffer at the hands of Western apartheid regimes and other reactionary forces.

I am at the disposal of all the displaced and dispossessed as a consequence of war or collapsing markets, to all the vulnerable and the unlearned, to all whose decision to fight back means nothing less than certain death.

To all men, women, and children, and to every community that cries for self-determination and freedom: I am yours, and I am yours alone.

My work, and my message, is for them and for all of you who will help me and my comrades organize with them to achieve the victories necessary to facilitate a better world.

What is a “Better World”?

A better world is a post-colonial order that is completely rid of capitalism and imperialist regimes. It is a world where people can have freedom of mobility in societies that exist on the basis of revolutionary politics, science, art, and culture.

A better world is a world of communism.

Communism can only be achieved with an international network of workers democracies that consist of people groups working together to create the conditions for a safer, stronger, and sustainable international community.

For this aim, I write to you as a Dialectical and Historical Materialist, or Marxist. In political terms: Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are interchangeable as a self-designation, even though Marxism itself is a political philosophy that views Socialism and Communism as different phases of revolutionary activity.

As a Marxist, then, I hope to show you the doctrine of dialectics and the doctrine of historical development, the key pillars from which the history of revolutionary Marxism was written, and how it developed over the last 250 years, in the coming months.

The Purpose of this Channel

To facilitate these discussions, and to promote the activities most conducive to the purposes mentioned, I will be writing political coverage as a socialist writer and activist.

My work will mainly consist of analyzing different events, persons, and concepts as they arise, with an agitation to organization or to action.

The scope of my coverage will narrow according to topic, world event, history, local issue, or whatever becomes relevant in our collective political development.

Furthermore, I will be highlighting the greatest works and victories that people’s movements and thinkers have had to offer over the course of history.

There’s many other communists doing this, but the more the merrier. I am especially moved to join the movement because there are few voices in my social periphery where these ideas have a voice.

Just because the works of revolutionaries are available online and in many bookstores, that does not mean that my own family and friends have access to these works.

For we live in a society that is heavily propagandized against communism, against Marxism, and against a better world.

In my circles, I hope to be a change in that regard, to bring accessibility to revolutionary ideas for those I care about.

Closing

The U.S. imperial war machine is rolling on.

With the support of the “heads” of Europe (the U.K., France, and Germany), it continues to dominate the world and support the worst regimes our species has to offer.

The settler colony in Palestine (so-called “State of Israel”) is perhaps the worst and most acute demonstration of the ills of our worldwide capitalist system.

But even that would mean to pretend that history has not shown a whole list of devastations tied to the perpetuation of capitalism in all regions of the globe.

In order to address this growing political crisis, we must get to the facts and adopt a revolutionary resolve to understand the “essence” within the way these facts function in our world.

Only then can we develop an actionable plan to stop it and replace it with a better system.

I hope to continue this cause and to politically inspire you to join me in the worldwide anti-imperialist, communist movement.

In Solidarity,

Mizael

Share Pointed Dialectics: Analyses & Agitations