Everyone has a role to play in the revolution and for some of the more inspired and ambitious among us, their roles are to serve as those revolutionary leaders who guide our movement and struggle towards collective liberation and the construction of a better world. This piece isn't you calling for us to believe in some singular messiah but instead, to build and create our movements with intention, brick by brick; establishing both our clear-eyed, uncompromising vision and the conditions for those leaders to emerge. Folks like Zohran are anything but our end points (they're more akin to an avenue for temporary and immediate relief and reform for workers while the struggle to independently organize continues) but they serve a purpose of helping to expose those core capital contradictions for folks who may not have otherwise known they exist. Similar to No Kings or Bernie's Fighting Oligarchy rallies, these are first steps for folks towards revolutionary politics and it's our job to intervene and meet these folks where they are to help guide them further along their paths of revolutionary learning and growth. The loud proclamations of genuinely revolutionary leaders that explicitly details what is happening can serve as the clap of thunder in people's minds that becomes immutable and impossible to ignore. While they haven't made themselves known yet, I fully agree that revolutionaries are the leaders we need in this moment to propel our movement and struggle forward. We need to create the conditions from which those revolutionary leaders can emerge, and that starts by having "an intentional and deliberate focus on the lessons of the past." Learning from the past informs how we act in the present and proceed into the future, and I think you've articulated a clear vision for what it'll take for our movement and struggle to truly take those next steps towards collective revolution and liberation. Keep proclaiming loudly what is happening Scarlet. I know I sound like a broken record whenever I round out these comments but what you routinely present is the kind of clear-eyed vision we need moving forward, so thank you, as always, for providing that for us. Your work is invaluable; never let any fools or haters tell you otherwise.
your insights on the organizing structures post-internet being too diffuse are spot on. in my own experience organizing Palestinian encampments, there's a real lack of organizational strength. we make the same mistakes trying to create flat hierarchies at the expense of effective change.
my personal opinion is that the institutional-democratic liberalism that has taken hold over the past few decades was a bit of a misstep and it seems this is becoming more recognized. hopefully that paves the way for organizations that persist beyond a singular political moment (like Palestine or No Kings) and create the conditions for leaders to emerge. great piece!
I've noticed that leftists in the US tend to associate hierarchy with dominance/authoritarianism, whereas hierarchy in nature is actually often about safety/being able to relax because you know who is in charge of a given system or task.
Your comments around protests in the digital age reminded me of Jodi Dean's essay, Communicative Capitalism. I enjoyed your take on leadership as it adds another crucial piece of the puzzle to the mix. Keep it up, Scarlet!
I love it but I think you'd better support your position by seeking out more Camilos… because by allowing the Camilos to flourish and in his devotion to the masses is what made Fidel.
I would like to ask this question to all those who agree with this article in good faith as a supporter of zohran: to be clear, is the case you are making that while zohran election showcases a change in the proletariat’s willingness to here true leftist ideals, zohran himself cannot delivered on the promise of socialism, as he is inherently a cog in the system of capitalism. In other words, an improvement on the prior Democratic Party, but not in anyway the end point of our mission as leftists?
dont you think that having a single almost figurehead of the revolution can potentially have disastrous outcomes that almost make it just as bad as the system before? i mean having the almost idolisation of a person or group as opposed to an ideological commitment in a way can go downhill real fast in some cases
Saw the need to create and acknowledge a few revolutionaries in Most Revolutionary:
During a killer Iowa blizzard, fearless DAPL militant and radical plant nursery grower Sabia Perez first saves then kidnaps the stranded President Kristen Silver to ransom a better world. Acting President Alecta O'Roura-Chavez assumes power and ushers in the revolution.
Sabia and friends and allies are loosely based on the real-life exploits of the now imprisoned DAPL Iowa water protectors Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya. Great profile on them in Rolling Stone a few years ago. Sabia and Greta Thunberg would have a lot to talk about.
One thing leads to another. That's why a lot of fiction is banned. Not to mention censored, or de facto censored. People know it. The state knows it. Plutocrats know it.
Everyone has a role to play in the revolution and for some of the more inspired and ambitious among us, their roles are to serve as those revolutionary leaders who guide our movement and struggle towards collective liberation and the construction of a better world. This piece isn't you calling for us to believe in some singular messiah but instead, to build and create our movements with intention, brick by brick; establishing both our clear-eyed, uncompromising vision and the conditions for those leaders to emerge. Folks like Zohran are anything but our end points (they're more akin to an avenue for temporary and immediate relief and reform for workers while the struggle to independently organize continues) but they serve a purpose of helping to expose those core capital contradictions for folks who may not have otherwise known they exist. Similar to No Kings or Bernie's Fighting Oligarchy rallies, these are first steps for folks towards revolutionary politics and it's our job to intervene and meet these folks where they are to help guide them further along their paths of revolutionary learning and growth. The loud proclamations of genuinely revolutionary leaders that explicitly details what is happening can serve as the clap of thunder in people's minds that becomes immutable and impossible to ignore. While they haven't made themselves known yet, I fully agree that revolutionaries are the leaders we need in this moment to propel our movement and struggle forward. We need to create the conditions from which those revolutionary leaders can emerge, and that starts by having "an intentional and deliberate focus on the lessons of the past." Learning from the past informs how we act in the present and proceed into the future, and I think you've articulated a clear vision for what it'll take for our movement and struggle to truly take those next steps towards collective revolution and liberation. Keep proclaiming loudly what is happening Scarlet. I know I sound like a broken record whenever I round out these comments but what you routinely present is the kind of clear-eyed vision we need moving forward, so thank you, as always, for providing that for us. Your work is invaluable; never let any fools or haters tell you otherwise.
Reminded of this post:
https://substack.com/@lukasunger/note/c-154123713
Ai
I hate to disappoint you, but what I wrote was just a stream of conscious thought from someone who really appreciates Scarlet's work. 🤷🏻
your insights on the organizing structures post-internet being too diffuse are spot on. in my own experience organizing Palestinian encampments, there's a real lack of organizational strength. we make the same mistakes trying to create flat hierarchies at the expense of effective change.
my personal opinion is that the institutional-democratic liberalism that has taken hold over the past few decades was a bit of a misstep and it seems this is becoming more recognized. hopefully that paves the way for organizations that persist beyond a singular political moment (like Palestine or No Kings) and create the conditions for leaders to emerge. great piece!
I've noticed that leftists in the US tend to associate hierarchy with dominance/authoritarianism, whereas hierarchy in nature is actually often about safety/being able to relax because you know who is in charge of a given system or task.
Good read 👏🏽
Loved this! Thank you for taking the time to write it 💕
This is an awesome article! 👏
Your comments around protests in the digital age reminded me of Jodi Dean's essay, Communicative Capitalism. I enjoyed your take on leadership as it adds another crucial piece of the puzzle to the mix. Keep it up, Scarlet!
I love it but I think you'd better support your position by seeking out more Camilos… because by allowing the Camilos to flourish and in his devotion to the masses is what made Fidel.
I would like to ask this question to all those who agree with this article in good faith as a supporter of zohran: to be clear, is the case you are making that while zohran election showcases a change in the proletariat’s willingness to here true leftist ideals, zohran himself cannot delivered on the promise of socialism, as he is inherently a cog in the system of capitalism. In other words, an improvement on the prior Democratic Party, but not in anyway the end point of our mission as leftists?
We need to form private, pro bono security forces to protect the working class politicians from state-sanctioned political violence, now.
Great article from Consortium News. https://consortiumnews.com/2025/10/23/no-kings-the-lure-of-spectacle/
dont you think that having a single almost figurehead of the revolution can potentially have disastrous outcomes that almost make it just as bad as the system before? i mean having the almost idolisation of a person or group as opposed to an ideological commitment in a way can go downhill real fast in some cases
To become a communist, you need to know his sources. But you, a brainless woman, will die of starvation eating your own children.
We've worked them all off.
Saw the need to create and acknowledge a few revolutionaries in Most Revolutionary:
During a killer Iowa blizzard, fearless DAPL militant and radical plant nursery grower Sabia Perez first saves then kidnaps the stranded President Kristen Silver to ransom a better world. Acting President Alecta O'Roura-Chavez assumes power and ushers in the revolution.
Sabia and friends and allies are loosely based on the real-life exploits of the now imprisoned DAPL Iowa water protectors Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya. Great profile on them in Rolling Stone a few years ago. Sabia and Greta Thunberg would have a lot to talk about.
https://fictiongutted.substack.com/p/most-revolutionary-table-of-contents
… fiction…
imagination ... creation ... inspiration ...
...all weightless until they do something that produces and end.
One thing leads to another. That's why a lot of fiction is banned. Not to mention censored, or de facto censored. People know it. The state knows it. Plutocrats know it.