Becoming the Means: Technologization for Transocialism (Why Transocialism?)

Why Transocialism?

“In our brand of Marxism, there is no ‘woman question’ because we never compartmentalized women off to the ‘superstructure’ or somewhere in the first place… [Rather] there is a fundamental interconnection between women’s struggle and what is traditionally conceived as class struggle. Not all women’s struggles have an inherently anti-capitalist thrust (particularly not those which seek only to advance the power and wealth of special groups of women), but all those which build collectivity and collective confidence among women are vitally important to the building of class consciousness. Conversely, not all class struggles have an inherently anti-sexist thrust (especially not those that cling to pre-industrial patriarchal values) but all those which seek to build the social and cultural autonomy of the working class are necessarily linked to the struggle for women’s liberation.”

In 1976, the late honorary Co-Chair of DSA Barbara Ehrenreich asked “What is Socialist Feminism?” Today I ask the same question for transocialism, and that is quite easy. Asking the question, I mean, because answering might as well be trying to divide by zero. As opposed to the established difficulty of other social identities like human, mother, or black, the trouble of defining what it means to be trans goes far beyond. Those three terms have some referent (however unstable) we distinguish through their use; even the terms transgender and transpecies have a referent: their suffix. But if we can no longer abbreviate trans as transgender without context, then what does it mean to be trans in general? Merriam-Webster lists the following definitions: on or to the other side of, across, so or such as to change or transfer, through, and beyond. And if we move one degree of separation ahead, they list one illuminating definition of ‘beyond’ as out of the comprehension of. Our heads may spin from this, believing that we have encountered an obstacle to understanding, but it is in actuality the greatest insight: what it means to be trans is to be indefinite. After all, do we not elicit something critical from “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things” (to quote Marx’s The German Ideology)? Indeed, what it means to be trans is to wholeheartedly embrace the dialectic, to live a contradiction where your only necessity is contingency.

So when we say “A Better World Is Possible,” that is not only to mean that it is possible to build a better world, but that what it means for the world to be better is to have possibilities (i.e., contingency), to be transformable, choosable; for us to have autonomy within it. The ethical foundation of socialism is not the conservative strawman of equality, nor some vague libertarian freedom (usually euphemizing the freedom to exploit). It is autonomy, which permits no lack of emphasis nor compromise, for the autonomy to violate another’s is no autonomy at all. Transocialism is the movement towards the possibility of choosing yourself; to own and govern your own time, body, mind, and labor. It is a socialism which recognizes the unique potential of trans revolutionaries, for our lives are defined by agitation. In the context of empire, whose towers unceasingly project “There Is No Alternative,” it is the agitation of dysphoria. But for every alienation, every sorrow and frustration with all that is, so grows the desire to become anew, the agitation of euphoric excitement. That is why alienation is the labor of liberation, for imagining a world beyond the immediate turns from possibility to necessity when the immediate becomes unbearable. Transocialism does not advance by reproducing the root causes of alienation, but by revealing what already was there: the possibility of euphoria and the desire to choose it. To say that autonomy is the apex value of transocialism is to assert an ultimate pragmatism: the means and ends of our praxis must be to adapt to the world as it is, not by fatalistically accepting the present, but by accepting what must be done to adapt the world to us:

“Our lot is cast with technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be reengineered and transformed so as to widen our aperture of freedom, extending to gender and the human. To say that nothing is sacred, that nothing is transcendent or protected from the will to know, to tinker and to hack, is to say that nothing is supernatural. ‘Nature’–understood here, as the unbounded arena of science–is all there is. And so, in tearing down melancholy and illusion; the unambitious and the non-scaleable; the libidinized puritanism of certain online cultures, and Nature as an un-remakeable given, we find that our normative anti-naturalism has pushed us towards an unflinching ontological naturalism. There is nothing, we claim, that cannot be studied scientifically and manipulated technologically (Laboria Cuboniks 2015).”

The goal of learning, then, is not to grasp for absolute and eternal truths, but to grasp that truth is eternally ephemeral. For one cannot step in the same river twice, so must our movement become a river, the everflowing torrent eroding all that is solid. Thus, as opposed to those of the ruling classes, the role of the transocialist intellectual is to dissolve their distinction as such: to make the articulation of autonomy so common sense that no further platform could exist without redundancy, that their class achieves total intellectual autonomy. To clarify this distinction with an analogy, I would again raise Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who wrote In Praise of Philosophy (1953) that “Machiavelli is the complete contrary of a machiavellian, since he describes the tricks of power and, as we say, “gives the whole show away.” The seducer and the politician, who live in the dialectic and have a feeling or instinct for it, try their best to keep it hidden (59).” In this sense (though divorced of course from the prescriptions he found strategic in his context, his misogyny, etc.), the transocialist is a Machiavellian: a theorist of beginnings (to quote Louis Althusser, pg. 6) for the insurgent majority, one who demystifies politics and unburdens the people from the disabling contradictions of naive deontologies and virtues. Our task is to make common sense that nothing could exist without the power to, that practice is the sole criterion for truth (to reference Hu Fuming’s eponymous article), and that consequence is the only measure of success. In short, transocialism is an autilitarianism: autonomy (rather than pleasure) is not only our apex value, but the only value ultimately worth contesting.[1]

That autonomy must suffuse our whole technopolitics, down to the roots of our bodies. To that end, there is no “correct form” but the one which allows us to change it: a shapeshifter’s body politic. Like the boneless cephalopod, we may only best fit through the narrow cracks of history by ejecting every orthodoxy, teleology, and determinism that could calcify our thought, and none of these stand more proudly today than the disease of prefigurativism. Though the libertarian socialists are undoubtedly its most fervent champions, its anemic logic has (to various extents) pervaded every corner of the left. Its critique is already well underway, however, so I will grant only a brief assessment: it is the belief that we, in lieu of a high-speed train, should reject the car in front of us to trek on foot across the desert for water. Though prefigurativism may stand as the version which presumes that means must resemble our ends, it is only symptomatic of a wider prefigurism: the belief that we could somehow settle our methods for all time. One may find it insightful that these prefigurisms often match onto both ends of a dichotomy: legalism and illegalism, horizontalism and centralism, pacifism and bellicism, libertarianism and authoritarianism, unitarism and confederalism, and so on. To take any of these as eternal principles, rather than cardinal directions on a whole spectrum of viable methods, is to doom oneself to paralysis. Though one may hark to my technical prescriptions, which hardly read as tentative, that confidence is born only from the great difficulty in imagining a world where agency can be divorced from consciousness, life from energy, and alterity from perspective, not its impossibility. Just as all matters in this dialectic, the only unquestionable is to question.

To rectify this naive prefigurativism, transocialism submits the praxis of metafiguration: to shape and analyze organizational forms as attempts to adapt to their immediate political environment. It is a stance which demands we question the expressions of any party or actor, and ask: does their (even if absolute) language aim to describe the absolute principles of struggle, or should we take them as attempts to be absolutely strategic within their context to polemicize? From this posture we may better derive not only what the messengers found strategic to exclude or ambiguate, but how differing circumstances broadly demand differing organizational adaptations. Here the keen reader would have already recognized that the aforementioned analogy of lifeworld to position and deathworld to maneuver is the product of this metafiguration. Where laboratories and hospitals proliferate over walls and weapons, it should come as no surprise why biopolitical methods thrive, but so then must we extend that understanding in the opposite case: to anti-imperialist necropolitics.

Among all things to which we could apply this metafiguration, however, none are more important now for socialists to address than the matter of populism, to which I mainly depart from three recent articles within Geese: P.K. Gandakin’s “Toward Active Revolution: Populism and the Proletarian Revolution,” Kolya Ludwig’s “The Second Light of Hegemony: Rediscovering the Mass Subject after Ultra-Leftism,” and Nik M’s “We Will Build: The Green New Deal and ‘Producer Populism.’” To put a long history short, it has long been posed since before these articles that it has primarily been populist (i.e., hegemony or mass political) strategies that elevated Democratic Socialists of America from the dizzying array of abusive microsects and desiccated third parties. This strategy, among other things, chiefly comprised a break with previous Marxist orthodoxies that posed ‘the worker’ as the 1:1 representative of revolutionary struggle (confusing economic class with political class). By detaching from class struggle the need to always be referred to as such (i.e. exclusively through Marxist signifiers), the left-populist tendency (exemplified by the likes of Zohran Mamdani, Claudia Sheinbaum, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, but theoretically marked by Laclau and Mouffe) represented an innovation which accelerated the adoption of a more pluralist language of people’s struggle.

Of course, populism is more than just a change in language, but language is key to understanding its rise. To heavily summarize his work, Gandakin identifies populism as the predominant mode of political expression that arose in adaptation to mass generalization. Meaning, as the producing class was (and continually is) woven into an increasingly unified, interdependent base of production (the state), so did their political expression tend to generalize. Until now, this has been driven by a countless variety of factors: the New Deal programs, economic growth and technologization (especially in communications), racial integration, and so on. Thus, through these mass generalizing processes (most if not all we may reasonably expect to only intensify over time), aggregates of localized demands become holistic politics over time. From this mediation arises the need for ‘empty signifiers,’ symbolic vessels by which disparate struggles and values can ‘chain’ to form more holistic, powerful movements. To source Ernesto Laclau, who first applied the term to populist strategy in his Emancipation(s) (1996), empty signifiers like the people, democracy, and socialism are useful, not because of their academic specificity, but rather because their meanings are so (but not absolutely) open. The contestability of the empty signifier therefore allows various interests to invest their own interpretations and struggles to achieve hegemony over the movement it represents, thereby encouraging an engagement with broader movements. This in turn gives rise to the agitative mode of negative polarization, where people come to identify less with organizations themselves and more with the political direction they function to produce, critically in opposition to an also generalizing counterpart.

Therefore, through mass generalization, the character of politics increasingly subjectifies, and the class war increasingly presents as a culture war (i.e. discourse). In place of the politics of physicality, proximity, and locality arises the primacy of identification, signification, and ideology. Though the importance of merely concrete factors never disappears, articulation, narrative, and theater take, as they say, center stage. From this perspective, the emergence of the ‘attention economy’ makes all too much sense, for not only have the costs of mass communication dramatically contracted, but so have the returns on commercial and ideological investment expanded as well. To tie this knot further through the evolutionary G/B/N metaphor (and a return to Kapp), as the noosphere expands, so does class struggle become integrated within an increasingly unified political nervous system, thereby sharpening the struggle for state power and to define its collective consciousness: the will of the people.

The major reply to this populist turn has been, of course, that moving from the specific language of the worker to the broader people has diluted the project of producing class autonomy. Though this is indeed a serious concern (which I will address in a moment through producer-populism), assuming this stance on the broad strokes will plague our struggle with an objectification of the very people whose subjectivity we aim to cultivate. Here we may use the concrete example of door-to-door organizing. Let us consider in the context of populist rhetoric that being a person is obviously, generally shared, whereas the terms proletariat, worker, or producer often not only appear stilted to the average person, they belie a specificity in contradiction to our aim of articulating the universal class. Whereas personhood is a common foundation to build upon, those three meet as just another box (a confusing one at that for the unemployed and middle class) that crafty politicians are trying to fit us all into to stifle our individuality. Implicitly, this dogmatic approach treats people like machines, merely awaiting the perfect program, the cryptographic key that would unleash their latent worker-spirit. As one might imagine, this “X marks the spot” way of engaging with people feels almost as objectifying as being poked at with a shovel. To expand this critique using Ludwig’s words:

“If we accept that what is most material in political processes is the increasing resonance of a name, then to insist on the preferred signifiers of our own organization, precisely when everything is at stake, is the idealist gesture par excellence. Equally unsatisfactory are the stale, reifying characterizations of certain political elements as essentially “bourgeois” or essentially “proletarian”; this framing ignores the dynamic movement of signifiers, identities, and peoples. In fact, is the mobility of a name, and its capacity to analogize a surplus of popular demands, not the very embodiment of democratic struggle? This was always Laclau’s critique of a stubborn totalitarianism at work in political Marxism—its reluctance to submit to the logic of democratic and popular identities, i.e., the logic of hegemony—for which no satisfying rebuttal has ever been offered.”

That stubbornness most importantly includes the reifying dogma of workerism (or as Ludwig would put it, the worker fetish), that a class exists ‘out there,’ in solid form, whose revolutionary potential merely needs discovering. This could not be further from the truth, of course, for class is a process more than anything, a continuous political production. Therefore, using Laclau’s language, the worker (or proletariat) only functioned historically as far as it signified the popular desire for an absent autonomy by proxy. In Marx’s era, this urban-industrial proletariat was expanding and relatively distinguishable, but as we well know by now, this is no longer the case. Thus, the adaptability of the people is now more suitable to the changing conditions of class struggle than the signifiers of Marxism conceived statically, mechanically, or academically (in the manner of preserving their traditional/historic specificity, as opposed to rearticulating them for changing conditions). To mark this framing with a clear visual, the empty signifier is a sort of Medusa: the more we look to settle its meaning, the more we calcify the struggles it could signify.

In this sense, we may think of the populist turn as also being a phenomenological (or constructivist) turn. Yes, though our aim (or shall we say, objective) may be to understand our one shared reality, that understanding cannot be separated from the subjects who produce it. So we can believe that class conditions consciousness on a fundamental level while also suspending that belief to empathetically observe how life and struggle is interpreted from the first-person. To apply this to standpoint theory, using anti-blackness as the crucial example, our role as socialists is not to ‘lend black liberation an economic character’ (a priori butchered Marxism; à la Bernie Sanders’ class reductionism), but to amplify what has already been articulated by those most affected by white supremacy, to treat the issue on its own terms.

We would be mistaken then to believe that revolutionary consciousness is simply built by helping people “realize their material interests.” Given that consciousness grants us the relative autonomy to believe whatever, our audience could just as well believe that materially bettering the world would actually hinder their interest, say, in a paradisal afterlife that could only follow worldly cataclysm. That is the meaning of noospheric primacy: what we believe becomes our material interest. So yes, we may work all day on technics like chlorogenesis, and make a great impact, but for those with insights to match, nothing can do so much with so little as the word. Indeed, language is the magic of struggle, for it could not be described without itself.[2] And it is this primacy of language, signification, and identity construction that the concept of the political pole embodies, for socialists too often fall into the economist trap of centering the bloc. Blocs are important and necessary, of course, but economism here is referring to the belief (conscious or otherwise) that the bloc is foundational. In other words, it assumes that political consciousness arises from the creation of demands and coalitions, but a coalition without an identity is like a cockroach without its head, crawling around aimlessly before its inevitable burnout. The relationship therefore is rather the opposite: we can only demand in the context of an us to intend, and a collective will can only be animated by its nervous system, its shared consciousness, identities, and values. Therefore, it should not be trite at all to say that voices, pens, and keyboards are our greatest weapons in the autonomy struggle.[3]

Now think back to what Ludwig just mentioned about essentialism, for that insight is incredibly prescient, not only for understanding populist logic, but for the framework of transocialism in general. If we take it as true that the only necessity of being trans is its contingency, then the transocialist worldview is essentially anti-essentialist.[4] From here one could say, as Liam Egan does, that “The Marxism of today would be the Marxism which undoes itself of its own accord, that which stakes out its absolute ground on the fact of its conditionality, and ultimately that which rejects the demand to settle its own meaning while simultaneously proposing a final meaning itself,” but we may take this logic one step further. In his 2026 essay “Is there a “trans politics”? Not yet,” Alexander Avila writes that “The failure to symbolize sexual difference is the same failure that creates the conditions for democracy. As Claude Lefort argues, where once the figure of the King stood as the physical placeholder of society’s unity, democratic systems empty out this place of power to create the terrain for popular struggle [i.e., to choose our power and meaning].” So to propose finality (read necessity) at all is to oppose conditionality as such (unless that finality is the lack of finality), and thereby our autonomy to choose our own meaning. The revolutionary struggle (ergo the analyses and signifiers correct for its moment) therefore should never be confused with transocialism, democracy, socialism, communism, populism, (post-)Marxism, dialectical materialism, or whatever else, for these impose names and histories on what must be left to move. To borrow from Laclau and Mouffe in their “Post-Marxism without Apologies” (1987): “To affirm that the ultimate law of motion of History is given not by the change of ideas in the minds of human beings but rather by the contradiction, in each stage, between the development of productive forces and the existing relations of production, does not modify things [from idealism to materialism] at all. For what is idealist is not the affirmation that the law of motion of History is the one rather than the other, but the very idea that there is an ultimate law of motion that can be conceptually grasped.” Transocialism thus is a liar’s paradox, for it asks we depose it, just as it asks we depose dead King Marx to make room and quiet in our heads, to hear the flowing river, the will of the people. Transocialism is nothing more than one poor sign, one way of approach, for what it could never represent: the real movement.

To better think through this flux, then, it would serve our praxis well to move from the essentializing language of the binary to the dynamic language of velocity. Again, we may illustrate this concept through Ludwig’s articulation of socialist effects, which he in turn derives from Laclau: “There is not something like an anti-capitalist struggle per se [Laclau’s emphasis], but anti-capitalist effects [Ludwig’s emphasis] that can derive, at a certain ruptural point, from the articulation of a plurality of struggles.” Meaning, there is no pure struggle ‘out there’ to identify, but a multidimensional arena of struggles where politics can only be realized relatively, by inabstractable degrees of direction and magnitude. Importantly then, socialist effects (in his words: “any outcome that undermines the hegemony of private accumulation with an ethic that is antagonistic to it”) need not arise from self-described socialist struggles, nor must the party be some grandly singular, ‘know it when you see it’ earthshaker, because anyone that “effectively organizes a people’s capacity to produce socialist effects” is a party member in velocity.[5] The party need not be a party by legality (i.e. DSA), nor even one organization at all, for the people emerging into militant consciousness of itself is the real substance only represented by ‘the party’ as a term. To the extent they succeed as such, they should be named as such. Here, just as the means must submit to their ends, as technics to their politics, the forms of organizing must follow their function.

From this insight we may recognize in turn that all politics are incrementalist (or evolutionary) to some degree. We should rightly reject the politics of those these terms are often associated with, namely the optimism of Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, and the accelerationists in capitalist accumulation. That does not, however, make the opposite overcompensation any more sane, to treat political rupture (or the movement of one mode of production to the next) as necessarily one spectacular moment. To help us visualize this concept, we may borrow the astronautical slingshot effect (or the gravity turn) as an analogy. As we know, when a rocket launches from the Earth, it does not path straight up. Instead, it makes (dare I say) a revolution around it to capture its momentum. Could we not liken this to the success of populism, that we treat the people’s present consciousness as our axis of advance? Political rupture thus, rather than one shattering moment, is far better imagined as a gradual exponentiation relative to its gravitational base, its political immediate. Whereas the call to fight gravity and move straight away from the immediate (say, the state) may be likened to a left deviation, and the call to remain in orbit or land altogether being a right deviation, we must aim to find the optimal exit velocity, the left wing of the possible, the revolutionary center.

It is a naive comfort to believe that the matter of establishing socialism, “the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or whatever you want to call it, will be a cut and dry (stagist) process, as if we could expect a little video game achievement to ensure we knew. This is computer logic, binaric logic, essentialist logic. Symptomatic of this ill logic are time-wasting questions like “is XYZ capitalist or socialist?” and “when was the DotP lost in the USSR/PRC?” (the latter usually followed by answers along the lines of “with the breath of Stalin and Mao”) that presume no space for contradiction (or to phrase it in more common terms, nuance). Perhaps we should wonder whether the campism arising from that logic, the afflicting inability to criticize ‘socialist XYZ’ on any decisive issue (or to use a more explicit example, a legally enforced inability to criticize), has helped at all with their mysterious devolution.[6] So, if we may begin treating this illness, we should thus reframe these types of questions in terms of velocity: what aspects and actors of XYZ characterize its capitalist and socialist forces, where are its strongest internal contradictions, and how best should we fuel its socialist velocities?

With this, the importance of articulating how exactly we imbue the people with a producer’s identity (producer effects, one might say) is worth pivoting back to, to which I would adapt Nik M’s formulation of producer-populism. His original framing was an opposition of the producers versus the rentiers, which importantly placed “productive green tech entrepreneurs and other small manufacturers” as includable in the immediate coalition against monopoly finance capital, a matter I will expand on in a moment. For now, however, such producer-populism may have more lasting flexibility if reframed along a logic of the people versus the predators. Whilst rentiering only encapsulates a particularly prescient form of exploitation, predation is analogous to it. This reframing would first help to include those whose creative drives have been bruised by capitalist productivism (not just the ‘anti-work’ crowd, but anyone exhausted with their life being instrumentalized), who will not have the opportunity to heal if they feel excluded from a mass movement that could address the general lack of leisure, choice, and safety in society. Therefore, it would ironically be better for production in the long term to build our movement off disarticulating predation over productivity itself.[7]

To this end, a producer-populist logic preserves both the ‘empty’ universality of personhood as well as the real implication (by opposition) that the people’s interest is the producer’s interest, giving the people as signifier additional utility in bypassing that rhetorical speed bump. This logic also allows for prevailing flexibility in defining what is predatory enough to be classed as such in any particular conjuncture, but this should be dealt with carefully. For one, it is a logic, not a playbook, so just rotely replacing (and overusing) these phrases will produce the same problems as the aforementioned cryptographic Marxism. And importantly for two, like the meaning of ‘human,’ the meaning of ‘people’ in the American context has been historically invested with the logic of white supremacy, and thereby predation with blackness (recalling Hillary Clinton’s use of ‘superpredators’ in particular). That, however, is no reason to think that we cannot contest and rearticulate these terms, so long as that process is informed by black people’s experiences, plus all others historically prejudiced as such. Conversely then, though predation is more than anything a system (not some permanent essence à la biological reductionism), we should not refrain from calling a spade a spade, a president a predator, and a pedophile government a pedophile government. Indeed, given that our conjuncture is so blatantly predatory, the popular base which may form today’s movement shall and should be broad. To overthrow the predators heading this technofascist empire, whose apocalyptic nihilism threatens our very existence, could there be a wider coalition than the people who believe in the future of our planet?

Therefore, especially in this era of unprecedented addiction and declining attention spans, it is crucial we produce a mass-digestible technopolitical strategy for this adolescent phase (a term I use not to condescend, but to praise our accelerating self-examination) of left politics. If schismosis is the technics of self-destruction (poisoning our bodies and minds with microplastics, PFAS, and slop entertainment), ausmosis is the technics of all people who desire for life, though we need not impose these terms in practice. What we must do, however, is struggle for hegemony over technology, counter the preachers of “artificial intelligence” who claim their schismotic technics are inevitable, and reject the binary framing of technological discourse. Transocialism is neither technologically optimistic nor pessimistic: its aim is the sober nullification of both through praxis, and the task could not be more urgent. Rising fascism and liberal compliance with schismosis are producing a digital technocracy, whose infrastructure fuels both the climate crisis and the collapse of real, biological intelligence. The unprecedented crises of our moment demand that we are laser-focused on the struggle to seize state power and change, among everything else, the direction of productive development. Fully funded education and childcare, housing, mental healthcare, genetic engineering, gender and species-affirming technology, all this and more should be included in the consideration of what makes for ausmotic technologization, whether or not we acknowledge it as such. Though I emphasize the key role of chlorogenesis without hesitation, the point is not to lock us down to that example, but to prepare ourselves to flexibly engage with all new possibilities and imaginaries as the forces of production are developed.

I would imagine that any of us (it would certainly be a sign to talk to more people if you have not) has spoken to someone who has described their politics with words along the lines of “as long as it’s not hurting anyone, why should it bother me?” That is the common sense desire for autonomy we are trying to cultivate (ideally into proactivity). Indeed, the greatest benefit of gender and species-technologization is that it conditions without causing the expansion of trans life, that it is morphocatalytic.[8] Our task could not be further from knocking doors trying to convince people to radically alter their bodies in the “correct and revolutionary way.” Indeed, if one was reading carefully, the implication would already be apparent that strength in diversity is inherent to the xenosocialist strategy. The entire goal, when we develop those means of production and protect trans autonomy, is that the people around them will be far more likely to explore themselves by their own will. So when the reactionaries whine about why, we can credibly reply: why not?

To get there, however, we need a concrete plan to get the ball rolling now, one that engages with what the people consider immediately possible. Firstly, from the theory of mass generalization we can infer that struggles within the state must be paramount in the biopolitical context of the United States. Though the hegemony of libertarianism/horizontalism over Western socialist praxis is certainly closing on its heyday, the basic critique is worth repeating: the absence of any central leadership in a movement enables its misrepresentation, cooptation, and defusion, and to draw from Jo Freeman’s “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” (1972), our organizations are made more accessible by clearly defining our leadership and decision making processes. These libertarian tendencies arose out of a real and desperate need for autonomy found lacking both in our current hegemony and (to a lesser extent) in the historical socialist movements. Undoubtedly, our whole movement for democracy and socialism would be less without them, but dismantling the state requires that we engage with the people’s immediate will and awareness. The coercion that comes with a lack of public healthcare, an inability to afford time and money for education, these and more are immediately prescient and feasible struggles, whereas the total abolition of state coercion (police, prisons, and the military) is not even properly imaginable yet. To build toward the point where it is, we must slingshot around what the people are already (or on the cusp of) wanting from the state, lest we cede that gravity to fascists, who will divert that energy for the state.[9]

Here then it would be natural to also reexamine mutual aid, arguably the predominant mode of praxis professed by these libertarians. Here I would argue that a critical distinction is missing in the conversation on mutual aid: between conditional and unconditional aid. One may jump to the conclusion that the former is good and the latter is bad, but this framing would also be inadequate for transocialism’s realpolitik. Focusing first on the unconditional side, our language should not be softened: focusing organizing resources on directly meeting all the people’s needs is fundamentally counterproductive. That is the role of the state if one exists (and it will for too long to be worth even strategizing otherwise), so by bandaging over the wounds the hegemon has caused and positions itself responsible for, we rob ourselves of the opportunity to crystallize that resulting agitation into counterhegemonic mass action, an indirect but ultimately more effective method of ensuring those needs are met in the long-term. It is the difference between giving people fish and collaboratively learning how we must struggle for fish (though the predatory analogy is perhaps worth replacing), but we can extend this metaphor even further. After all, the option is now on the table of obsolescing the need for fish at all, in a manner which simultaneously disarticulates reactionary political life and decentralizes the means of production; a praxis not only complementable by politicization, but actively composing it. It would therefore be a far more authentic and effective expression of unconditional aid to do the work that only transocialists could do: develop chlorogenesis as if it were life and death for revolutionary struggle. No matter my disagreements with their theoretical foundations, these libertarians will undoubtedly compose some of the most talented and militant technologists the world shall ever see.[10] By extension then, it should go without saying that the organization of healthcare workers, university students (especially bio-graduates), and biotechnical firms now shines even brighter as critically strategic labor struggles.

Does this mean then that mutual aid formations should shift all their attention to technologization? Not at all, for as I will explain in the next paragraph, that is not the party’s task. Rather, they should only organize the most strategically conditional aid: childcare and tutoring at party events, catering for party events (so we can stop buying expensive fast food and enjoy some licensed community cooking, perhaps even tasking our members in the military to retrieve foodstuffs and more at commissary prices), Spanish and ASL interpreters for party events, and so on for whatever can efficiently politicize. These tasks alone might occupy the capacity of some mutual aid groups, but by no means should their role stop there. Indeed, though I have and will emphasize the importance of the electoral struggle, DSA must have a role in strategically contributing to our collective ability to also wield power outside the state, a matter I will clarify near the end of this essay through the Medicorps concept.

Despite my critiques of horizontalists and their conception of mutual aid, it would also not help us to valorize the formalized party (let alone any party-state) as the be-all end-all of transocialism. Indeed, they are the least viable organizations for directly enacting its technical program. To paraphrase Vladimir Lenin in his What Is to Be Done? (1902), the principal activity of the party is what can and must be done in any situation, of calm and crisis, lifeworlds and deathworlds, core and periphery: political agitation. The organizer’s craft is language, communication, and psychology more than anything else, so no matter what they do in their own time, their place within that role is not to perform the biotechnical work themselves. Rather, it is to articulate the will of the people as embodied in a broader revolutionary agenda, to which proactive biotechnical investment (and salting those industries by extension) is only one critical component. Though I have emphasized the revolutionary potential of the chlorogen by their technical conditions, nothing should suggest that they have anything inherently more to add to our struggle than anyone else. Chlorogenesis therefore is not the urgent task of transocialism, and neither is any biotechnical work (save for bare survival). That honor must be owed to politicization, in articulating our collective desire for autonomy: how it is on all fronts tied to that of others,’ how fascism threatens the ability of all to exist outside its narrow, predatory homogeny, and how capitalism inevitably empowers these predators to skirt any law they write.[11] By directing the party’s focus away from that task, we would only dilute both our technical and political effectivity.[12]

One may ask then, what about the party-state, whose role is much more expansive? It is true, for example, that the People’s Republic of China’s premier pharmaceutical and biotechnology firm, Sinopharm, is a Fortune 500 company directly owned and managed by the central government. They certainly would have the resources to make at least some minor investment, but as I will argue, that is not their bottleneck. If we draw our metafigurative lens, we would see that the party-states of our history universally arose in the context of a colonial or autocratic hegemony, making their relative centralism adaptable in the context of wartime poverty and subsequent threat of imperialist intervention. This context in mind, it should be clear why the party-states in practice are far more likely to prioritize internal stability (i.e. social harmony), national or ethnic unity, addressing basic needs and infrastructure, or defending against imperialist intervention to run the risks of developing chlorogenesis or other xenotech (which are by definition destabilizing). In contrast then, for those in the productive cores (i.e. where relatively decentralized, democratic socialist approaches succeed), aggressive xenotechnologization is far more feasible. Therefore, we cannot and should not rely on anyone but those from within the empire to lead these efforts. We have both the means and the context for their destabilizing (by)products to catalyze the greatest benefit.

To this end, we should shore up no illusions about the short-term mechanisms for initiating this project at scale. Though we may reject their party-state form for a proportionally representative congress, the Chinese example has undoubtedly shown that, for a counterhegemonic socialism only in the nascent phase of its governance, market socialism is the car in our desert. This is not, however, a market socialism driven by any loyalty to the concept (or a binaric, stagist conception of development), but a frank acknowledgment of the informational-logistical crutch we must rely on to prioritize the democratization of the most critical industries first. Our immediate conjuncture thus demands some level of tacit cooperation with the relatively ausmotic, productive sectors of capital in order to mobilize a strong enough movement to nationalize the American industrial trifecta: data, finance, and energy.[13] To keep the argument concise for now, we may narrow this down to three main reasons (besides that data center nationalization is on the table right now). First, industries like biotech and agriculture have a relatively vested interest in political movements that dearticulate bioconservatism, due to the resulting growth in demand and output for their products, talent to their industry, and so on.[14] Second, policies which facilitate the flat growth of the relatively ausmotic private sectors may serve as a critical tool for staving off counterrevolution whilst proportionally expanding their unionized and public sector counterparts (trading short term reform for long term revolution, simply). And third, the nationalization of finance is far more enticing for industries with large positive externalities that only the state is incentivized to factor in, namely in green energy, biotech, and waste management.[15]

As with all praxis, metafiguration is a dialectical process: resolutions always comprise new contradictions, rather than fully abolishing them. We work within the state to dismantle the state, we utilize markets to abolish markets, and we use gravity to escape gravity. So difficult would it be to imagine otherwise, that we might as well call it transhistorical: we must bear our trash on the way to the dumpster. Our conversations thus should focus on addressing what that trash actually is, what paths we should take to minimize our bearing them, and when we have reached the dumpster at any particular conjuncture (including when we must take up our trash again if we find it strewn about overnight). In this sense, the strategic ambiguity of transocialism is not an attempt to confuse people, but rather the open admission that uncertainty is not the exception but the rule in politics, that all praxis is ultimately heuristic.

It should go without saying then that this heuristic must apply to the way we communicate. As I see it, this essay bears the most trash as it uses largely esoteric language and theories to argue mass politics (a characteristic that may hold for Geese writers in general), but this is only dangerous if we fail to recognize that it is limiting. My choice of terms and stylistic idiosyncrasies, for example, will likely not resonate with most people. That is intended, of course, for the purpose of this essay is more to test these varying ideas in order for their practical kernels to be workshopped and distilled for articles that are broadly accessible. If the spirit of transocialism is taken as I am intending, however, one would come away with the understanding that our purpose should not be to rote-repeat, but process theory as a scaffolding we gradually deconstruct in the process of becoming fluent in common sense rhetoric. In the transocialist context then, practically everything in this essay is just an elaborate way of arguing we should become photosynthesizers, abandon our dogmas, and set autonomy as our ethical center. You do not need any neologisms to describe that, so my use of them is only for the purpose of being theoretically exact, that their functional meaning is (to use a mathematical metaphor) only rounded off at the last step of popularization (i.e. after the theory has been adequately workshopped).

This of course begs the question: why then talk about the esoteric at all? Well, because everyone wants something esoteric, something specific to them as an individual. Indeed, given that the means to communicate will likely only become more accessible over time (thereby fragmenting media, what we call the long-tail effect), we must facilitate the development of a far larger array of messages aimed at drawing increasingly specific audiences into mass struggle. This could not, however, succeed through the formalized party alone, whose leaders are incentivized to develop more generally palatable lines on widely-felt issues (as they should). Even independent magazines like Geese and Jacobin could not deliver this needed breadth. Therefore, we should take a lesson from Progressive Victory and understand how utterly paramount it is that DSA leads in the creation of a multimedia machine that can challenge the far-right and build the socialist pole, and that it organizes a nationwide knowledge-sharing and support network for associated or independent-aligned content creators. Of course, edutainment could never replace the basic work of canvassing and in-person organizing, but people are far more likely to take that medicine if they can attach themselves to some sugar it is served with.

Aptly, this point should mark where we cross from theory to practice. Especially given how exhausted the point is now about applying our specific interests to the general struggle, it would be wrong and cowardly to conclude this essay here, lingering in the abstract. Indeed, it is precisely because the horizon transocialism paints is so bright that turning our eyes to the mundane contradictions of now becomes so important. Yes, we may take it that all praxis is heuristic, that all our claims to knowledge are tentative, but that does not mean we cannot move with passion and confidence on probability, that we cannot prescribe without hesitation: Trans people, not to mention anyone else in the crosshairs of fascism and climate collapse, will not survive without a sustained and immediately viable struggle to contest state power, the only structure capable of acting at speed to shift power to the people, health to the environment, and technologization to ausmosis. Of course, that is not to deemphasize the struggle on the shop floors and streets (indeed I will submit one critical intervention on this front), but our struggle is not merely a matter of ownership, rights, and redistribution. It is a struggle to build the biological infrastructure that would not only outlast any one administration, but renew the struggle itself. The concretization of the chlorogen will simultaneously reveal the necessity of revolutionary confrontation whilst positioning our movement in the defence of life. That biotechnical work could only begin at scale in the belly of the beast, under the umbrella of legality, but this is no legalist prescription. Indeed, the overground and underground must complement each other (separately, as oil and water in an engine) in order to strain the resources of imperial law by which ausmosis is constrained.

We can and must hold this flexibility whilst following the people as broadly as they adhere to one strategy over the other, and in the U.S. context, they undoubtedly view the struggle for democracy and socialism as centrally waged on the electoral front. Though it may only be one finger on the fist, it is our index finger in this context. Therefore we should emphasize that the Democratic “Party” in our current system is far less a party in itself (which has very limited means of controlling its members and electeds) than a nigh inseparable (but contestable) fixture of the current state apparatus, in a different but similar enough way that the Communist Party of China is to the People’s Republic of China. Of course, as should be well known by now, the Democratic and Republican ballot lines are anything but equivalent fixtures, so as “the rope which supports the hanged man,” transocialists in our conjuncture must support the hegemony of liberalism over fascism as today’s prerequisite for tomorrow’s question of socialism versus liberalism.[16] To use J. Ryder’s words from his “Icarus” (2025), “The ‘two-party duopoly’ that remains the thorn in the side of the communist left is not here fracturable in form but rather in its content [my emphasis],” the only matter of consequence if we call ourselves materialists. Therefore, to steer towards transocialism in the United States, to unlock the wheels of history and unbind our forms, we would find no overground vehicle better than Democratic Socialists of America. Needless to say then, join, if you have not already (dsausa.org/join).

Of course, it would still be inadequate to leave it at that, for three critical fights stand paramount for the future of our movement. The first is a matter of our leadership, both within DSA as well as our endorsees. For context, I work a culinary job, and every day when I go to work, I help to serve food and coffee to dozens of firefighters who could not be represented in the election of our National Political Committee. How could they, when only delegates have a say on their election, during summer when convention is held? These people are the front line fighters of the climate crisis, and are just about as producing class as you could possibly get, but how should we expect them to feel empowered by our organization if they are not represented? They should not have to join a call during their shift to be represented in DSA. They should not have to sacrifice any of their time to be represented in DSA, because their dues are the symbol of that sacrifice. There are so many valid reasons to list why regular people cannot regularly participate in DSA, but that would beat around the fundamental issue, that there is no invalid reason to be represented. That commitment is our fundamental struggle for democracy: to give voice to the people for the sole reason of their personhood. When we hand the ballot to someone who has never been to a DSA meeting in their life, we are saying to them “you matter, and you deserve this power no matter how much you talk to us, participate in our meetings, or join in our work.” But when we lay this power in the hands of our members, are we not encouraging them to seek out the people who could help them come to an informed decision? Are we not encouraging them to participate on their own terms? That is the mass power we are trying to embody, and by enacting One-Member-One-Vote for National Leadership and National Endorsements at DSA Convention in 2027, we may inspire even more.

Though procedural reforms like these will shape our work for the better, the work itself we choose will build or break our movement. For a while now, a consensus has matured in DSA around the concept of an “inside/outside” strategy, that struggles both within the state and without the state are necessary for effectively contesting power, most pointedly conveyed by the Groundwork slogan of “State Power, Strike Power, Street Power.” This is a good line, first and foremost, but we should soberly admit that DSA has lagged in our preparation for taking street power. Was DSA prepared and mobilized for BLM 2020 and Anti-ICE 2025? Was our presence felt and remembered? At best, not much, and one can easily guess a great part of why this is the case: it cannot join the struggle in the streets in defiance of U.S. law, lest it compromise its critical niche of providing a public space for socialist organizing and waging the electoral struggle. So given any organization must solidly commit to being either overground or underground, and that the masses broadly adhere to the overground struggle, DSA should follow. But this leaves the question: how then should our organization contribute to building revolutionary street power? Here transocialism may offer an answer: take the inside/outside strategy to its logical conclusion, and press the defense of life to the limits of legality.

In practice, this is to say that the rendering of healthcare should be DSA’s primary role in building street power, for what better way to signify the defense of life than the practice and aesthetic of healing? By taking the opportunity of Convention 2027 to construct a nationwide, volunteer corps of DSA medics (first-aid certified at least), operating under a shared visual identity, the tasks of protest healthcare and overground marshalling would be unified and nationally coordinated. Given the nature of rapid response, this corps would likely need to be placed under the direct authority of the co-chairs and around three bar-certified staff members (specifically tasked with setting membership standards, ensuring street readiness, and directing rapid response). Of course, the goal of this Medicorps (or whatever we call it) would not be to go out and say we passed out X number of bandages. Instead, it would operate on the implicit principle of legal maximalism: strategically expose the contradictions of state violence, put the world in touch with the communities on the ground through a media auxiliary, and learn alongside them to build the infrastructure for a sustained campaign. Not only would establishing this corps help DSA become protest ready and publicly visible, as well as providing a transparent space explicitly for cultivating cadre we could trust to represent the organization under intense scrutiny, it would lay the foundations of knowledge and materials for chlorogenesis, abortions, gender/species-affirming care, gunshot treatments, and more to still be available if legal channels were ever compromised.[17]

With these topics in mind, the most decisive question of DSA’s immediate future must undoubtedly be answered well before convention: on the matter of the presidency. Chapters across the country are already calling for one resounding candidate, who commands so much fame and popularity that we need not even mention their name. This candidate is the immediate vehicle for inspiring a world-historical wave of socialist organizing (and thereby ausmotic development), one that would undoubtedly carry far beyond our borders. Indeed, they have and will make egregious mistakes (on Palestine for one), but DSA does not intervene in the electoral struggle because we find virtual embodiments of our politics. We intervene to articulate and advance the leftmost boundary of what the people already see as viable, and their eyes only glance for a handful of candidates. We can endorse those who are fighting to win while recognizing that our role in their campaign is to develop lasting leaders, infrastructure, and morale beyond and despite the outcome. We can recognize that the presidency bears the most powerful contradictions for socialist governance, especially when not backed by a popular and legislative majority. But that absence alone should not preclude us from that fight, because the visibility of a viable fight is the condition for mass participation, including for downballot candidates. Our moment of unprecedented polycrisis demands an equally unprecedented boldness. To set DSA apart from all other parties that could distract and defuse the urgency of our times, we must demand that our local DSA chapters and the National Political Committee immediately resolve to declare their preliminary and day-1 support for the 2028 presidential campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

For an essay so focused on the role of biotechnology, the absence of any discussion on consent and the engineering of gametes and non-adults may seem conspicuous. It might even give off the impression that these issues are not important. Rather the opposite, it is because they are so in need of deep exploration that the matter could not be discussed today. The purpose of this work was exactly to illustrate that. Someone’s technologization will happen, whether or not we intervene, so as opposed to putting our heads in the sand on the real concerns and implications of governing the power to influence reproduction, we must face them head on and lead the conversation on the applications of biotechnology. One may worry in vain that we are not ready for these means, for their presence is what demands our adaptation, such as we adapt in turn through further technologization. Knowledge is power, but so does power bring knowledge. To shy away from production would be to shy away from both, and thereby from our responsibility to become the means of production and make the world possible.

But time is running out to reverse our course, for the gas chamber has been globalized. We are dying chicks in an unbroken egg, suffocating on the products of predatory ignorance, greed, and hubris. We do not have the luxury to wait for someone to save us, for too many people have already fallen to the addicting delirium of its vapors. To break into the kitchens of the world and turn off the gas, we must lie, cheat, and pay not one second to those who have not demonstrated any capacity to change. Transocialists must suffer no compromise, for real compassion lies in breaking every rule necessary for stopping the fires and waking the world. We cannot and should not force anyone to see meaning in our struggle for life, but just as we deliver naloxone to those in narcosis, consent is implied to bring the universe into consciousness.[18] Where trans mores caution from cracking another’s shell, transocialism acknowledges that we are now out of time to not intervene. The gas was left on, the fire call is ringing, and the engine is waiting. But when we get there, we must remember: we have the opportunity to not only turn off the gas, but to open the windows, let in the light, and inhale the most cleansing breath of all history. To this end, the trans and socialist movements should no longer be considered separate, for to birth the revolution, we must crack the world’s shell.

Notes

1: Here, it would be natural to ask: “what then functions to develop individual self-interest towards collective self-interest?” That is indeed the question, but to reach my answer in complete, we will first have to wade through several more articles before it could properly be contextualized.

2: To paraphrase cyberneticist Heinz Von Foerster, see 1991.

3: This is of course a part of why (despite my emphasis on a shift away from data center buildout) the nationalization of data and communication infrastructure is so important.

4: Indeed, if my readers identify any reek of determinism in my work, one should not hesitate to conclude it is the product of my failure to wholly internalize that anti-essentialism.

5: Yes, even capitalist landlords like Angie Nixon can produce socialist effects, perhaps even more than have whole DSA chapters in the same time. After all, was Marx’s original assertion not that the bourgeoisie was revolutionary relative to its time? Indeed, though we may expect their revolutionary character to continue fading over time, there are still small pockets of large and small capitalists that can be appealed to, even if we do not grant the task any significant emphasis.

6: Of course, I would reject that the Chinese situation has by any means devolved in net velocity, but the point here is to illustrate that campism can and has contributed to devolution in particular areas. Neither is it then to say that suppression of dissent is by any means unique to the USSR or PRC (indeed I would argue that the U.S. suppresses expression more effectively because its means of doing so are so structurally subtle and privately dispersed). To be frank then, this statement is far more about the (predominantly Western) microsects who engineer this binaric mode of thinking into naive, (often sexually) abusive, and cult-like loyalty.

7: Though by all means, we need not stop saying that predation affects hard-working people most of all. 

8: Morphocatalysis: a morphogenetic change in a system's structure conditioned by that system's contact or co-presence with another system, variable or event that neither causes the change in the sense of forcing an adaptation nor provides instructions directing that change in the sense of an organizational input.

9: One aspect transocialism may also add to the critique of libertarian socialism is first by the complexities of technologization. Our ends will at the very least require a great wealth of laboratories equipped for anything from genetic engineering to the production of vaccines for lethal pathogens. Should we distribute these laboratories to a swathe of independent locals, having only a weak confederacy to govern their standards of qualification, oversight, and security protocols? Could such standards reasonably be set by consensus decision making, especially in an unforeseen crisis? It would be akin to distributing a network of nuclear power plants in the same fashion, but in this case, bioengineering is actually necessary for the long haul. One may try to compare this argument to Engels’ “On Authority,” but unlike his fatalistic acceptance of authority’s permanence, transocialist technologization truly pays dividends in autonomy over time.

10: And to address the libertarians directly, I hope you do, not only because I think it is effective work, but because you all have so much more potential than is challenged by your average food distribution, which I say in full confidence as a survival culinary worker.

11: The ‘Epstein Class’ is only the present day particular of this predatory general, a pedophilic hegemony that never disappeared.

12: This being said, there is much to explore as to how party organizers might engage with biotechnical organizations (including cooperatives and nonprofits, private firms and their unions, graduate students, and faculty unions, to name a few), which I aim to cover more in future articles.

13: To systematize this approach in theoretical terms, transocialism augments the theory of the productive forces by centering the production of photosynthetic, trans-expansive life. Its technics lie not in the building of wealth, but of energy to harness through neural networks (not the Silicon Valley distortion of the term, but the actually existing, organic networks capable of interactions far beyond linear electrical gates).

14: Indeed, it is often forgotten that the fuel price crisis will only escalate from here, for once fossil fuels are depleted, their disappearance will be virtually permanent. This not only means that new supply solutions will need to be devised (namely in biofuels), but also new demand solutions (say, bioengineering more efficient crop ergonomics to reduce the need for fuel and labor).

15: These reasons are of course limited to the merely material (even bordering on an economist understanding of psychology), so a future essay is in the works to specifically explore our ideological engagement with the relatively revolutionary capitalists.

16: Of course, development is always uneven, so the central question will differ across contexts.  

17: Naturally, in the spirit of strategic mutual aid, a bail fund should accompany for arrested corpsmembers not in breach of discipline.

18: Of course, this statement is far more about the macro-scale than the life of the individual (and neither is it pro-natalist per se). Yes, we may deliver naloxone to a person with whom we otherwise have no context, but autonomy prevails in situations where we do. The individual’s right to dignified death and an advance directive necessarily complements the construction of a world we would want to live in.

Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998. https://construcciondeidentidades.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/giorgio_agamben-homo_sacer__sovereign_power_and_bare_life__-stanford_university_press1998.pdf.

Althusser, Louis. Machiavelli and Us. London, England: Verso Books, 1999.

Antonovsky, Aaron. Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979.

Aoki, Ryota, Yayoi Inui, Yoji Okabe, Mayuko Sato, Noriko Takeda-Kamiya, Kiminori Toyooka, Koki Sawada, Hayato Morita, Baptiste Genot, Shinichiro Maruyama, Tatsuya Tomo, Kintake Sonoike, and Sachihiro Matsunaga. “Incorporation of Photosynthetically Active Algal Chloroplasts in Cultured Mammalian Cells Towards Photosynthesis in Animals.” Proceedings of the Japan Academy, B, 100, no. 9 (October 31, 2024): 524–36. https://doi.org/10.2183/pjab.100.035.

Avila, Alexander. “Is There a ‘Trans Politics’? Not Yet.” Substack, August 28, 2026. https://alexanderavila.substack.com/p/is-there-a-trans-politics-not-yet.

Césaire, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. Paris, France: Éditions Réclame, 1950. https://files.libcom.org/files/zz_aime_cesaire_robin_d.g._kelley_discourse_on_colbook4me.org_.pdf.

Combahee River Collective. The Combahee River Collective Statement. Boston, Massachusetts, 1977. https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/. 

Democratic Socialists of America. “Workers Deserve More!” DSA Program, July 14, 2026. https://program.dsausa.org/.

Dempster, Beth. Sympoietic and Autopoietic Systems: A New Distinction for Self-Organizing Systems, January 2000. https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228566588_Sympoietic_and_autopoietic_systems_A_new_distinction_for_self-organizing_systems.

Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt. The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago, Illinois: A. C. McClurg, 1903. https://files.libcom.org/files/DuBois.pdf. 

Egan, Liam. “The Marxism of Crisis, The Crisis of Meaning.” Geese Magazine, May 4, 2026. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/the-marxism-of-crisis-and-the-crisis-of-meaning.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. “What Is Socialist Feminism?” Working Papers on Socialism and Feminism, 1976. https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/ehrenreich-barbara/socialist-feminism.htm. 

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Paris, France: François Maspero, 1961. https://monoskop.org/images/6/6b/Fanon_Frantz_The_Wretched_of_the_Earth_1963.pdf. 

Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism. London, England: Zero Books, 2009. https://files.libcom.org/files/[Mark_Fisher]_Capitalist_Realism_Is_There_no_Alte(BookZZ.org).pdf 

Foerster, Heinz Von. “Ethics and Second-Order Cybernetics.” Pangaro.com. Speech, 1991. https://pangaro.com/hciiseminar2019/Heinz_von_Foerster-Ethics_and_Second-order_Cybernetics.pdf.

Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France. Manhattan, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1976. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/d/37602/files/2016/01/Foucault-Society-must-be-defended14032016.pdf. 

François, Charles. “Morphocatalysis.” In International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. Vienna, Austria: Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, 2004. http://systemspedia.bcsss.org/?title=morphocatalysis.

Freeman, Jo. “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm, 1972.

Fuming, Hu. “Practice Is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth.” Guangming Daily, May 11, 1978.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Rome, Italy: Istituto Gramsci, 1947. https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/gramsci-prison-notebooks.pdf.

Gandakin, P.K. “The Concept of Class in Politics.” Geese Magazine, January 27, 2026. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/the-critique-of-economism-in-marxs-critique-of-hegels-philosophy-of-right.

Gandakin, P.K. “Towards Active Revolution: Populism and the Proletarian Revolution.” Geese Magazine, July 6, 2026. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/towards-active-revolution-populism-and-the-proletarian-revolution.

Hall, Stuart. “Re-Thinking the ‘Base-and-Superstructure’ Metaphor.” Communist University of London. Lecture, 1977. https://pages.mtu.edu/~jdslack/readings/CSReadings/Hall_Rethinking_Base-n-Superstructure_Metaphor.pdf.

Haraway, Donna. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s.” Socialist Review 15, 1985. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto.

Haraway, Donna. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Cthulucene. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2016. https://media.icamiami.org/2020/07/c93615e4-haraway.-staying-with-the-trouble_-making-kin-in-the-chthulucene.pdf. 

Harris, Bradford. “Evolution’s Other Narrative.” American Scientist 101, no. 6 (2013): 410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1511/2013.105.410.

Hartsock, Nancy. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” Synthese Library, Discovering Reality, 161 (n.d.): 283. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48017-4_15.

Hunter, Matthew. “The Missing Revolution of the 21st Century: Horizontalism & Anarchism vs the Communist Party Structure.” Geese Magazine, July 24, 2026. https://geesemag.com/articles/the-missing-revolution-of-the-21st-century-horizontalism--anarchism-vs-the-communist-party-structure.

Jackson, Zakiyyah. “Outer Worlds: The Persistence of Race in Movement ‘Beyond the Human.’” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, Queer Inhumanisms, 21 (July 2015): 215–18. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/582032. 

Kapp, Ernst, Jeffrey West Kirkwood, Leif Weatherby, and Lauren K. Wolfe. Elements of a Philosophy of Technology: On the Evolutionary History of Culture. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2018.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf Canada, 2007. https://selforganizedseminar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/naomi-klein-the-shock-doctrine.pdf. 

Ludwig, Kolya. “The Second Light of Hegemony: Rediscovering the Mass Subject after Ultra-Leftism” Geese Magazine, 2026. https://geesemag.com/articles/the-second-light-of-hegemony-rediscovering-the-mass-subject-after-ultra-leftism. 

Kovel, Joel, and Michael Löwy. An Ecosocialist Manifesto. Vincennes, France, 2001. https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article2278. 

Laboria Cuboniks. “Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation.” Laboria Cuboniks, 2015. https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/xenofeminism-a-politics-for-alienation/.

Laclau, Ernesto. Emancipation(s). New York City, New York: Verso Books, 1996.

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London, England: Verso, 1985. https://files.libcom.org/files/ernesto-laclau-hegemony-and-socialist-strategy-towards-a-radical-democratic-politics.compressed.pdf. 

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. “Post-Marxism without Apologies.” New Left Review 1, no. 166 (November 30, 1987): 79–106. https://doi.org/10.64590/yb0. https://monoskop.org/images/9/98/Laclau_Ernesto_Mouffe_Chantal_1987_Post-Marxism_without_Apologies.pdf. 

Lavanderos, Leonardo, and Alejandro Malpartida. “Life as a Relational Unit, the Process of Ecopoiesis.” Kybernetes 53, no. 12 (September 2023): 5047–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2023-0859. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374317049_Life_as_a_relational_unit_the_process_of_ecopoiesis. 

Lenin, Vladimir. What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement. Iskra, 1902. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm.

M, Nik. “We Will Build: The Green New Deal and ‘Producer Populism.’” Geese Magazine, February 20, 2026. https://geesemag.com/articles/we-will-build. 

Margulis, Lynn. “On the Origin of Mitosing Cells.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 14, no. 3 (March 1967): 225–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3. https://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Origin-of-life/Lynn-Margulis-Sagan-1967.pdf.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. London, England: Communist Workers’ Educational Association, 1848. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf. 

Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Progress Publishers, 1859. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm. 

Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, 1932. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf. 

Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Marx-Engels Institute, 1932. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm.

Marx, Leo. “Technology : The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept.” Technology and Culture 51, no. 3 (July 2010): 561–77. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2010.0009. https://www.its.caltech.edu/~haugen/MarxTechnology2010.pdf.

Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria S.A., 1972. https://www.columbia.edu/cu/tract/projects/complexity-theory/varela-autopoesis-and-cogni.pdf.

Mbembe, Achille. “Necropolitics.” Public Culture 15, no. 1 (January 2003): 11–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11. https://web.archive.org/web/20151010043651/https://www.dartmouth.edu/~lhc/docs/achillembembe.pdf. 

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. In Praise of Philosophy. Paris, France: Éditions Gallimard, 1953.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Paris, France: Éditions Gallimard, 1945. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Phenomenology-of-Perception-by-Maurice-Merleau-Ponty.pdf. 

Miliband, Ralph. Marxism and Politics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1977. https://files.libcom.org/files/Ralph%20Miliband%20-%20Marxism%20and%20Politics.pdf. 

Molnárfi, László. “What Is Dialectical Materialism?” Geese Magazine, August 29, 2025. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/what-is-dialectical-materialism-lazslo. 

Moon, T.E. “Communism Is Already Here. We Just Have to Take It.” Geese Magazine, April 17, 2026. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/communism-is-already-here-we-just-have-to-take-it.

Puar, Jasbir. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2007.

Ryder, J. “The Paradox of Icarus: Why Communists Should Vote for Democrats.” Geese Magazine, February 13, 2025. https://www.geesemag.com/articles/the-paradox-of-icarus-why-communists-should-vote-for-democrats.

Shannon, Claude. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal 27 (July 1948): 379–423. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf.

Táíwò, Olúfẹ́mi. Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else). Chicago, Illinois: Haymarket Books, 2022.

Vernadsky, Vladimir. “The Biosphere and the Noösphere.” American Scientist 33, no. 1 (January 1945). https://monoskop.org/images/5/59/Vernadsky_WI_1945_The_Biosphere_and_the_Noosphere.pdf 

Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. https://monoskop.org/images/6/60/Wiener_Norbert_The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings_1989.pdf. 

Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (Winter 1980): 121–36. https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652. https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf.