The Constitution of Social Progress

The Constitution of Social Progress

This post is part of our symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Blake Emerson–

Willy Forbath has drawn inspiration from the Weimar Republic to envision a socialist constitutionalism that would restructure the economy on a democratic basis. Sam Moyn has argued in response that the left ought to avoid constitutional law, which has usually posed an obstacle to progress, and instead focus directly on the political task of furthering material equality. As a scholar of administrative law, I’m sympathetic to the urge to keep constitutional law out of the way and make space for both democratic politics and practical know-how. But constitutionalism sits at the commanding heights of law. That framework of governing structures, rights, and ideals shouldn’t be abandoned to right-wing and liberal-centrist construction. Socialists and progressives instead ought to embrace a constitutional vision in which legislative and executive power give effect to the spirit of democratic equality that underlies but outruns the Constitution’s text.

The Weimar example Forbath invokes shares some common intellectual origins with the American Progressive tradition. As I show in The Public’s Law, Progressives like John Dewey, Mary Follett, and Frank Goodnow drew inspiration from earlier German constitutional models, in which an activist state would be governed by legislative norms, staffed by a professional bureaucracy, and ballasted by a corporatist organization of the economy. The Progressives sought to reconcile the German bureaucratic state with American popular sovereignty by creating highly participatory administrative processes. Regulatory agencies would empower trade unions, industrial associations, and consumers to help shape government policy.

Continue reading

On Socializing the Constitution of Economic Coordination

On Socializing the Constitution of Economic Coordination

This post is part of our symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Sanjukta Paul–

Professor Forbath’s essay, drawing from his research into the Weimar Constitution, urges us to reconsider what we mean both by socialism and by constitutionalism. He recovers and makes vivid a socialist vision that is neither about (simply or necessarily) “nationalizing” industry nor only about redistributing the material benefits of economic activity, but about creating participatory structures of decision-making across both the “public” and “private” spheres that empower workers and others who are currently largely excluded from it: in short, robust economic democracy. The essay also hints toward a broader sense of “constitutionalism,” encompassing not only the drafting and interpretation of public constitutions, but also the re-constitution of putatively private or semi-private associations like business corporations and labor unions. These two reorientations are connected by one of the grounding LPE principles: that law constitutes markets. Centering the constitutive power of law destabilizes the usual public/private distinction and enables a vision of socialism that incorporates transformative reforms to “private” entities—and that has room for localism and decentralization, where appropriate.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup: June 26, 2020

This week, The Blog hosted the first part of a symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Willy Forbath kicked off the series with a twopart post revisiting the Weimar constitution and its efforts to create a structure for worker participation in multiple levels of government, including in the firm.

Sam Moyn responded with notes of skepticism about Weimar. He posits that the global economy was so different from its current structure that old attempts at economic democracy may not have much to teach and he wonders whether the socialist left should be concerned about constitutions should it take power.

Álvaro Santos introduced skepticism by examining the history of the Mexican constitution, which Forbath also held up as an example worth revisiting. He points out that the constitution hardened into a regime of corrupt single-party rule, due in part to flaws in its initial design.

These initial posts so inspired certain readers of the blog that they’re typing responses even as we type this! So stay tuned for more discussion about the relationship between socialism and constitutionalism. And let us know if you want to join the conversation:


If you must go elsewhere in the internet, here are some of our suggestions:

Isabel Echarte: Given that we are seem to be in the early stages of what I hope will be a long and deep racial justice movement, I wanted to share from Bayard Rustin’s reflections on the Civil Rights Movement in 1965 where he asked “What is the value of winning access to public accommodations for those who lack money to use them?” He wrote: “It is institutions-social, political, and economic institutions—which are the ultimate molders of collective sentiments. Let these institutions be reconstructed today, and let the ineluctable gradualism of history govern the formation of a new psychology. . . . A handful of Negroes, acting alone, could integrate a lunch counter by strategically locating their bodies so as directly to interrupt the operation of the proprietor’s will; their numbers were relatively unimportant…. But in arriving at a political decision, numbers and organizations are crucial, especially for the economically disenfranchised.” His discussion is far deeper than that, but there were far too many great quotes for me to reproduce my favorites here. You’ll just have to check it out yourself!

And lastly, here’s a winter 2020 conversation between Jedediah Britton-Purdy and Aziz Rana in Dissent, where they discuss, among many subjects, how to build a “transformative majority” in the U.S. Rana argues the goal of revolutionary reforms or non-reformist reforms that the left wants to put in place “is to alter the basic distribution of power in society and make it harder for an unequal social order to reproduce itself. The point is not to offer a technocratic fix to markets or institutions, but to improvise something properly democratic from within the existing system. At a time of elite fracture and rule by what amounts to a wealthy and white national minority, I see no alternative.”

Sarang: This week, I felt like it was a good idea to return to the work of E.P. Thompson to make sense of the moral economy, fair market practices, the crowd, and the rule of law. Regarding the rule of law, I often like to return to the conclusion of Thompson’s Whigs and Hunters (for those who want a PDF of just this section, feel free to e-mail me at, a short history of the notorious Black Act in early 18th century England. Thompson’s conclusion to the book was a response to the wave of 1970s Neo-Marxists historians who would have perhaps objected to the presentation of law in his book  as more than the mere instrument of the powerful against the powerless to the foresters and villagers at the heart of Thompson’s story. Law matters, Thompson seeks to remind us. It is itself a site of social struggle, and a forum in which even the powerless sought to formulate what was owed to them and what was just, despite the fact that the law was seldom in their favor. I don’t totally agree with Thompson’s arguments in this section, but still believe that every law student disillusioned by a typical legal education ought to read it and engage with it critically.

I also revisited Thompson’s classic “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century.” In this essay, Thompson reveals how the term “food riot” obscures the complexities of the crowd’s vindication of justice in light of shortages and conceals the rich and dense tissue of relationships underpinning the local production of food and the workings of village marketplaces, the failings of which cause these uprisings.Apart from a first-glance relevance to recent uprisings against police violence, Thompson’s essay also helps us explore how the “free market” is indeed a construction, one that took years to displace a more stable, long-lasting networked system of just prices and fair market practices. Per Thompson, we should be asking, as did the pre-moderns did before Adam Smith, “What ought to be men’s reciprocal duties?” rather than saying “This is the way things work, or would work if the State did not interfere.” As we continue to devise what a just economy looks like in the coming years, I believe it is important to turn our attention to these reciprocal duties and allow our thinking to be ventilated and lit by the practices of the past.

Caroline Parker: In climate justice news…

On Wednesday, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison announced that the state is suing Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) for  knowingly misleading the public about fossil fuels and climate change. While several localities have already pending public nuisance claims against Exxon, Minnesota’s approach, which relies on state consumer protection laws, is novel and exciting. (Amy Westervelt explains why)

Banks, insurers, and homebuyers are beginning to respond to the specter of climate change with respect to coastal real estate. This week, the NYT analyzed of how this behavior will affect the social institution of the American mortgage. While the Times article doesn’t address demographic disparities, Black communities are often hardest-hit by coastal flooding, especially in the South. Looking ahead to hurricane season, Rev. Lennox Yearwood of Hip Hop Caucus called this “the next disaster for Black communities.”  

On a related note, Stacy Abrams think tank has released a plan for decarbonization in the South, which lags behind other regions despite its geographic vulnerability to climate change. As Dharna Noor explains, “climate inaction in the South is due in large part to fossil fuel and utility companies’ stronghold on state politics.”

And on the child welfare front…

Paul Renfro reviews a new book by feminist historian Laura Briggs new book, which examines “child taking” throughout American history. Her book situates the Trump administration’s family separation as part of a long history of family dispossession in America that includes chattel slavery, coercive apprenticiship, and child welfare.

Anna Wherry: The Movement for Family Power released a report on the foster system’s complicity in the U.S. drug war. As the movement to defund and disestablish the police continues to grow and as we work toward racial justice, we must also consider how the “child welfare” system functions as an institution of racial oppression. The report does more than diagnose the problem; it also offers recommendations to each of the actors involved in child welfare–from the courts and attorneys to hospitals and service providers–and urges the federal government to repeal ASFA and take other radical legal and policy changes. 

On father’s day, The Boston Review published several pieces on the family. I particularly enjoyed Nara Milanich’s article on the rise of the rapid paternity test market, and this piece on what we owe fathers in prison and on policies that would support their efforts to continue parenting.

And finally, this interview with Aya Gruber on her new book that examines the role of women’s liberation in mass incarceration.

Luke Herrine: This week I’m recommending articles that…[gasp]…haven’t read yet! But my aspirations can be yours.

At AMRI Summer Academy this past week, Bill Novak shouted out this article from Dalia Tsuk Mitchell on the legacy of Berle and Means. When fellow AMRI attendee Kate Jackson (who has promised us a contribution!) mentioned that this same article was the reason she quit corporate legal practice to get a PhD, I knew I had to give it a look.

Raúl Carrillo published a characteristically thoughtful article on monetary sanctions and racial taxation in Ferguson beyond that speaks to the current moment. As always (from the first pages I’ve read!), Raúl mixes sophisticated understanding of monetary plumbing with a rich knowledge of America’s history of race- and class-based exploitation to reorient thinking on seemingly arcane subjects.

Benjamin Braun released an article on “asset-manager capitalism” that attempts to reorient current understandings of how control over the social provisioning process is currently exercised. Looks like foundational work for anybody interested in anything from antitrust to corporate law to financial law to, you know, the law and political economy. Its approach reminds me of this excellent paper from Samueul Knafo and Sahil Jai Dutta rethinking the “shareholder revolution” in corporate governance–both pushing the timeline back to include conglomeratization and focusing on political struggles over control of the firm.

Oh, and speaking of articles I have read: Charlie Eaton, who has done the most interesting work on the structure of university finances I’m aware of, has an (older) op-ed on how universities should be spending down endowments during the current crisis.

Socialism Past and Future – or Socialism is Past, and the Future?

This post is part of our symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Álvaro Santos –

socialist roseForbath’s timely essay revisits the history of socialism in the hopes of informing a possible future. He calls our attention to the legal ideas and institutions that gave form to social democracy as a compromise between socialism with liberalism. Inspired by this past, Forbath calls for a political economy analysis of constitutionalism, which constitutional scholars seem to have traded for an obsession with separation of powers and federalism questions. When scholars do look at questions of welfare, they focus on the judicialization of social and economic rights. Moreover, he argues, these scholars tend to look at early 20th century social rights as the inchoate form of more robust and justiciable modern ones. Forbath defies this narrative persuasively and compels us to look at the ambition, vision and craft of the social jurists. In his telling, Weimar is not a cautionary tale but an opportunity for a do over. There’s much to like, and learn, from rekindling this vision of social democracy. In what follows, I invite other characters to this story, drawing from Mexico’s constitutional history, and raise a few questions about the limits of the social democratic bequest as a compass for our imagination.

A central point of the essay is the rejection of today’s institutional lenses to analyze the social democratic past. Forbath makes clear that those early constitutions of Weimar (and Mexico), as well as the new legal regimes and regulatory bodies they inaugurated, were not centered on courts. In fact, they were often suspicious of courts. Their agenda relied more on the agencies of the administrative state, its bureaucracy and expertise. Forbath is eager for us to replicate the social jurists’ ambition and their work of legal engineering.

I wonder, however, whether contemporary scholars’ court-centric vision of constitutional law limits their attention to questions of political economy. Constitutionalists may have a narrow field of vision because their work centers on whether issues are justiciable in the first place, so that those big old questions of distribution of power and authority between capital and labor, of institutional mechanisms for sorting out conflict and inducing cooperation, and of the mediating and managing role of the state in the economy, are rarely reached. It seems that from Forbath’s perspective, contemporary constitutional scholars wishing that social democracy was here may have exchanged “a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage,”

Continue reading

The Relevance of Weimar

This post is part of our symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Samuel Moyn –

socialist roseWilly Forbath’s return to the Weimar Constitution is inspiring. I will just point out of a couple of limits to turning back to it in the present — limits that strike me as difficult to overcome. First, the Weimar Constitution’s nod to worker empowerment presupposed the structure of the (local and global) economy in 1919, now almost unimaginably different; second, it does not follow from the fact that progressive political economy is a priority that constitutionalizing socialist principles is too.

In the past generation, especially after September 11, the Weimar text was invoked principally as a cautionary lesson about what happens when emergency powers become devices for scuttling liberal democracy. As Forbath observes, there was a lot more to the Weimar constitution than that. It ought to be canonical for another reason, which is its commitment to worker empowerment, or even some version of “socialism.”

Forbath is right to challenge “Whiggish” histories that forget the desire for “big structural change” at a time of a massive mobilized working class, in a country with a socialist party, at a moment when a caesura in national history opened new possibilities. For sure, the Weimar Constitution was not the birth certificate of contemporary juristocracy, which finds its highest aspirational goal in celebrating the potential of judges to fulfill economic and social rights, or even to strike a blow for distributional equality. As Forbath says, notwithstanding important substantive moral goals constitutions can register, they succeed or fail as devices of the organization and use of power, including for ends not foreseen at the outset. And Weimar’s was promising because it was written with worker empowerment in mind.

Continue reading

Socialism Past and Future (Part II of II)

This is the second of two introductory posts in our symposium on socialist constitutionalism.

Willy Forbath –

socialist roseIn my last post, I began a discussion of the Weimar Constitution as one of the first constitutions containing provisions for social and economic rights (SER), and perhaps the very first one, in which socialists had an important hand drafting and expounding. The literature on constitutional SER misses a great deal when it casts the Weimar Constitution as a weak, infant version of later SER constitutions, which grew stronger over time.

Recently, I have been looking at the Weimar Constitution and the writings of the drafters of and commentators on its social law provisions.   The social law portions of the Weimar Constitution are not a baby version of the grown-up post-World War II welfare rights constitution.   The social law provisions of the Weimar Constitution included rights, but they were chiefly about structures and powers. They outlined an interlocking framework of rights, structures and powers that aimed to empower workers and other lower class and subordinate groups to participate on an increasingly equal footing in running individual firms and in shaping and governing the broader political economy. The constitutional vehicles here were both trade unions and also a federated structure of democratically constituted workers’ councils at local, regional and national levels of economic governance. Workers in Bavaria and elsewhere waged bitter general strikes demanding that councils find a place in the Constitution; and they succeeded.

Continue reading

Socialism Past and Future (Part I of II)

This is the first of two introductory posts in our symposium on socialist constitutionalism

Willy Forbath –

socialist roseSocialism is back. But what is socialism? We have forgotten a lot about what it meant in its salad days, a century ago. And what we have forgotten may include what might be compelling today.

Universal health care and basic income, public investment in green industry and infrastructure, radical changes in corporate governance, nationalizing fossil fuel: To skeptics and foes, all these ideas smack of socialism. What about those of us who support them? Does that make us socialists? What are the stakes in revisiting, and maybe reinventing, the socialist tradition?

This series of two blog posts is a rough, tentative, brief first pass at that question, using a bit of comparative constitutional law and history.  Comparative constitutionalists are like everyone in forgetting much of what socialism – and socialist constitutions – were about in their heyday.   I’ll point out a couple big, forgotten things that seem worth remembering in a time of democratic disrepair.

To generalize vastly, socialism is usually seen as falling into two varieties:

(A) State Socialism – which means government ownership of the means of production. The Soviet Union was one version of this. Nationalized industries, like railroads or oil, in many parts of globe, are another version.

(B) Social Democracy – which means a Northern European style welfare state: public provision of social goods and social insurance. When Bernie Sanders talks about democratic socialism, this is what he talks about. Healthcare for all; free higher education for all; and tax the rich to pay for the universal provision of these and other social goods.

Neither notion is exactly wrong.   But neither one captures the core meaning of socialism in its historical heyday – not in the US; nor in Europe. And from what little I know (readers will correct me, I hope), not in Latin America, either.

Instead, the core meaning was something like this: Socialism means the extension of democracy and democratic institutions into economic life. Liberal democracy could not deliver on its promises of liberty and equality unless the precepts of democracy and republican self-rule were extended from the sphere of politics into the sphere of social and economic life.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup: June 18 (Juneteenth), 2020

Happy Juneteenth, everybody. See y’all in the streets.

Look, we’re doing our second weekly roundup in a row! Surely this will last forever.

This week at the blog:

Brian Highsmith (returning LPE champion) explored the promise of and barriers to restructuring state budgets in this abolitionist moment.

Amna Akbar reflected on the abolitionist moment at the New York Review of Books, and we cross-posted.

We announced an exciting event–the second in our summer video series–on how law constructs (and might deconstruct) geographic inequality, featuring Team Vanderbilt: Ganesh Sitaraman, Morgan Ricks, and Christopher Serkin. Sign up to join us!
And here’s some oases we’ve been relishing elsewhere in the vast wasteland of the WorldWide Web:

Anna Wherry:

Sunaura Taylor writes in The Boston Review, on the imbrication of human and non-human animals and how and how we must think of public health and environmental protection as problems to be addressed together. In the early twentieth century, environmental health, public health, and occupational health were considered to be one discipline; separating these into discret fields has had implications for the working class and poor. Taylor challenges the U.S.’s approach to the pandemic that denies connections and interdependencies and pushes us to “rethink the separation of human health from the health of our environments and social welfare systems.” 

Julia Marcus and Gregg Gonsalves explain in the Atlantic why it’s imperative that public health experts support Black Lives Matter protests. Gonsalves offers protesters some specific lessons from the ACT UP era in his interview with New York Magazine

The Marshall Project on why fears that child abuse might be secretly rising during the pandemic could lead to further policing of communities of color.

Outside my beat, but…

Paris Marx in Jacobin proposes using the current crisis in public transit to nationalize and redirect resources away from air toward rail and bus.

Atiya Husain argues that international counterterror and counterinsurgency campaigns should be washed away in the abolitionist wave.

Caroline Parker:

Amidst proposals to transfer police authority and funding elsewhere, Dorothy Roberts warns against reforms that would redirect power to health and human services agencies. Like the criminal legal system, the “foster industrial complex” functions to “regulate millions of marginalized people through intrusive investigations, monitoring and forcible removal of children.” Reforms that would grow CPS trade one set of carceral institutions for another. 

ProPublica reports on the separation of Native American mothers from their newborns under targeted zipcode-based screening policy for COVID-19. For tribal advocates, this policy evokes a long history of Native American child removals justified by pretextual concerns about child safety.

During the last few weeks, many “big green” organizations have reckoned publicly with the history of white supremacy in mainstream environmentalism and released statements of solidarity. For a deeper dive into this history, check this 2015 article by LPE’s own Jed Purdy on the racist roots of the conservation movement.

Essayists Mary Annaïse Heglar (@MaryHeglar) and Amy Westervelt’s (@amywestervelt) write funny, poignant, and terrifying things about the climate crisis. Their weekly Hot Takes digest, which usually requires a subscription, is free this week.

Luke Herrine:

If you have any interest in monetary policy–or curiosity about how much of the federal response to the economic crisis brought on by COVID has been carried out by the Fed–you must already be reading friend-of-the-blog Nathan Tankus’s Substack religiously. To get a sense of his sharpness, check out his fisking of eminent banking law professor Frank Partnoy’s article arguing that we may be facing a looming crisis of securitized corporate debt in The Atlantic. After Partnoy responded on Twitter, Nathan followed up.

Nathan also wrote a well-argued and provocative piece in the American Prospect this week–which has been running an excellent series on COVID policy response, by the way–about how riots produce good economic policy by instilling fear into economic policy makers. We almost got him to post it here at The Blog. Better luck next time!

Speaking of The Blog, former Fearless Leader (whose huge shoes I currently try to fill) Kate Reburn just published an elegant piece explaining the importance of the Bostock decision over at Jacobin. Kate has also promised us some exclusive Bostock-related Blog content!

Over at our semi-rivalrous (and relatively autonomous) sibling blog, Legal Form, August Nimtz asks why there is no police brutality in Cuba and what that says about the comparative civil liberties records of the US and its tenacious Communist neighbor.


Exclusive dealing agreements are a way dominant firms restrain less dominant firms in a variety of business activities: buying from other sellers, selling to particular buyers, charging a different price for certain products or services, and even the way the business itself is run (opening hours, branding, what workers are paid, etc.). 

Often used by powerful franchisors like McDonald’s or Quiznos on less powerful franchisees, a growing body of work has raised awareness of both the harm these agreements pose to workers (especially those classed as independent contractors) and small businesses, and the ways antitrust law has historically (and still could) redress this imbalance of power.

In “Antitrust, the Gig Economy, and Labor Market Power,” economist Marshall Steinbaum discusses how by muddling the legal boundaries of the firm, exclusive dealing arrangements weaken the protections afforded by labor law to workers while also leaving workers who seek to organize themselves more susceptible to antitrust violations.

Brian Callaci of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth explores the legal creation of franchising, noting that business form franchising as we know it today would not exist were it not for political pressures on the Small Business Administration to provide cheap financing to cookie-cutter franchisees and a loosening of per se illegality of vertical restraints by the Supreme Court (under the growing influence of Chicago School doctrine).

Finally, ever wonder why antitrust law is hostile to proto-unions of local piano tuners, but perfectly happy to let giant pharmaceutical companies merge into a giant behemoth? Sanjukta Paul plumbs the history of antitrust law in the formative era (as in James May’s classic study) and beyond to revive the idea that antitrust law primarily serves to allocate economic coordination rights. Recently called the “Ronald Coase of our time” by an esteemed colleague, Paul’s work is a must-read for understanding the LPE horizon of antitrust law.

Isabel Echarte:

Because government budgets and funding priorities have come under intense scrutiny as activists demand that officials #DefundthePolice, I was reading up on state and local budgets. Amna Akbar’s piece in the NYRB (which we posted about earlier but which deserves another mention) outlines how decades of activism and organizing have put prison abolition on the “horizon” while drawing attention to the disproportionate share of local budgets dedicated to policing. 

But beyond learning how the spending of local dollars became politicized, I wanted to read up on how that revenue is raised. Last month, Andrew Kahrl wrote about how some municipalities have used property taxes sales and tax lien foreclosures to target low income communities and communities of color: he says, “Thurgood Marshall characterized tax sales as a form of racialized plunder, which he lamented, ‘is almost completely within the letter of the law.’” Many cities will sell delinquent taxes in bulk to debt buyers who can often collect exorbitant interest rates, as high as 50 percent, and foreclosure on homes when the owner is just a couple hundred dollars behind on taxes. 

And in 2015, Walter Johnson traced how Ferguson, Missouri came to rely “on its cops and its courts to extract millions in fines and fees from its poorest residents. These readings also made me think about Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s classic Golden Gulag–which points to the California budget’s (right wing) politicization as one reason behind the development of the carceral state. And to close with a small nugget of something hopeful: check out how the Federal Reserve can solve all state and local governments’ budget woes. If it wanted to (yes, there is a magic button that can solve all our financial woes).

Zoom Event Next Wednesday: “Regulation and the Geography of Inequality” with Sitaraman Ricks, and Serkin

Zoom Event Next Wednesday: “Regulation and the Geography of Inequality” with Sitaraman Ricks, and Serkin

The LPE Project is hosting Zoom-based conversations with leading scholars throughout the summer (full schedule & details still coming soon!). Our second event will take place, June 24th at 8pm ET with Ganesh Sitaraman, Morgan Ricks, and Christopher Serkin, discussing their forthcoming article “Regulation and the Geography of Inequality.” In it, they argue that the dominant explanations for widening geographic inequality focusing largely on inexorable economic trends leave out a crucial factor: the effects of specific regulatory choices on economic geography. They argue regulatory policies in the areas of transportation, communications, trade, and antitrust helped construct an era of geographic convergence in the mid-twentieth century, and that deregulation in those same areas contributed to the rise of geographic inequality over the last generation. They then make the case for reincorporating geographic factors into federal regulatory policymaking as a means of combatting rising geographic inequality.

This is a read-ahead event (the article is available here), the authors will speak briefly at the beginning of the workshop but then go straight into Q&A.  Please register via this Google form and a zoom link will be distributed the morning of the event.



Read Amna Akbar on the Abolitionist Moment at NYRB!

We are assured Amna will have more to say here at the Blog, but for now check out her account of the abolitionist movement has developed into the type of coalition that can make real change in this moment.

From the conclusion: “The struggle for abolition belongs to a broader push to rewrite the social contract, including efforts to cancel student debt, tax the wealthy, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and the Red Deal. Over the years, I have heard organizers rally around “not one more dollar” or “starve the beast.” Now, more and more, you hear “care, not cops.” That new slogan embodies the abolitionist horizon, not simply to dismantle prisons and policing, but to build alternate forms of community care and collective provision for all.”

Or take it from Keeanga Yamahatta-Taylor: