Thanks to a small handful of Democrats, mainly in the Senate, and, of course, every Republican in both chambers, a break from neoliberalism – trickle down economics, an obsession for price stability over full employment, lavish tax handouts to the 1 per cent, means testing, an insistence on market coordination of the economy, not, God forbid, robust government intervention. the organization of a coordinated assault on labor, and the enactment of policies designed to severely aggravate inequality – is proving to be more difficult than I expected a few months ago. It’s ironic, to put it nicely, that the fate of so many is dependent on decisions of so few.

Any resolution of this impasse will depend not only on what happens in Washington, but across the country as well. Street heat at this moment will likely make the difference between a break from neoliberalism or its adaptation to new circumstances.

With so much at stake and the margin so thin between victory and defeat or, to put it differently, between political progress or severe political retrogression, one would think that the diverse coalition that elected President Biden and its movers and shakers would be engaged in massive joint actions in support of his domestic agenda. I said a few months ago that the present and future prospects of that coalition, not to mention the country, depend on the success of the Biden administration in legislating its domestic agenda – infrastructure renewal to voting rights to jobs to union rights to criminal justice and immigration reform to climate action and more – in the face of fierce Republican opposition. That is still true.

To paraphrase Marx, the weapon of criticism and insider lobbying at this moment should take a back seat to the weapon of joint and massive mobilizations in support of the legislative measures of the administration, which will, in turn, position Democrats to increase their congressional majorities in the elections next year.

Herein lies the core element of the “independent” role of the broader movement at this moment, not critiquing from the sideline, not each exclusively engaged in their own separate initiatives, as good as they may be.

It may not have been the proximate cause, but I have to think that the economic, social, cultural, and intellectual vibrancy of Tulsa’s Black community gave the racist massacre in Tulsa in 1921 an intensity seldom seen. It must have been a too unambiguous refutation of the Big LIe of racism, that is, African American people are innately inferior, for the Black  community in Tulsa’s Greenwood District not to escape the wrath of white racists in high as well as low places in Tulsa.

After all, this lie is the ideological underpinning of a whole system and structure of racism as well as the rationale for white privilege, corporate superprofits, and warmaking. Though the rationalizations for racism and inequality evolve and adapt to new circumstances, if you dig down enough – and in many instances you don’t have to dig down very far – you will still find the false notion of Black inferiority at the ground floor legitimizing racist practices, policies, and structures.

But the varied and notable achievements of African American in the Greenwood neighborhood gave lie to this Big Lie. By the force of their creative labor and intellectual acumen, Black Tulsans demonstrated for all to see that they were every bit as equal – and then some – to white Tulsans. And white Tulsans for their part couldn’t abide that reality, a reality which was so contrary to their understanding of the world and their place in it.

Or to put it differently, they couldn’t adjust their thinking to this historical reversal. The thought didn’t elicit admiration from them, but racist fury. And what followed was not only a racist assault on African Americans in Tulsa, but a total war to annihilate the Greenwood District in toto and then to erase this bloody massacre from our collective memory. To a large degree, they were successful. If the Tulsa massacre had any place in our memory, it was as a “race riot,” not worthy of national attention or remembrance.

That’s beginning to change, and no doubt President Biden’s appearance and speech in Tulsa helps out in that regard. But one day of witness is only a beginning. Much more needs to be done, including teaching the role, function, and history of white racism to white Americans.

The split within the contemporary U.S. ruling class is, like the Pacific, wide, deep, and turbulent. To find a similar specimen, I would say, requires a reach back to the early 1930s. At that time, the ruling class was riven by division and the singular event that precipitated it was the onset of the Great Depression and the contending views within these circles and across society as to the efficacy of a model of capital accumulation and political governance dominant at that time and how to escape its clutches.

Today’s split is traceable, not to one overarching event, but, in my mind, to a number of shape shifting events over roughly a decade. The first was the near total meltdown of the global economy in 2008 and the slow recovery that followed. Only with the Biden administration in the White House and governing is it becoming apparent how shape shifting an event the Great Recession and its aftermath were at every level of society. Capitalist globalization, financialization and neoliberalism weren’t unceremoniously whisked away never to see the light of day again, but their role and legitimacy as the dominant vehicles and modalities to organize the economy and structure politics came under intense scrutiny so much so that a look for economic alternatives began in earnest among sections of the ruling class.

Close on its heels came the historic, and, to many, unexpected election of the first African American, Barack Obama, to the presidency. While tens of millions rightly celebrated this cracking of the wall of racist exclusion, it soon became clear that many others didn’t at the mass level and in elite circles. They met the electron of the first Black president – and not only in the moment – with chilling racist anger and an irreconcilable revanchist spirit.

The evolution of the Republican Party into a hard right wing, anti-democratic instrument of white supremacist authoritarian rule further aggravated divisions in the ruling class. Gone from the Trump dominated Republican Party is any pretense of winning a popular majority or commitment to democratic norms, rights, and governance or even a preference for a democratic form of capitalism. Instead, minority rule by any means necessary, including bloody insurrection as we saw on January 6, unrelieved exploitation, xenophobia, and white supremacy, always in the bloodstream of U.S. politics, have become the governing staples of the party of Trump and a section of the U.S capitalist class.

The existential nature and consequences of climate change over the past decade have fractured the ruling class as well. One the one hand, powerful concentrations of capital – low road capitalists – are wedded to older and dirtier (fossil fuel) production systems and products that ravage the environment and ecosystem, while, on the other hand, other concentrations of capital – high road capitalists – employing new technologies and developing new products make them protagonists for a transition to a less fossil dependent – even fossil free – and equitable economy.

Finally, the scale, depth, and political character of democratic and class struggles intensified over the decade and predictably caused rifts in ruling circles.  The candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the women’s march, the election interventions of a broad democratic coalition in 2018 and 2020, the shift of the center of gravity of the Democratic Party in a progressive direction, the massive uprising in reaction to the police assassination of George Floyd, and, not least, the election of Joe Biden couldn’t help but exacerbate intra class contradictions.

Broadly speaking, two different responses to this tangle of events (or social processes) are evident. One grouping of the ruling class energetically pursues a politics steeped in white nationalism, plutocratic authoritarianism, hatred for equality and difference, climate denialism, militarism, and a relativisation of truth and meaning. Domination and dictatorship not hegemony is the lifeblood of this section of the ruling class.

The other gravitates towards a renovated capitalism, that is more egalitarian, democratic, ecologically sustainable, and responsive to popular democratic desires and pressures that have notably grown over the decade in scope, depth. This grouping of the political and economic elite embraces reforms that only a year or two ago it would consider anathema. This cat hasn’t changed colors, but it purrs and moves to a new beat.

This split is (or should be) of more than academic interest to any individual, movement, coalition, and parties that have an interest in a more just, egalitarian, and sustainable world. Ignoring it would be folly and self destructive. The movements in the 1930s didn’t make such a mistake. They rightly adjusted their strategy and tactics to take into account these differences. Class against class was replaced by a cross class coalition stretching from FDR to the Communist Party, searching for a new model of economic organization and political governance (out of which came Social Keynesianism) and committed to the imperative of unity and joint action. Let us hope that today’s movement has such wisdom!

In the 1930s, the left in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis adjusted its strategic policy to take into account the rise of German fascism abroad and the growth of plutocratic right wing extremism at home – not to mention an exploding economic crisis. But what goes unmentioned is the effectiveness of those strategic adjustments by the left (and progressive movements) at that time turned on a tactical reset as well. Without the latter, without tactics that accented cross class and multi-racial unity, the former, that is, the popular front strategy, would only limp along – sapped, as it were, of its ability to bring to life the sort of expansive, energetic, and diverse coalition that was absolutely necessary to meet the challenges of those times.

Much the same could be said today. In other words, strategic adjustments to today’s unprecedented and exceedingly dangerous circumstances are to be welcomed, but by themselves aren’t enough. What has to accompany them are matching changes at the tactical level that would facilitate the deepening and broadening of an expansive and diverse coalition and, in turn, practical action. To a degree this happened in the lead up to last fall’s election, but more, tactically speaking, needs to be done to facilitate the further building of a broad, diverse, and multi-racial coalition that matches the challenges and dangers of this moment.