Egalitarian Politics: Primer, FAQ, and Glossary

Introduction

This primer explains the analytical framework underlying the Egalitarian Voter Union project. The framework consists primarily of conceptual reframings for clarity, syntheses across political theory traditions, and strategic conclusions that follow from this analysis. These are not claims to have discovered hidden facts, but rather tools for making certain political dynamics more legible and actionable.

Part 1: Core Analytical Framework

On Democratic Sovereignty

This framework operates from a clear commitment: democratic sovereignty should supersede property sovereignty as the organizing principle of society.

Currently, bourgeois property relations function as pre-political sovereignty - establishing authority over social and economic life that constrains democratic decision-making. Fiscal conservatism enforces this by treating property claims as boundaries that democracy cannot cross.

The goal of egalitarian organizing is to reassert democratic sovereignty: building organized popular power sufficient to make democratic decisions determinative of social and economic organization, rather than having democratic authority structurally subordinated to property interests.

The strategic direction of egalitarian organizing is the progressive displacement of property sovereignty by democratic sovereignty, until democratic authority is no longer structurally subordinate to elite property claims.

This transformation need not be dramatically disruptive. It occurs through building organized democratic capacity (like voter unions) that progressively expands the scope of democratic authority. The revolutionary change is in who is sovereign - the democratic people or property owners - not necessarily in everyday social disruption.

1. Legitimacy vs. Capacity

The foundational distinction: Political participation can produce legitimacy for the regime (consent to be governed) without producing effective popular power over policy.

Under current U.S. institutional conditions, mass participation remains structurally high (voter turnout, civic engagement) while effective popular capacity to determine policy remains constrained. This separation is not accidental but structural - voting primarily functions as a legitimacy-producing mechanism rather than as a direct exercise of political power.

Understanding this distinction is essential: it explains why high participation doesn’t necessarily translate to popular power, and why new organizational forms (like voter unions) are needed to convert legitimacy production into actual bargaining leverage.

2. Pre-political Sovereignty of Property

Reframing Marx-Engels: This framework interprets Marx and Engels’ analysis of bourgeois property relations as fundamentally a theory of pre-political sovereignty - the claim that property ownership establishes authority over social and economic life prior to and constraining democratic political processes.

While Marx-Engels describe these dynamics in terms of class relations and exploitation, making the sovereignty framing explicit clarifies how property relations structure political possibility. Property sovereignty operates as a constraint on democratic authority rather than as a product of collective political choice.

This reframing makes legible what liberal political theory tends to obscure: that certain forms of authority are treated as existing before and above democratic decision-making.

3. Fiscal Conservatism as Regime Doctrine

Synthesis of Marxian and Gramscian analysis: Fiscal conservatism functions as more than an economic theory or budget preference. It operates as the operational doctrine that enforces bourgeois property sovereignty by systematically constraining democratic fiscal and redistributive capacity.

Drawing on Marx’s analysis of the bourgeois state and Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, fiscal conservatism can be understood as the principle that makes property sovereignty enforceable in democratic capitalist regimes. It functions as “common sense” that limits what is politically possible - deficit limits, balanced budget requirements, austerity logic - all serve to prevent democratic majorities from exercising fiscal power that could challenge property relations.

This is structural enforcement: it operates through institutional constraints, elite consensus, and ideological framing, regardless of which party holds power or individual politicians’ intentions.

4. Egalitarian vs. Supremacist Organizing Principles

Primary analytical axis: Political conflict can be most clearly understood along an egalitarian versus supremacist (elite-preserving) axis. This corresponds to traditional left-right divisions in most contexts but provides greater analytical clarity about what is fundamentally at stake in political struggle.

Egalitarianism: An organizing principle that prioritizes equality, solidarity, collective agency, and universal access to social goods and political power.

Supremacy/Elite Preservation: An organizing principle that maintains hierarchy, concentrates power and resources among elites, and structures society to preserve existing stratification.

Bourgeois regimes: Can be understood as maintaining stability by performing egalitarian rhetoric (democratic participation, equal citizenship, universal suffrage) while structurally enforcing supremacy through property sovereignty and fiscal constraint. This is not hypocrisy but a specific regime structure that manages competing legitimation needs.

Critical asymmetry: When supremacist forces dominate and eliminate egalitarian countervailing forces, the outcome can be fatal to democratic society (see Fascism below). The reverse is not true - egalitarian dominance does not produce a comparable societal collapse. This asymmetry is structural, not merely normative.

On countervailing power: Countervailing egalitarian power is the stabilizing variable of bourgeois democracy - democratic regimes whose effective sovereignty remains structurally subordinated to property authority. In a genuinely democratic sovereign order, correction mechanisms would be internal to democratic processes themselves rather than dependent on external counter-organization against property interests. This is why building egalitarian power is not symmetrical to property interests building power - one challenges illegitimate constraint, the other enforces it.

5. Voting as Legitimacy Production (Under Current Conditions)

Application of the legitimacy/capacity distinction: In the prevailing U.S. institutional form, voting functions primarily as a mechanism that produces legitimacy for the governing regime rather than as a direct lever of political power.

This is not to say voting has no effects - elections do determine which individuals hold office. But the structural constraints of fiscal conservatism, the capture of both major parties by property interests, and the absorption of reform efforts mean that individual voting primarily signals consent to be governed rather than exercising effective control over policy direction.

This analysis applies specifically to individual, uncoordinated voting. Organized collective electoral action can function differently (see Political Leverage below).

6. Mass Political Power as Collective Bargaining Leverage

Reframing with labor movement precedent: Effective popular political power arises through organized collective leverage, not through isolated individual participation. This applies labor movement logic to electoral politics.

Just as individual workers have little power to negotiate with employers, but organized unions create bargaining leverage through collective action (including the capacity to strike), individual voters have little power to shape policy, but organized voter coordination can create electoral leverage.

Key mechanism: The ability to conditionally withhold or grant legitimacy (voter support) to political actors, making participation contingent on policy alignment. This creates replacement leverage - the organized capacity to elevate aligned candidates and marginalize hostile ones, analogous to union strike capacity.

7. From Structural Enforcement to Ideological Anti-Egalitarianism

The radicalization process (synthesis of Marxian dialectics and class struggle analysis):

Political conflict over fiscal conservatism and property sovereignty follows a progression:

Stage 1 - Structural enforcement: Fiscal conservatism operates as regime doctrine - institutional constraints on democratic fiscal capacity that enforce property sovereignty. At this stage, it functions structurally, regardless of individual actors’ conscious intentions or explicit ideology.

Stage 2 - Conflict intensification: When egalitarian movements organize effectively and begin to threaten fiscal conservative constraints (demanding redistribution, social programs, democratic control of investment), the conflict becomes more explicit. What operated as structural constraint transforms into conscious political contestation.

Stage 3 - Conscious anti-egalitarianism: When egalitarian organizational capacity seriously threatens to overcome fiscal conservative constraints, elite forces may radicalize toward explicit anti-egalitarianism - not merely defending property rights through institutional procedure, but actively working to destroy egalitarian organizational capacity itself.

This is the critical transition: from structural enforcement to ideological program. Anti-egalitarianism becomes a conscious political project aimed at eliminating the countervailing forces that threaten elite power.

Stage 4 - Fascist pathology: When explicit anti-egalitarian forces succeed in destroying egalitarian organizational capacity, fascism can emerge (see below).

This progression explains why the framework sometimes analyzes structure (fiscal conservatism as doctrine) and sometimes analyzes agency (explicit anti-egalitarian political programs) - they are connected stages in a potential radicalization process.

8. Fascism as Structural Pathology

Important clarification: Fascism is not a rival ideology within democratic pluralism or a competing political faction. It is a regime failure mode - the systemic collapse that occurs when the destruction of egalitarian organizational capacity eliminates democratic correction mechanisms.

Preventing fascism is therefore not about opposing “far-right politicians” within normal political competition, but about maintaining the organizational capacity that prevents structural collapse. This is why building egalitarian power (like voter unions) is not merely progressive politics but collapse prevention.

Definition: Fascism is a regime pathology that emerges through a specific feedback loop mechanism, not simply an ideology we oppose or “the far right.”

The mechanism:

When egalitarian organizational capacity threatens fiscal conservative constraints, elite forces may radicalize toward explicit anti-egalitarianism (see above). If these forces succeed in destroying egalitarian countervailing organizations - unions, left parties, social movements, mutual aid networks - they eliminate the capacity for democratic correction.

Fascism emerges not as mere “dominance” but as the pathological outcome of attempted dominance that destroys systemic balance. Without egalitarian countervailing forces, there is no organized capacity to resist further radicalization, no mechanism for social correction, no institutional check on elite power. The regime enters a self-reinforcing cycle of radicalization.

Why “pathology”?

I use medical language deliberately to highlight a crucial asymmetry: When supremacist forces dominate and destroy egalitarian organizational capacity, the outcome is fatal to democratic society. The system loses its capacity for correction and enters terminal decline.

The reverse is not true - egalitarian dominance does not produce a comparable societal collapse. Egalitarian movements may make mistakes, face challenges, or fail to achieve their goals, but they do not create a feedback loop that destroys the capacity for democratic correction itself.

This asymmetry justifies treating fascism as a structural pathology rather than simply as “the other side” of political competition. It is a failure mode that destroys the system, not a competing vision of how to organize it.

Key implication: Fascism is not inevitable, but it is a conditional outcome when anti-egalitarian forces succeed in eliminating organized egalitarian capacity. Prevention requires maintaining and building egalitarian organizational strength.

Part 2: Strategic Application - The Egalitarian Voter Union

9. Voter Unions as Collective Bargaining Institutions

The institutional proposal: The Egalitarian Voter Union (EVU) is a concrete organizational design for collective electoral bargaining, intended to rebuild organized egalitarian capacity in the electoral arena.

Core function: Convert the legitimacy-producing activity of voting into actual political leverage by organizing conditional coordination of voter behavior.

On Voter Sovereignty:

Voter unions operationalize democratic sovereignty by organizing collective decision-making power over electoral outcomes. Individual voters currently experience their participation as expressing preferences within constraints determined by property interests and party elites. Organized voter unions transform this into collective sovereignty - the organized capacity to determine which candidates are viable and what policies are politically possible.

This is not about begging parties for better options. It is about voters collectively exercising sovereign authority over their own political representation. Just as workers organized unions to assert sovereignty over their labor rather than accepting terms dictated by owners, voters organize unions to assert sovereignty over their political participation rather than accepting options determined by party machines and property interests.

Essential mechanism:

The fundamental innovation is dual-polling logic:

Democratic preference polling: Determining what members actually want
Solidarity commitment measurement: Assessing members’ willingness to coordinate around collective decisions even when they differ from individual preferences

This dual structure enables collective bargaining by separating individual preference from coordinated action, allowing the union to act as a unified bloc while maintaining democratic accountability.

Implementation approaches (these are examples, not requirements):

Conditional endorsements based on policy alignment
Dual-party engagement to prevent absorption
Sortition-based decision panels for accountability
Community review processes

The specific mechanisms may evolve, but the dual-polling logic remains essential to the collective bargaining model.

What EVU does at campaign level:

Elevate aligned candidates to viability
Marginalize and replace non-aligned candidates
Concentrate organized support to shift electoral outcomes
NOT: Negotiate with, persuade, or lobby hostile politicians

What EVU creates at strategic level:

Collective bargaining leverage (the organized capacity to shift electoral outcomes)
Structural incentives for parties and candidates (legitimacy becomes conditional on alignment)
Countervailing power to fiscal conservative dominance
Organized egalitarian capacity that can resist absorption and radicalization

10. Political Leverage Through Conditional Coordination

Definition: Political leverage is the capacity to shift electoral outcomes and policy direction by conditionally coordinating voter behavior. This operates through organized collective action, not individual voting.

On Democratic Authority and Organized Power:

EVU is not a pressure group seeking policy concessions within existing power structures. It is an institution for building organized democratic capacity that can determine political outcomes.

Organizations like Chambers of Commerce and corporate lobbies currently exercise significant influence over what is politically possible, functioning as organized representatives of property interests. EVU challenges this by building organized democratic constituencies whose support becomes necessary for electoral viability.

This is why EVU focuses on candidate replacement rather than lobbying: the goal is building organized power where democratic preferences determine outcomes, not negotiating for concessions from property-aligned politicians.

How it works:

At the campaign level:

Concentrated support makes aligned candidates more viable (able to win)
Organized withdrawal of support makes non-aligned candidates less viable
Replaces hostile politicians rather than attempting to persuade them

At the strategic level:

Creates pressure on party structures by making legitimacy conditional
Demonstrates organized capacity that cannot be ignored
Builds power through sustained collective action, analogous to union organizing

Key distinction from pressure politics: Voter unions do not primarily aim to convince existing politicians to “be better” through moral persuasion or advocacy. Instead, they create structural incentives by making electoral viability depend on policy alignment, and work to replace politicians who remain hostile to egalitarian goals.

At a conceptual level, this does create “pressure” on the political system, but the mechanism is replacement and elevation of candidates, not negotiation with hostile actors.

Part 3: FAQ - Common Questions

Q1: Isn’t this just trying to “balance” political forces?

No. The goal is building sufficient egalitarian organizational capacity to enable democratic determination of social and economic policy - not maintaining permanent “balance” with property interests.

Balance describes the current unsatisfactory state (property interests constrain what democracy can decide). The strategic objective is expanding the scope of democratic authority to encompass decisions currently treated as outside democratic decision-making.

This is not about achieving better policies within existing constraints, but about transforming which decisions are subject to democratic authority versus which are treated as pre-political.

Q2: Why not just vote for better candidates?

Individual voting, under current conditions, primarily produces legitimacy for the regime without generating effective popular power. This is due to:

Structural constraints of fiscal conservatism limiting what’s politically possible
Both major parties captured by property interests
Systematic absorption of reform efforts

Better candidates face the same structural constraints. Without organized collective power to back them, they either fail to achieve office or are absorbed into the regime’s legitimation function once elected.

Voter unions aim to change this by creating collective bargaining leverage that can make candidate viability conditional on policy alignment.

Q3: Won’t parties just ignore voter unions?

Parties respond to whoever exercises effective sovereignty over electoral outcomes. Currently, this means property interests (major donors), party elites (who control primaries and endorsements), and to some degree unorganized voters.

Voter unions work to shift electoral sovereignty to organized democratic constituencies. When voter unions can demonstrably determine electoral outcomes - making the difference between winning and losing - they cannot be ignored. This requires:

Building sufficient organized membership
Demonstrating coordination capacity
Creating actual electoral consequences for non-alignment

The labor movement provides precedent: unions gained power by demonstrating sovereignty over their labor - the organized capacity to withhold it. Electoral unions function similarly, demonstrating sovereignty over their votes.

Q4: How do voter unions maintain democratic accountability?

Multiple mechanisms are possible:

Sortition-based decision panels: Random selection of members for key decisions prevents capture by any faction
Community review processes: Transparent evaluation of candidate alignment and union actions
Distributed local chapters: Preventing central bureaucratic control
Clear principles: Explicit egalitarian commitments that guide decision-making
Exit rights: Members can leave if the union no longer serves their interests

The goal is to create accountability structures that prevent the union itself from becoming another captured institution. Specific implementations may vary, but the dual-polling logic (democratic preference + solidarity commitment) provides the foundation for accountability.

Q5: What about third parties?

Voter unions can and likely will support aligned third-party candidates, even when they’re not immediately viable, if circumstances show there’s no viable aligned option in the major parties. This represents organized “protest voting” - making clear that legitimacy is being withheld from both major party options.

However, this should become increasingly rare as voter union power establishes itself and creates real consequences for major party non-alignment. Once parties recognize that voter unions can determine electoral outcomes, the structural incentive to offer aligned candidates increases.

The strategic focus is on building collective leverage within existing electoral structures through dual-party engagement, because:

Third parties face severe structural barriers in U.S. electoral systems
Building collective coordination capacity matters more than party labels
Dual-party engagement creates more leverage than single-party loyalty

This is pragmatic, not ideological. If third parties become viable vehicles for egalitarian politics, voter unions can coordinate support for them. The key is maintaining organized capacity across electoral contexts.

Q6: Isn’t this just another advocacy group or PAC?

No, in several crucial ways:

Advocacy groups/PACs:

Typically lobby existing politicians
Work within professional advocacy frameworks
Focus on persuasion and pressure
Often captured by professional-managerial class interests

Voter unions:

Organize voters as the base of power
Function as collective bargaining institutions
Focus on replacement of hostile politicians and elevation of aligned ones
Democratic accountability through dual-polling and community processes

The difference is between pressure politics (trying to influence existing power) and collective bargaining (building countervailing power).

Q7: What’s the relationship between voter unions and other forms of organizing?

Voter unions are one component of egalitarian organizational capacity, not a replacement for:

Labor unions (workplace organizing)
Tenant unions (housing organizing)
Mutual aid networks (community support)
Social movements (mass mobilization)
Direct action (disruption and resistance)

The framework argues that electoral collective bargaining has been a missing piece - most other forms of organizing exist, but coordinated electoral leverage has not been systematically built.

Ideally, voter unions connect with and support these other forms of organizing, creating networked egalitarian capacity across multiple domains.

Q8: Is fascism inevitable in this framework?

No. Fascism is a conditional outcome that emerges when:

Egalitarian organizational capacity threatens fiscal conservative constraints
Elite forces radicalize toward explicit anti-egalitarianism in response
These forces succeed in destroying egalitarian countervailing organizations
The resulting lack of democratic correction mechanisms creates pathological feedback loops

Preventing fascism requires maintaining and building egalitarian organizational strength. Voter unions are one tool for doing this in the electoral domain.

The pathology is not inevitable - it’s a failure mode that occurs when egalitarian forces are too weak to sustain countervailing power. Building that power is the preventive strategy.

Q9: How does this relate to existing political theory?

This framework draws on and synthesizes:

Marxian state theory (property sovereignty, class conflict)
Gramscian analysis (hegemony, ideological enforcement)
Elite/power structure theory (Mills, Domhoff - how elites coordinate)
Republican political theory (domination, civic capacity)
Social movement theory (Piven & Cloward - reform absorption)
Labor movement history (collective bargaining, organized leverage)

The original contributions are primarily:

Conceptual reframings for clarity (pre-political sovereignty, legitimacy vs. capacity)
Syntheses across these traditions
Application to electoral organizing (voter unions as collective bargaining)
Analysis of fascism as organizational collapse pathology

Q10: What would prove this framework wrong?

The framework makes some testable claims:

If individual voting could systematically produce policy outcomes against fiscal conservative constraints without collective organization, the legitimacy/capacity distinction would need revision
If egalitarian movements could achieve sustained redistributive policy without collective organization, the collective bargaining model would be unnecessary
If fascist movements emerged primarily from egalitarian organizational strength rather than its collapse, the pathology theory would be wrong
If voter unions fail to create electoral leverage even with significant membership and demonstrated coordination, the strategic model would need rethinking

The framework should be evaluated on its analytical utility and predictive power, not treated as dogma.

Part 4: Glossary

Egalitarianism: An organizing principle that prioritizes equality, solidarity, collective agency, and universal access to social goods and political power. Not a claim about “natural” social states, but a framework for political organization.

Supremacy/Elite Preservation: An organizing principle that maintains hierarchy, concentrates power among elites, and structures society to preserve existing stratification. Enforced in bourgeois regimes through fiscal conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatism: The operational doctrine that enforces bourgeois property sovereignty by constraining democratic fiscal and redistributive capacity. Functions as “common sense” about budget limits, deficits, and the proper scope of government spending.

Pre-political Sovereignty: The analytical framing (from Marx-Engels) that property ownership establishes authority over social life prior to and constraining democratic political processes. Property rights are treated as constraints on democracy rather than products of it. Egalitarian organizing challenges this structure by expanding the scope of decisions subject to democratic authority.

Democratic Sovereignty: The principle that democratic decision-making should be determinative of social and economic organization, rather than structurally subordinated to property interests. The goal of egalitarian organizing is building sufficient organized capacity to exercise democratic sovereignty.

Voter Sovereignty: The organized capacity of voters to collectively determine electoral outcomes and political representation, rather than merely expressing preferences within constraints set by party elites and property interests.

Property Sovereignty: The current structural arrangement where property ownership establishes pre-political authority over social and economic life, constraining what can be democratically decided. Enforced through fiscal conservatism as regime doctrine.

Legitimacy vs. Capacity: The analytical distinction between legitimacy production (consent to be governed, acceptance of regime authority) and effective political capacity (actual power to determine policy outcomes). Under current conditions, participation can be high while popular power remains low.

Regime Doctrine: The operational principles that structure political possibility within a regime, functioning as constraints on what can be politically contested regardless of which party holds power.

Anti-Egalitarianism: The conscious political program that emerges when fiscal conservatism radicalizes in response to egalitarian threats - actively working to destroy egalitarian organizational capacity rather than merely defending property rights through institutional procedure.

Fascism: A regime pathology that emerges when anti-egalitarian forces succeed in destroying egalitarian countervailing organizations, eliminating the capacity for democratic correction and creating self-reinforcing radicalization cycles. Fatal to democratic society.

Political Leverage: The capacity to shift electoral outcomes and policy direction through organized collective action. Created by conditional coordination of voter behavior. Just as unions build strike capacity (the ability to halt production) to negotiate with management, voter unions build coordination capacity (the ability to determine electoral outcomes) to replace hostile politicians with aligned ones.

Viability: A candidate’s practical ability to win elections and advance policy. Voter unions shift viability by concentrating support on aligned candidates and withdrawing it from non-aligned ones.

Collective Bargaining: The organizational model from labor movements applied to electoral politics - building power through coordinated action that can conditionally withhold or grant support to create negotiating leverage.

Voter Union: An organization that coordinates collective electoral action to build egalitarian political leverage. Core mechanism is dual-polling logic that separates democratic preference from solidarity commitment to enable unified bloc action.

Dual-Polling Logic: The essential mechanism of voter unions: (1) determining democratic preferences of members, and (2) measuring solidarity commitment to coordinate around collective decisions even when they differ from individual preferences.

Conditional Endorsement: Support for candidates contingent on policy alignment, with organized capacity to withdraw support if alignment fails. Creates structural incentives for maintaining commitment to egalitarian goals.

Dual-Party Engagement: Strategic approach of creating pressure across both major parties simultaneously to prevent absorption by either and maximize leverage within existing electoral structures.

Sortition: Random selection of members for decision-making roles, preventing factional capture and maintaining democratic accountability within voter union structures.

Countervailing Power: Organized capacity to check and resist elite domination. Egalitarian organizations function as countervailing forces to fiscal conservative and supremacist power.

Reform Absorption: The process by which regime structures neutralize reform efforts, incorporating them in ways that maintain existing power relations. Prevented through sustained collective organization that maintains independence.

Structural vs. Agential Analysis: Structural analysis examines constraints and mechanisms that operate regardless of individual intentions (fiscal conservatism as regime doctrine). Agential analysis examines conscious choices actors make within those structures (radicalization toward anti-egalitarianism). Both are necessary for complete understanding.

Part 5: How the Blog Posts Connect

The blog develops these ideas systematically:

Foundation - Understanding the Regime:

“Nozick” - Explains fiscal conservatism as regime doctrine and how it enforces property sovereignty
“Doctrine” - Details how fiscal conservatism functions as operational constraint on democratic capacity

Analysis - Why Current Politics Fails:

“On Lesser Evil” - Applies legitimacy vs. capacity distinction to explain why individual voting lacks power
“Structural Dynamics” - Presents the egalitarian vs. supremacist analytical framework and fascism as pathology

Solution - Building Collective Power:

“Voter Unions” - Introduces the EVU institutional design and collective bargaining model
“Stop Voting Alone” - Explains the collective action problem and why coordination is necessary

Suggested reading order: Start with “Stop Voting Alone” for the basic problem, then “Voter Unions” for the solution, then “Doctrine” and “Nozick” for the regime analysis, then “Structural Dynamics” for the broader framework.

Part 6: Epistemological Notes

On the framework’s status:

This is an analytical framework, not a claim about discovered truth. Its value lies in:

Making political dynamics more legible
Connecting insights across theoretical traditions
Supporting strategic organizing decisions

The framework should be evaluated on its analytical utility and predictive power, not treated as comprehensive theory of all politics.

On language choices:

Terms like “regime,” “doctrine,” and “pathology” are chosen for analytical precision, not rhetorical effect. They name specific structural relationships and failure modes. If other terms prove more useful for the same concepts, the framework can adapt.

On political commitment:

While the framework aims for analytical clarity, it is not politically neutral. It emerges from and supports egalitarian political organizing. The asymmetry between egalitarian and supremacist outcomes (fascism as pathology) is both an analytical observation and a normative commitment to preventing that outcome.

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging this rather than claiming false objectivity.

Conclusion

This framework provides tools for understanding why current political participation often feels ineffective despite high engagement, and offers a strategic path forward through collective electoral organization.

The Egalitarian Voter Union is not a complete solution to all political problems, but a specific institutional innovation addressing a gap in egalitarian organizing: the lack of collective bargaining capacity in electoral politics.

Building this capacity is one component of preventing fascist pathology and enabling egalitarian politics to assert democratic sovereignty over social and economic organization.

For more information about getting involved, visit egality.vote.