The Problem of Repression

by John Spritzler

December 6, 2025

Whatever the BAE decides to do, if it in any way builds and strengthens the egalitarian revolutionary movement (doing this is the measure of our success) then it will anger the rich. The rich won't like it. The rich will try to prevent us from doing it.

One obvious way that the rich can try to prevent us from doing something is to use repression against us. The rich can arrest us on trumped up charges. The rich can kill us. The rich can remove the money from our bank accounts. Yes, the rich have the power to do these kinds of things because they control the government as well as all the other important institutions in our society.

It is often the case, however, that the rich decide NOT to use such overt repression when people do stuff they don't like. The rich always weigh the pros and cons of using overt repression, and often the cons outweigh the pros.

If the rich believe that using overt repression would increase the size and determination of the egalitarian revolutionary movement, then they are very reluctant to use such repression. This is true no matter how powerful the rich seem. For example, even Adolph Hitler, the all-powerful Fuhrer, decided not to use repression against the Germans who were protesting against his euthanasia program (killing "useless eaters"). Hitler decided instead to cancel that program. Likewise, when Germans protested against Hitler's move to remove religious crosses from the public schools, Hitler backed down. (I discuss this in my online book about World War II, pg. 170-71)

The egalitarian revolutionary movement can do stuff the rich don't like, but in a way that would make the rich fear it would only increase public support for the movement if the rich resorted to obvious repression of it.

The key to doing stuff this way is to do it in a manner that makes it as clear as possible to as many people as possible that what we do is aimed at shaping society by the egalitarian values and principles that most people think are morally right. When we do this effectively, then the rich will know that if they use overt repression against us then lots of people will see clearly that the rich are doing it to defend morally wrong values and principles. Lots of people will take the side of, and some actually join, the egalitarian revolutionary movment. The BAE will gain numbers and strength.

Let's apply this general principle to a specific situation in Brighton.

A Brighton librarian of a branch library recently asked her boss for permission to display the banner shown below at her library (hang it up on a wall, for example.)

The banner, shown here as it was held up briefly in 2019, contains 500 photos of individuals, all in Brighton, displaying a sign that says, "We the People want affordable housing for ALL. To get it we aim to remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor."

The librarian's boss said, 'No.' The excuse given was that the banner was not "Boston-related." (Ha!)

What might the BAE do now? (The following is based on a great discussion I had with a BAE member, and just "thinking out loud" on my part.)

Here are some possible things:

Do nothing.
Politely ask Mayor Wu to tell the Brighton librarians they have permission to diaplay the banner as they wish.
Politely ask Mayor Wu to tell the Brighton librarians they have permission to display a poster telling the truth (the U.S. ruling class, both parties, has for decades been doing things south of our border and in Haiti DELIBERATELY to force poor people there to have to illegally immigrate into the United States just in order to survive) about why there are so many illegal immigrants?

Obviously choice #1 entails no risk of repression, but it doesn't accomplish much either.

What about choice #2?

What if Mayor Wu says, "Yes, I give permission"? Would this invite repression?

Well, if the banner then got displayed in Brighton libraries it would certainly anger the rich (who, presumably, do not want to be removed from power.) In particular it would anger the rich, like Donald Trump, who control the White House.

Donald Trump has expressed hatred of Mayor Wu because she tells the Boston Police not to give assistance in any way to ICE. It is not out of the question that, in anger at the Mayor allowing the banner to be displayed, Trump would direct ICE to increase its cruel deportations of the most vulnerable people in Boston. This would in fact be a kind of repression against the BAE, but not overtly so, since the victims would not be BAE members but rather people the BAE supports whom ICE would deport.

In this scenario, the rich would not fear that its repression would strengthen the BAE, since most people in Brighton would not see any connection between it and what the BAE did. Even if the BAE tried to tell the public why there really was such a connection, it would be hard to do it very persuasively.

So, choice #2 might not be a good idea, even if Mayor Wu said, "Yes." And if she said, "No," then we could either do nothing (essentially choice #1) or we could do something to put pressure on her to say, "Yes."

If we put pressure on the mayor to say "Yes" to the banner, then she might very well defend her "No" position as being for the purpose of protecting the vulnerable people from ICE who would be deported if she said "Yes." In this case, whatever the BAE did to pressure the mayor to say "Yes" would be perceived by the public as (at least potentially) causing harm to innocent vulnerable people and not as an effort to shape society by egalitarian values and principles. The BAE would be vulnerable in this case to repression (likely mild) from the mayor who would seem to be on the side that is morally right.

So choice #2 seems like a bad idea.

What about choice #3?

The aim of this choice is to persuade the people who support ICE to oppose ICE, thereby making it harder for ICE to carry out its cruel deportations. How might Mayor Wu respond to this request?

If the mayor said "Yes" and the posters were displayed then it would surely anger the rich, including Trump. Trump could tell ICE to increase its deportations in Boston as a way of indirectly repressing the BAE. But the posters with the truth about the illegal immigrants would cause people to understand even more clearly why the ICE deportations were immoral and see that the BAE, to its credit, was simply trying to get the truth known (truth is a key, and widely shared, egalitarian value.)

It may even be that Trump would fear increasing the ICE deportations in Boston because of the effect the posters had there. Trump (or his advisors) might very well figure that with more people knowing the truth about the illegal immigrants, increasing the deportations would result in making even more people angry at them and in increasing solidarity between people who were initially pro-ICE but changed to being anti-ICE, and people who were always anti-ICE. This would, in effect, be a strengthening of the egalitarian revolutionary movement. To avoid this Trump would be motivated NOT to increase the ICE deportations in Boston.

What if Mayor Wu said "No" to the posters being displayed?

How might the mayor defend her "No" position? For the reasons described above, she would not have a strong case that she was protecting vulnerable people from ICE deportation. Her "No" position would be seen as opposition to the truth being known. The BAE would be seen as trying to get the truth known. Any repression of the BAE would therefore backfire against the repressor and strengthen the BAE.

So it seems that choice #3 is a good one.