December 5, 2025
A Note in Solidarity
The Supreme Court sanctioned a gerrymandered electoral map in Texas, effectively silencing the voices of thousands of voters. We continue to treat our society, our economy, and our political structures like predictable machines that can be engineered and controlled from the top down. We talk about “systems thinking,” as if our shared life were a blueprint to be optimized. But human communities are not machines. They’re living, breathing, and fundamentally unpredictable conversations. We’re all participating in an ongoing, evolving dance of mutual influence.
And right now, that dance is dangerously out of sync.
What’s the Point?
1.
The point of a democratic process is not merely to produce policy, but more importantly to ensure that every participant has a meaningful voice and that power is shared. When a court decision allowed a map, explicitly designed by career politicians, to dilute the votes of Black and Latino communities, WE failed.
2.
The point of an market economy is not just to generate wealth, but more importantly to create opportunities for every participant to enjoy stable, dignified livelihoods. When 1.17 million people lost their jobs in a year and the primary response was to celebrate a potential interest rate cut that exclusively benefits asset owners, WE failed.
3.
The point of technology is not simply to achieve maximum efficiency, but more importantly to enhance human capability and flourishing. When the deployment of AI is projected to displace up to 7% of the workforce and its primary infrastructure costs are externalized onto resource-scarce communities, WE failed.
In each case, WE let a narrow, mechanistic goal (be it partisan advantage, shareholder return, or computational speed) override the core human purpose of the endeavor. The result is a series of elegant solutions to the wrong problems, reaffirming a society that is less resilient, less fair, and less human.
A More Generative Path: Solidarity in Practice
If the old model of top-down control is failing, what is the alternative? tfp Collective’s framework of Solidarity in Practice offers a path forward, not as a new blueprint, but as a different way of being in relationship with one another.
From Silenced Voices to Shared Power: The Texas redistricting case is a stark example of power being used to suppress voice. An alternative begins with respecting the Singularity of every participant (the irreducible uniqueness of their perspective and experience). Instead of seeing “voters” as demographic data points to be manipulated, a generative political process would actively seek out and empower the voices of those most affected. This is the foundation. It requires moving beyond periodic voting to create ongoing platforms for authentic participation in decisions that shape our communities.
From Human Capital to Human Beings: The current economic narrative treats workers as “human capital” (interchangeable parts in a machine) to be discarded when a more “efficient” technology like AI comes along. This is the opposite of Solidarity, which is not an abstract feeling but a practical commitment to creating conditions where everyone can flourish. What if, instead of asking “how can we replace workers with AI?”, we asked, “how can AI be co-designed with workers to augment their skills and create more meaningful jobs?” This would require seeing the Singularity of a worker’s skill and experience not as a cost to be eliminated, but as a vital resource for innovation.
From Extraction to Relational Evolution: The AI data center boom in Nevada exemplifies an extractive mindset, taking resources (water, energy) from a community without its meaningful consent. This creates a fragile process, dependent on the ongoing suppression of local needs. A more resilient approach would be one of Relational Evolution as an ongoing, experimental process of negotiation and co-creation between tech companies and local communities, including the Pyramid Lake Paiute tribe, whose deep knowledge of the local ecology is an invaluable resource. This means accepting that we cannot control the outcome, but that by paying attention to the relationships themselves, a more sustainable and equitable solution can emerge.
This isn’t a call for a new, perfect “system.” It’s a call to abandon the illusion of control and embrace the messy, unpredictable, but ultimately more powerful work of relating to one another as human beings. It’s building our collective capacity to respond to challenges not with pre-packaged solutions, but with curiosity, humility, and a deep-seated commitment to mutual flourishing.
Immigration should be a process that is both orderly and humane. It could include community-based sponsorship models that create direct relationships between newcomers and established residents or platforms that match the specific skills of refugees with the specific needs of local economies. This would be a (R)Evolutionary break from a faceless bureaucracy and toward a process grounded in human connection, mutual aid, and the recognition that the nation is strengthened, not weakened, by the inclusion of new voices and new stories.
Conclusion: (R)Evolution
Across all these domains, the dominant narratives reveal responsive processes that are failing because WE let the few concentrate power, suppress voices, and undermine solidarity. They operate on a flawed, mechanistic model of the world that ignores the messy, unpredictable, and deeply human nature of our shared life.
tfp Collective’s framework offers a different path. It suggests that the way forward is not through a new master plan or a better-engineered system, but through the patient, difficult work of (R)Evolution. It’s about creating opportunities through our institutions and communities where more voices can be heard, where the unique Singularity of each person is seen as a resource, and where we practice a form of Solidarity that is a practical, daily commitment to mutual flourishing. This is the work of building a truly responsive and generative society, one conversation at a time.