AuthorTopic: A Lefty Skewers Bernie  (Read 637 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34243
    • View Profile
A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« on: January 25, 2018, 12:54:04 AM »
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/01/23/the-inherent-whiteness-of-our-revolution/

The Inherent Whiteness of “Our Revolution”
January 23, 2018


HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

by NICK PEMBERTON
CC BY-SA by DonkeyHotey
I decided to run for State House in Minnesota, district 19A. At first I wanted to run as a Green party candidate. But I talked myself out of it. I told myself that the only way to win the election was to win it as a Democrat. This was probably the right assessment, but at what cost?

Despite my disgust with all things Bernie Sanders I decided to seek an endorsement from his organization Our Revolution. While I had little sympathy for the man, I felt like there was little choice but to turn to the movement. Finding Green support in the area was depressingly futile.

To gain the endorsement of this organization I had to fill out their questionnaire. Based on my answers I would get an Our Revolution score. People across the country feel the need to take this test because an endorsement from Our Revolution matters to the Bernie wing of the Democrat party. Bernie remains the most popular politician in America. Somehow I made it through the entire test without once being asked about war and peace. The questions were themed: “Health Care, Wealth Inequality, Environment, Big Money Corrupting Politics, Democracy, Immigration, Racial Justice, Gender Equality, LGBT Equality, Empowering Tribal Nations, The Disabled, Seniors, Education, College Tuition/Student Debt, Net Neutrality and get this, Veterans.”

Now this is quite an extensive list, and while Bernie is no socialist, he at least is naive enough to believe that capitalism can and should be fixed. It is quaint how Bernie tells his story about rising from poverty to become the most popular leader of the world’s greatest (military) power. All capitalism needs is a little tweaking and we could all end up like Bernie! Remember those days when a decent man could make a decent living off of capitalism? Bernie and Donald Trump both seek a return to those good old days. It goes without saying that Bernie failed to connect class analysis to race, gender and sexual orientation. While Bernie may have been refreshing in his acknowledgement of class, he nonetheless reinforced the neoliberal myth that class is somehow separate from other forms of oppression.

Despite all of this Bernie wants health care for Americans. He wants a clean environment. He wants a living wage. He wants Wall St. to pay its fair share. He is not a revolutionary, but his reforms domestically could be worse.

Yet somehow all of these rights that Bernie holds so dear do not apply to the rest of the world. I wearily checked off the seven requirements Our Revolution has for Veterans (yes Bernie, I want our Vets to be able to smoke weed too). But there were zero questions about the people we were at war with. Do they deserve health care? A clean environment? Democracy? Freedom? Bernie’s silence says a lot.

Perhaps it is this glaring inconsistency between Bernie’s policies at home and policies abroad that make him the most frustrating figure in American politics. Donald Trump and Barack Obama may see other countries as shitholes or shitshows but at least they are more committed to taking a shit on their own people.

Bernie has been a devastating force for the left in today’s America. Anyone who wishes to run on the left wing of the Democratic party is now held to the gold standard of Our Revolution. You must focus on the “core issues” of “economic justice” while completely ignoring that America is pillaging the rest of the world. And not just for pleasure, but for profit. The fact that America’s military spending makes Bernie’s programs unrealistic is not really the point here. Nor is the fact that the military does the majority of the world’s polluting. What should concern all of us is that all figures in American politics, those on the “left”, center, and right wish to continue to violate international law, control poorer countries through force, and undermine democracy around the world.

Underneath all of these dynamics is race. Bernie may be pretty popular in Vermont but everyone there is white. There was such disdain for black people when they (gasp) supported Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders. Hmm..who should I choose the racist with enough money to beat KKK sympathizer Donald Trump or the racist without a chance to beat him? Hillary lost to Trump in large part because not as many black people came out to vote for her in the general election. The narrative of “Bernie would have won” is still being kicked around. This is not very well thought out because Bernie lost to the corporate candidate in the primary, so naturally he would lose to the corporate candidate in the general. The answer is not more Bernie. The answer is campaign finance reform at a minimum. And Berners may do well to ditch their President and abandon capitalism as a whole.

How can Bernie claim to be for racial justice when he continues to assume that black and brown people must be civilized through bombs? And if not bombs, sanctions. And if neither of these things work, we always have nuclear weapons. What really is the rationale for undermining socialist countries abroad? Why is Bernie, the supposed socialist, silent?

It is worth noting that Our Revolution’s “racial justice” category did not mention reparations. It wanted to end for-profit prisons, but there was no mention of the rest of our prisons. Prosecuting police officers was not discussed either. Neighborhoods in America can mirror neighborhoods abroad. They are occupied by police, not soldiers. The local thugs (black and brown of course) need to be civilized. Proof of this is given by the violence in these neighborhoods. Yet these neighborhoods remain drastically underfunded, abandoned by the government. Police arrest, incarcerate, bully and kill the population. Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis are described as messes. So are Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Liberals don’t want to say this is about race, while conservatives may be more open about their own racism. These neighborhoods and countries are seen with pity. On the one hand liberals see these people are victims of racism. On the other hand we are told these people are not responding as their best selves and that all they need is a little bit of civilizing.

Nevertheless, Our Revolution is a sign of hope. Individuals within the organization are bold, eager, and dynamic. In my experience they do not share Bernie’s paternal attitude towards other countries. It may be telling that half the staff quit just as Bernie’s organization was getting rolling. Bernie may not run the day-to-day there but the place still reeks of Bomber Bernie. The sooner the people kick Bernie to the curb the better.

As it stands Bernie has successfully monopolized the conversation in electoral politics. Voices who question war are cast off as crazy and fringe. What would have happened if Bernie Sanders had never run? Would we have created our own left groups that value the lives of all people, regardless of race or nationality? Could we have formed a movement that not only rejected American economic trends of the past 30 years but also the very system that values profit over people? Could we have finally had the courage to leave a broken duopoly electoral system? Bernie is continuing to make a lot of white noise. But what may be more telling is his white silence.

The prospect of running as a Green Party candidate was pretty grim. At best, I could flip the seat to a Republican. Yet the despair I had after my meeting with chipper Our Revolution folks was unparalleled. I wondered if there was anyone in this country who cared about the people outside our borders. As Trump tries to build his physical wall, Bernie perfects his ideological one. And both, in their own way, will be more costly than we can afford.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2018, 05:07:10 AM »
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/01/23/the-inherent-whiteness-of-our-revolution/

The Inherent Whiteness of “Our Revolution”
January 23, 2018

 It goes without saying that Bernie failed to connect class analysis to race, gender and sexual orientation. While Bernie may have been refreshing in his acknowledgement of class, he nonetheless reinforced the neoliberal myth that class is somehow separate from other forms of oppression.

Oh, just fuck this noise. Another Bernie hatchet job from the Greanville Post, representing the 17 people in this country try for whom nothing is ever enough.

Having just gone through this with a gaggle of SJWs whose ONLY discernible purpose is to sow division and dissension, I'm just going to stop here long enough to leave a turd.

Hope Vlad is paying him well.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16126
    • View Profile
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2018, 05:30:12 AM »
Trotsky Bernie is a reactionary Judas who is not loyal the the Revolution.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2018, 05:32:25 AM »
Trotsky Bernie is a reactionary Judas who is not loyal the the Revolution.

Proof. Show your work.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34243
    • View Profile
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2018, 05:40:45 AM »
Who thinks Bernie will run again in 2020?

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16126
    • View Profile
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2018, 05:51:41 AM »
Trotsky Bernie is a reactionary Judas who is not loyal the the Revolution.

Proof. Show your work.

Just kidding. I agree its a hit job. What ever happened to worker solidarity?
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34243
    • View Profile
The Resurrection of Socialism in the FSoA?
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2018, 08:12:04 AM »
Can a long-dead left come back to life?

RE

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democratic-socialists-gain-momentum-and-lose-their-way?ref=scroll


Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast
NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE
Democratic Socialists Gain Momentum, and Lose Their Way
DSA Founder Michael Harrington Might Not Recognize the Socialism of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ronald Radosh
Ronald Radosh
07.21.18 10:54 AM ET

“Toto, We’re Not in the Bronx anymore,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have well said, as she and Bernie Sanders just finished their first rally in Kansas, where they spoke in support of the Wichita Congressional candidate on the Democratic ticket, James Thompson. Ocasio-Cortez learned, she said, “that a girl from the Bronx is welcome everywhere.”

Her message was that the same issues that helped her win a heavily Latino and working-class district in the Bronx and Queens, would equally go over in the Republican state of Kansas. “Working-class people,” she said, “share the same values as working-class people everywhere.”  In an auditorium seating 5,000, about 3,000 supporters came, on a working day, to cheer on Thompson and to welcome Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders to Kansas, in the very district in which the Koch brothers—as the speakers reminded the audience a few times—choose to live in.

Ocasio-Cortez has not as yet mastered the technique of speaking before large rallies, and reading from a script, she presented what this viewer—watching it on TV—saw as a largely lackluster recital of the programs she favored: Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, which is almost double Kansas’ current $7.25 an hour, and the promise that she and Thompson and Sanders “would not stop until our students get free college” without tuition payments. To attain that goal, she urged the audience to go door to door to get Wichita’s citizens to hear the message and pull the lever for Thompson, a Marine veteran and family man who now is a lawyer.

After Thompson’s brief talk, he introduced the day’s star, Bernie Sanders, who gave a perfunctory admonition to vote and campaign for Thompson. But the heart of his fiery speech seemed to be the beginning of his own presidential campaign, rather than a pep talk for a local candidate.

Eschewing the claim that his ideas are radical, Sanders told the crowd  that “what were once thought of as radical ideas are now those of the mainstream,” pointing to one poll that showed 65 percent of the American people favor “Medicare for all,” which he called “a single-payer system.” Agreeing with Octasio-Cortez, Sanders said working-people in Kansas and elsewhere needed a $15 minimum wage. Such programs, Sanders said, are as expensive as his critics charge. Rather than say they were not, he retorted that the programs are better than “tax breaks for the wealthy” that Donald Trump’s tax plan produces.

Turning to Donald Trump—whom Octasio-Cortez and Thompson barely mentioned—Sanders blasted the President as a “pathological liar,” and proceeded to note that “Trump even lies about where his own father was born,” referring to Trump’s statement that his father was born in Germany, when in fact he was born in the United States. Trump’s pretending to claim that his immigration policy showed how tough he was, Sanders asked why he was not tough when facing Vladimir Putin, a man who was putting American democracy itself in danger. Unlike Octasio-Cortez, Sanders’ focus was national rather than regional.

Their joint appearance is more evidence that, as many argue, socialism has made a huge comeback in America, as significant as the Socialist Party was in its heydays in the 1900s to the 1920s, when it had two members elected to Congress and many of its members gained seats in State legislatures and local city governments as well.
Related in Politics
DSA Membership Soars After Ocasio-Cortez’s Stunning Victory
Young Progressive Ocasio-Cortez Topples Old Boss Joe Crowley
lexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Nominee for New York's 14th Congressional District, appears on "Meet the Press" in Washington, D.C., Sunday, July 1, 2018.
Ocasio-Cortez Gives Big Boost to Other Left-Wing Candidates

As for Octasio-Cortez, who will surely be the next Representative of New York City’s 14th Congressional District, she is a proud member of Democratic Socialists of America, a group founded first as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in 1973 by Michael Harrington, and then as a political organization in 1982.
ADVERTISING

The group that started with 5,000 members has 45,000 members and 181 chapters since July,  making it the largest socialist group in America.

The leftist historian Lawrence Wittner sees “a remarkable comeback in American life,” as 35 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of socialism, and 60 percent of Democratic primary voters think of it as “positive.” Seeing candidates like Ocasio-Cortez triumph in party primaries in solidly blue districts, some mainstream Democrats are joining her call to end ICE, institute free public college education for all, and expand Medicare into a single-payer system that would create government-run health care for the first time in the United States.

This is quite an achievement, given that the efforts of Harrington and his comrades to revive socialism had met with only minimal success in his lifetime.

 The nature of the socialism they say they espouse, however, is quite different than what socialists traditionally stood for. British When Labor leader Harold Wilson was the UK’s Prime Minister, (1964-1970) he immediately acted to nationalize the steel industry. Having the state take over “the commanding heights of the economy” was once the basis for what its advocates believed would be a socialist transformation.
Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily Digest

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.
Cheat Sheet

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).
By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

 Today’s self-proclaimed members have dropped this kind of program entirely. As one DSA member writes, “Yet when it comes to propounding a socialist—read anticapitalist—program, those Reds among us who have ever worked in Democratic clubs or in independent electoral efforts rarely if ever push the kinds of demands that challenge the capitalist system at its root. We hesitate at our peril.” The group’s website simply talks in a general way about “reforms that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people.” To hardline traditional socialists like this “Red” member who complained about DSA’s lack of militancy, the group is not truly socialist. The truth is that DSA members have not really explained what socialism means to them, and simply use the term to let people know they want societal transformation. Calling for a “humane international social order” that seeks an “equitable distribution of resources” would not be recognized by the socialists of the past as the goal they fought for. Indeed, socialism was called by Irving Howe simply “the name of our desire,” but not a political program that would produce a full-fledged socialist order.

There are other ways that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and other democratic-socialists have parted ways with Harrington. An ex-member of the organization who joined when it was first founded, Michael S. Bernick, wrote in a recent op-ed that the group he was active in for over a decade, was made up of members who were both idealistic and committed to democracy, and never looked down on the “silent majority” with scorn and disdain. Rather than respect the result of democratic elections, he argues that the current organization endorses the tactics of “resistance” and personal harassment, the chosen tools of the anti-democratic far Left, and not those of its founding generation.

Indeed, I recall the DSA meeting with Harrington after Ronald Reagan’s victory, and although it had worked hard against him, members made it clear that the American people had chosen Reagan, and that as a democratically-elected president he had to be respected while being challenged politically. Harrington and Irving Howe, the group’s intellectual leader, both opposed the Vietnam War but urged that anti-war members not take part in marches and rallies organized by far leftists who were anti-American and waved Viet Cong flags, and who were calling for victory of Ho Chi Minh’s National Liberation Front.

There is another area that shows how different Harrington’s strategy was from that of DSA members today. Harrington would never have gone to Kansas, as Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have done, to campaign for the most left-wing candidate in districts defined by virtually everyone as center-right. Yet there the socialists were on Friday, campaigning in an evening rally for self-proclaimed “Justice Democrat” Brent Welder, whom Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges is running the same campaign she did, under the idea, as reporter David Weigel drily explained, that “what’s good for the Bronx and Queens would be even better for Kansas.”

Harrington would, I think, have backed a victory in that six-candidate Democratic primary for the Democrat most likely to capture the center in a race against the existing Congressman, Republican Kevin Yoder, who seems happy watching Democrats fight amongst themselves. 

“This is a center-right district,” he told Weigel, “and people from time to time will cross over to vote for a Democrat. When they worry that the Democratic Party is being taken over by folks who describe themselves as ‘democratic socialists,’ they’re not going to take that risk.” As New York Times reporter Sydney Ember pointed out, after covering the rally, “many establishment Democrats have bristled at the suggestion that the far-left ideas espoused by her and Mr. Sanders represent the party’s position.” Moreover, these Democrats fear that the socialist message in “districts vastly different than hers will turn off, rather than invigorate, voters.”

Harrington might have personally wanted Medicare for All, but he wouldn’t have risked electing a Republican, in a state that voted for Trump, by campaigning for Welder, the most progressive candidate vying to challenge Republican Kevin Yoder. At a time when everyone knows that the only way to stop the Trump administration’s policies is a Democratic takeover of the House, Michael Harrington would not jeopardize that goal when it might mean moderates and centrists might choose to either not vote or vote for Yoder. He would apply that same logic when it came to endorsing Thompson. At the rally, Thompson said others urged he be more centrist, a course he rejected as being nothing less than being “Republican light.”

Where today’s DSA calls for a full-fledged government-run health care system, free college and more, they have only boilerplate explanations about how these things would be funded, with many arguing that it can be done by simply taxing the rich and large corporations.

Harrington knew enough to avoid such chimerical schemes. He advocated calling for only “the left-wing of the possible,” while offering support for mainstream liberal policy proposals. He supported policies he thought that the majority of the country would support. Thus Harrington favored moderate reforms such as Senator Hubert Humphrey’s and Rep. Augustus Hawkins’ Full Employment Act—based on the Keynesian economic measure of “priming the pump” by creating some new government jobs in periods of great unemployment and holding out the goal of a full employment economy in the future. Private, and not public enterprise, the authors believed, would be the mechanism and institution that would achieve its stated goals. When President Jimmy Carter signed it into law in October of 1978, Harrington viewed it as a political victory. The “left-wing of the possible” did not apply to the demands favored today by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, which so many people in the country oppose.

Internationally, Harrington opposed the existing dictatorships of the totalitarian Left, and supported the West in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Unlike the members of today’s DSA, Harrington made his organization an affiliate of the Socialist International, whose members were largely moderate leaders of European social-democratic parties. To contrast his group with the pro-Soviet “Eurocommunists” and anti-democratic Third World leftists, he sponsored a meeting in 1980 called “Euro-Socialism in America,” which featured leading European social-democrats, including Willy Brandt of Germany, Olaf Palme of Sweden, Francois Mitterrand of France, and other European socialists. Harrington hoped that within a year, every European government would have a socialist as president or prime minister, and he sought to help differentiate this Euro-socialist group, as he called it, from the Soviet Union’s alliance in the Warsaw Pact and the Cominform of totalitarian Communist states. Today’s DSA withdrew from the SI at its most recent convention

DSA still heralds the memory of Michael Harrington, but it has strayed far from the actual politics he practiced. Were he alive, he might even think twice about remaining a member.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34243
    • View Profile
Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems.
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2018, 04:51:37 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.
Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Jul.22.2018 / 4:01 AM ET


Ocasio-Cortez joins Sanders to rally for Kansas Democrat, progressive values
Jul.20.201801:19

COLUMBUS, Ohio — If Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a leftist political revolt, then a summit here of moderate Democrats might be the start of a counterrevolution.

While the energy and momentum is with progressives these days — the victory of rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, buzz about Democratic Socialism and the spread of the "Abolish ICE!" movement are a few recent examples — moderates are warning that ignoring them will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.

That anxiety has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop Sanders, I-Vt., if he runs for the White House again.

But the first-ever "Opportunity 2020" convention, organized here last week by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, gave middle-of-the-road party members a safe space to come together and voice their concerns.

"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.

"I think we need a debate within the party," he added. "Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."

Pragmatism may be a tougher sell in the Donald Trump era, but with the 2020 presidential race just around the corner, moderate Democrats know they are running out of time to reassert themselves.

The gathering here was just that — an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.

The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.

"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.
Image: Tim Ryan
Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, arrives for a House Democratic Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2016.Susan Walsh / AP file

The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.

"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third Way President Jon Cowan.

For the left, Third Way represents the Wall Street-wing of the party and everything wrong with the donor-driven wet blanketism they've been trying exorcise since 2016. Thom Hartmann, a liberal talk radio host and Sanders friend, once called the group's warning about Sanders "probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard," before ticking through all the investment bankers on Third Way's board.

But some elected officials in relatively conservative areas say progressives are clueless about what their agenda would mean for Democrats outside major cities and the coasts.

"We will be a permanent minority party in this country," said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson, a firefighter who represents an area that saw one of the biggest swings from Barack Obama to Trump during the 2016 election.

Single-payer, government-run health care may be a popular party plank in New York City, where Ocascio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist, recently won a high-profile primary, Danielson said, but added, "it does not work in the rest of America ... and I’m tired of losing."

Moderates said they feel they're being drowned out by louder voices on the left.

Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon's "silent majority."

"If you look throughout the heartland, there's a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done," she told reporters.

"There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming," she added.
Recommended
Deadly shooting stuns Toronto neighborhood
White Helmets evacuated from Syria as regime forces close in

And they worry the angry left will cost Democrats a rare chance to win over those kind of voters, including Republicans who no longer want to be part of Trump's GOP.

"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ‘Our base is bigger than your base.'"
Image: Mitch Landrieu
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu speaks in Washington on race in America and his decision to take down Confederate monuments in his city on June 16, 2017.Jacquelyn Martin / AP file

With much of the recent policy innovation on the Democratic side happening on the left, the "Opportunity Agenda" unveiled here tries to equip moderates with their own big ideas.

Some of the key initiatives are a massive apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training. Other proposals included a "small business bill of rights" and the creation of a "BoomerCorps" — like the volunteer AmericaCorps for seniors.

Meanwhile, they say the progressive agenda is out of date. They dismiss, for instance, a federal jobs guarantee as a rehash of the New Deal.

"Our ideas must be bold, but they must also fit the age we are in," Cowan said. "Big isn't enough. If it's bold and old — it’s simply old."

Matt Bennett, Third Way's senior vice president for public affairs, acknowledges that Sanders "had a big head start."

Many of the party's biggest stars, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey, have already signed on to Sanders-backed policies like single-payer health care. But Bennett said he thinks they'll reconsider when they examine the details. "I think they were a little hasty," he said.

Notably, the proposed moderate agenda does not take issue with the party's broad consensus in favor of abortion rights, LGBT equality, stricter gun control and support for immigrants and a path to citizenship for the undocumented.

In a twist, the agenda is based largely on geography, rather than class or race, which are more popular on the left. It focuses on trying to address the fact that cities are thriving as rural areas fall behind.

Clinton was pilloried earlier this year for bragging that she "won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," but Democratic losses in the rest of America have been politically disastrous for the party.

The difficulty will be selling this approach in the Democratic presidential primary to a base that has seemed to move in the opposite direction.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the chair of the New Democrat Coalition, said members of his side are not "naturally arbiters of emotion and anger."

"How we tell our story and put forward our polices in a way that makes people want to mount the barricades is one of the biggest challenges we have," said Himes, a former Goldman Sachs banker who represents Fairfield, Connecticut.

He pointed to calls to "Abolish ICE," for instance, which he characterized as emotionally understandable but politically illogical.

"It hurts us in areas where we need to win," Himes warned of "Abolish ICE" in the midterms. "You have now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority."

"We're going to figure it out, though," he added, looking down at his tie printed with little blue waves. "We're going to figure it out."
 

SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16126
    • View Profile
Re: Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems.
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2018, 05:20:12 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.
Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Jul.22.2018 / 4:01 AM ET


Ocasio-Cortez joins Sanders to rally for Kansas Democrat, progressive values
Jul.20.201801:19

COLUMBUS, Ohio — If Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a leftist political revolt, then a summit here of moderate Democrats might be the start of a counterrevolution.

While the energy and momentum is with progressives these days — the victory of rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, buzz about Democratic Socialism and the spread of the "Abolish ICE!" movement are a few recent examples — moderates are warning that ignoring them will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.

That anxiety has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop Sanders, I-Vt., if he runs for the White House again.

But the first-ever "Opportunity 2020" convention, organized here last week by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, gave middle-of-the-road party members a safe space to come together and voice their concerns.

"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.

"I think we need a debate within the party," he added. "Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."

Pragmatism may be a tougher sell in the Donald Trump era, but with the 2020 presidential race just around the corner, moderate Democrats know they are running out of time to reassert themselves.

The gathering here was just that — an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.

The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.

"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.
Image: Tim Ryan
Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, arrives for a House Democratic Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2016.Susan Walsh / AP file

The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.

"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third Way President Jon Cowan.

For the left, Third Way represents the Wall Street-wing of the party and everything wrong with the donor-driven wet blanketism they've been trying exorcise since 2016. Thom Hartmann, a liberal talk radio host and Sanders friend, once called the group's warning about Sanders "probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard," before ticking through all the investment bankers on Third Way's board.

But some elected officials in relatively conservative areas say progressives are clueless about what their agenda would mean for Democrats outside major cities and the coasts.

"We will be a permanent minority party in this country," said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson, a firefighter who represents an area that saw one of the biggest swings from Barack Obama to Trump during the 2016 election.

Single-payer, government-run health care may be a popular party plank in New York City, where Ocascio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist, recently won a high-profile primary, Danielson said, but added, "it does not work in the rest of America ... and I’m tired of losing."

Moderates said they feel they're being drowned out by louder voices on the left.

Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon's "silent majority."

"If you look throughout the heartland, there's a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done," she told reporters.

"There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming," she added.
Recommended
Deadly shooting stuns Toronto neighborhood
White Helmets evacuated from Syria as regime forces close in

And they worry the angry left will cost Democrats a rare chance to win over those kind of voters, including Republicans who no longer want to be part of Trump's GOP.

"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ‘Our base is bigger than your base.'"
Image: Mitch Landrieu
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu speaks in Washington on race in America and his decision to take down Confederate monuments in his city on June 16, 2017.Jacquelyn Martin / AP file

With much of the recent policy innovation on the Democratic side happening on the left, the "Opportunity Agenda" unveiled here tries to equip moderates with their own big ideas.

Some of the key initiatives are a massive apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training. Other proposals included a "small business bill of rights" and the creation of a "BoomerCorps" — like the volunteer AmericaCorps for seniors.

Meanwhile, they say the progressive agenda is out of date. They dismiss, for instance, a federal jobs guarantee as a rehash of the New Deal.

"Our ideas must be bold, but they must also fit the age we are in," Cowan said. "Big isn't enough. If it's bold and old — it’s simply old."

Matt Bennett, Third Way's senior vice president for public affairs, acknowledges that Sanders "had a big head start."

Many of the party's biggest stars, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey, have already signed on to Sanders-backed policies like single-payer health care. But Bennett said he thinks they'll reconsider when they examine the details. "I think they were a little hasty," he said.

Notably, the proposed moderate agenda does not take issue with the party's broad consensus in favor of abortion rights, LGBT equality, stricter gun control and support for immigrants and a path to citizenship for the undocumented.

In a twist, the agenda is based largely on geography, rather than class or race, which are more popular on the left. It focuses on trying to address the fact that cities are thriving as rural areas fall behind.

Clinton was pilloried earlier this year for bragging that she "won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," but Democratic losses in the rest of America have been politically disastrous for the party.

The difficulty will be selling this approach in the Democratic presidential primary to a base that has seemed to move in the opposite direction.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the chair of the New Democrat Coalition, said members of his side are not "naturally arbiters of emotion and anger."

"How we tell our story and put forward our polices in a way that makes people want to mount the barricades is one of the biggest challenges we have," said Himes, a former Goldman Sachs banker who represents Fairfield, Connecticut.

He pointed to calls to "Abolish ICE," for instance, which he characterized as emotionally understandable but politically illogical.

"It hurts us in areas where we need to win," Himes warned of "Abolish ICE" in the midterms. "You have now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority."

"We're going to figure it out, though," he added, looking down at his tie printed with little blue waves. "We're going to figure it out."
 

They should start by learning the math. They need to attract white people, and they aren't doing anything to make that happen.

They persist in their ongoing strategy, which is to just survive until demographics gives the victory, as the brown Americans become the majority. but it isn't quite so simple. On their present course, I don't see them surviving at all as a major force in American politics.


A damaging distortion

Black Americans are over-represented in media portrayals of poverty
And that underpins some toxic beliefs


Democracy in America
Feb 20th 2018by C.K. | WASHINGTON, DC

NBC reported recently that at a meeting last year with the Congressional Black Caucus a member told President Donald Trump that his planned welfare cuts would hurt her constituents, “not all of whom were black”. Mr Trump is reported to have replied: "Really? Then what are they?” If the president had not realised that most welfare recipients are white, he is not alone. And the media are partly to blame, for black Americans are overwhelmingly over-represented in media portrayals of poverty.

The poverty rate amongst black Americans, at 22%, is higher than the American average of 13%. But black people make up only 9m of the 41m poor Americans. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit focused on health care, found that in only five states for which it had data and the District of Columbia, were there more black poor people than white. Black Americans are more likely to be recipients of means-tested welfare programmes like Medicaid or Housing Assistance - at 41% participation in one or more programmes in 2012 that is about twice the national average. That suggests black people make up about 26% of all recipients.

Media news suggests that the percentage is very much higher. Travis Dixon at the University of Illinois analysed a random sample of television, print and online news stories over 2015 and 2016 and found that 59% of the poor people discussed or depicted in them were black. White families, by contrast, accounted for only 17% of poor people shown, though they constitute 66% of the poor population. It is possible that, with a new emphasis on the frustrations of poor white Americans, that Mr Trump tapped into in 2016, media portrayals will begin to change; it is too soon to know.

The bias isn’t limited to right-leaning news sources. In the news coverage Mr Dixon looked at, CNN depicted seven poor families—all seven of them were black. And all five of the poor families depicted in Dixon’s sample of New York Times coverage were black.

Unsurprisingly, this tendency, which has a long history, has informed the way Americans think about race and poverty. Martin Gilens, a politics professor at Yale, found that in a survey in 1994, 55% of Americans thought that all poor Americas were black and only 24% thought the reverse.

And this, in turn, has set some Americans against welfare spending. Katherine Krimmel and Kelly Rader, political scientists, have found that individuals who are more likely to benefit from government spending tend to support it. Richer people in poorer states are notably keen to cut domestic spending. But they found that racial resentment has an even greater influence on attitudes to government spending. They measured resentment via two questions about whether blacks should overcome prejudice “without any special favours” and whether “generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.” The impact of resentment on attitudes towards spending was four times that of income differences and larger than measures of self-interest including being unemployed. If welfare is seen as overwhelmingly benefiting blacks it is little surprise that whites displaying racial resentment might oppose it.

The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group for criminal justice reform, has found a similar pattern regarding violent crime.  Crimes perpetrated by African Americans were disproportionately likely to be covered on television –especially if they involved a white victim.  While only 10% of victims in crime reports were whites who had been victimised by blacks, these crimes made up 42% of cases televised by local news. Popular perceptions of crime reflect the coverage bias: a survey from 2002 found that respondents estimated 40% of people who committed violent crimes were black; surveys showed the proportion to be 29%.  And white Americans who more strongly associated crime with black Americans were more likely to support punitive criminal justice policies including the death sentence and three strikes laws.

A media focus on black poverty may be well-intentioned. It probably has its roots in the pre-Civil Rights era when the plight of poor black Americans was too often neglected. But it has helped underpin a toxic set of beliefs about poverty and race. It would be better, of course, if people did not decide their support for programmes based on the skin colour of beneficiaries. But until that is the case a more accurate understanding of the diversity of welfare recipients would help.

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/02/20/black-americans-are-over-represented-in-media-portrayals-of-poverty



What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34243
    • View Profile
🔴 Growing support for socialism in the United States
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2018, 01:25:13 AM »
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/08/14/growing-support-for-socialism-in-the-united-states/


Growing support for socialism in the United States
August 14, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.
By Joseph Kishore, wsws.org

This is an excerpt. Original article here.

A Gallup poll released yesterday found that, for the first time since it began tracking the figure, fewer than half of young people aged 18-29 have a positive view of capitalism, while more than half have a positive view of socialism. The poll also found that, again for the first time, significantly more Democratic-leaning voters have a positive view of socialism than of capitalism.

The percentage of young people viewing capitalism positively is continuing its precipitous fall, from 68 percent in 2010, to 57 percent in 2016, to 45 percent in 2018 (a stunning 23-percentage point drop in just eight years). The percentage of young people viewing socialism favorably has remained relatively flat during this period and stood at 51 percent in 2018—producing a 6-percentage point gap in favor of socialism.

A similar trend is seen among Democrats and “Democratic-leaning independents” of all age groups, with a positive view of capitalism falling from 53 percent in 2010 to 47 percent in 2018, while those with a positive view of socialism increased from 53 percent to 57 percent—a 10-percentage point gap in favor of socialism.

According to Gallup, overall most Americans still have a positive view of capitalism, but this year’s 56 percent positive rating is, by four points, the lowest recorded. Gallup included a list of economic terms, asking respondents to say whether they had a positive or negative image of each. Of these terms, only “socialism” increased its positive image, while “entrepreneurs,” “free enterprise,” “capitalism,” “small business,” “federal government,” and “big business” all fell.

The period covered by Gallup’s figures (2010-2018) is significant. It largely corresponds to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the tenure of the Democratic administration of Barack Obama, which came to power promising “hope” and “change,” while presiding over the largest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in US history. Obama left office proclaiming that the economy had “never been better,” but workers and young people clearly feel otherwise.

The growth in support for socialism, and the decline in support for capitalism, confirms the evaluation made in a resolution adopted at the Socialist Equality Party Congress last month. “There is a growing sense among substantial sections of the working class and youth,” the resolution states, “that capitalism is inherently unjust and that fundamental changes in the economic system are needed. While this broad-based sentiment has not yet developed into a mass political movement directed toward the ending of the capitalist system, interest in and support for socialism is growing rapidly.”

The growing interest in socialism terrifies the ruling class. It coincides with initial expressions of the resurgence of class struggle, from the teachers strikes that spread throughout the country earlier this year and threaten to emerge again as the schools reopen over the next several weeks, to the mass opposition among UPS workers to the concessions contracts supported by the Teamsters union, to growing anger among auto workers, Amazon workers and other sections of the working class.

In response, the ruling class—in the United States and internationally—is moving to impose ever more directly authoritarian forms of rule, whether through the promotion of far-right nationalist movements (including forces cultivated by the Trump administration) or in the moves by the traditional parties of the ruling class to abrogate basic democratic rights. In the United States, it is the Democratic Party that has taken the lead in demanding, in the guise of combating “fake news” and “Russian meddling,” greater censorship of the Internet, which is ever more explicitly directed at left-wing, socialist and anti-war publications.

The ruling class has another means of combating and diverting mass opposition to capitalism: the promotion of various pseudo-socialist political movements and individuals that use the term “socialism” to confuse and disorient. In the United States, this role was played in the 2016 election by Bernie Sanders, who spoke of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” only to channel the significant (and, for Sanders, unexpected and unwelcome) support he received behind Hillary Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street and the military and intelligence apparatus.

The same role is now being played by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). From its origins, the DSA has been nothing more than a faction of the Democratic Party. Michael Harrington, who founded the DSA in 1982, defined its politics as the “left wing of the possible,” by which was meant the “left wing” of what was acceptable to capitalist, bourgeois politics. The DSA did not then and does not now represent a break with the Democrats, but rather has functioned as an auxiliary organization of the Democratic Party.

Over the past year, DSA membership has grown rapidly, from 7,000 in 2016, to 47,000. The organization will likely have two members in the next congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who defeated incumbent Congressman Joseph Crowley in a Democratic Party New York congressional primary in June, and Rashida Tlaib, who won last week’s Democratic Party primary in Detroit’s 13th Congressional District (home of longtime Democratic Party/DSA member John Conyers, who resigned last year).

The growth of the DSA reflects two contradictory processes. On the one hand, the leftward movement of a layer of young people looking for a socialist opposition, and, on the other hand, the active promotion of the organization by a faction of the Democratic Party and the corporate media. The DSA-affiliated Jacobin magazine has been exempted from Google’s censorship algorithms targeting the left, while the New York Times has opened its pages to its editor, Bhaskar Sunkara.

The DSA is part of a broader group of organizations, including the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative, that speak for privileged sections of the upper-middle class, not the working class. Their proposals for limited social reforms are connected to support for the Democratic Party and the defense of the organizational domination of the corporatist trade unions over the working class.

The Gallup poll is only the latest indication that there is a massive reservoir of support in the working class and youth for socialism. As workers enter into conflict with the policies of the corporate and financial elite, this reservoir will grow. There is, however, only a limited understanding of what socialism really means and how it can be obtained. As such, it is susceptible to being misguided and suppressed, as the capitalist ruling elites advance their plans for war and dictatorship.

Genuine socialism must be advanced clearly and with great determination. The Socialist Equality Party insists that genuine socialism is based on the principle of social equality, that the vast sums of wealth monopolized by the rich through the exploitation and immiseration of the working class must be seized and directed toward the satisfaction of social needs.

Genuine socialism is international, based on the principle that workers in every country have the same social interests and the same class enemies. A socialist movement must take up the defense of immigrant workers on the basis of the fight for open borders—that workers everywhere should be able to live and work where they choose.

Genuine socialism is inseparable from the fight against imperialist war, the product of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist nation-state system, which threaten to engulf the globe in a nuclear catastrophe.

Genuine socialism is based on the interests of the working class, the vast majority of the world’s population. It is opposed to all forms of nationalism, as well as the politics of racial and gender identity, which seeks to divide workers against each other and subordinate them to the capitalist system.

And genuine socialism is revolutionary. It proposes not mild reforms, which the ruling class will not tolerate, but revolution—the overthrow of capitalist property relations through the establishment of democratic control over the giant banks and corporations. It fights for the political mobilization of the working class, in opposition to the Democratic and Republican Parties, to take power and establish a workers’ government to reorganize economic life, in the United States and internationally, on the basis of social need, not private profit.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author is a senior editor with wsws.org, a Marxian publication.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16126
    • View Profile
Re: 🔴 Growing support for socialism in the United States
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2018, 12:41:07 PM »
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/08/14/growing-support-for-socialism-in-the-united-states/


Growing support for socialism in the United States
August 14, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.
By Joseph Kishore, wsws.org

This is an excerpt. Original article here.

A Gallup poll released yesterday found that, for the first time since it began tracking the figure, fewer than half of young people aged 18-29 have a positive view of capitalism, while more than half have a positive view of socialism. The poll also found that, again for the first time, significantly more Democratic-leaning voters have a positive view of socialism than of capitalism.

The percentage of young people viewing capitalism positively is continuing its precipitous fall, from 68 percent in 2010, to 57 percent in 2016, to 45 percent in 2018 (a stunning 23-percentage point drop in just eight years). The percentage of young people viewing socialism favorably has remained relatively flat during this period and stood at 51 percent in 2018—producing a 6-percentage point gap in favor of socialism.

A similar trend is seen among Democrats and “Democratic-leaning independents” of all age groups, with a positive view of capitalism falling from 53 percent in 2010 to 47 percent in 2018, while those with a positive view of socialism increased from 53 percent to 57 percent—a 10-percentage point gap in favor of socialism.

According to Gallup, overall most Americans still have a positive view of capitalism, but this year’s 56 percent positive rating is, by four points, the lowest recorded. Gallup included a list of economic terms, asking respondents to say whether they had a positive or negative image of each. Of these terms, only “socialism” increased its positive image, while “entrepreneurs,” “free enterprise,” “capitalism,” “small business,” “federal government,” and “big business” all fell.

The period covered by Gallup’s figures (2010-2018) is significant. It largely corresponds to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the tenure of the Democratic administration of Barack Obama, which came to power promising “hope” and “change,” while presiding over the largest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in US history. Obama left office proclaiming that the economy had “never been better,” but workers and young people clearly feel otherwise.

The growth in support for socialism, and the decline in support for capitalism, confirms the evaluation made in a resolution adopted at the Socialist Equality Party Congress last month. “There is a growing sense among substantial sections of the working class and youth,” the resolution states, “that capitalism is inherently unjust and that fundamental changes in the economic system are needed. While this broad-based sentiment has not yet developed into a mass political movement directed toward the ending of the capitalist system, interest in and support for socialism is growing rapidly.”

The growing interest in socialism terrifies the ruling class. It coincides with initial expressions of the resurgence of class struggle, from the teachers strikes that spread throughout the country earlier this year and threaten to emerge again as the schools reopen over the next several weeks, to the mass opposition among UPS workers to the concessions contracts supported by the Teamsters union, to growing anger among auto workers, Amazon workers and other sections of the working class.

In response, the ruling class—in the United States and internationally—is moving to impose ever more directly authoritarian forms of rule, whether through the promotion of far-right nationalist movements (including forces cultivated by the Trump administration) or in the moves by the traditional parties of the ruling class to abrogate basic democratic rights. In the United States, it is the Democratic Party that has taken the lead in demanding, in the guise of combating “fake news” and “Russian meddling,” greater censorship of the Internet, which is ever more explicitly directed at left-wing, socialist and anti-war publications.

The ruling class has another means of combating and diverting mass opposition to capitalism: the promotion of various pseudo-socialist political movements and individuals that use the term “socialism” to confuse and disorient. In the United States, this role was played in the 2016 election by Bernie Sanders, who spoke of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” only to channel the significant (and, for Sanders, unexpected and unwelcome) support he received behind Hillary Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street and the military and intelligence apparatus.

The same role is now being played by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). From its origins, the DSA has been nothing more than a faction of the Democratic Party. Michael Harrington, who founded the DSA in 1982, defined its politics as the “left wing of the possible,” by which was meant the “left wing” of what was acceptable to capitalist, bourgeois politics. The DSA did not then and does not now represent a break with the Democrats, but rather has functioned as an auxiliary organization of the Democratic Party.

Over the past year, DSA membership has grown rapidly, from 7,000 in 2016, to 47,000. The organization will likely have two members in the next congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who defeated incumbent Congressman Joseph Crowley in a Democratic Party New York congressional primary in June, and Rashida Tlaib, who won last week’s Democratic Party primary in Detroit’s 13th Congressional District (home of longtime Democratic Party/DSA member John Conyers, who resigned last year).

The growth of the DSA reflects two contradictory processes. On the one hand, the leftward movement of a layer of young people looking for a socialist opposition, and, on the other hand, the active promotion of the organization by a faction of the Democratic Party and the corporate media. The DSA-affiliated Jacobin magazine has been exempted from Google’s censorship algorithms targeting the left, while the New York Times has opened its pages to its editor, Bhaskar Sunkara.

The DSA is part of a broader group of organizations, including the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative, that speak for privileged sections of the upper-middle class, not the working class. Their proposals for limited social reforms are connected to support for the Democratic Party and the defense of the organizational domination of the corporatist trade unions over the working class.

The Gallup poll is only the latest indication that there is a massive reservoir of support in the working class and youth for socialism. As workers enter into conflict with the policies of the corporate and financial elite, this reservoir will grow. There is, however, only a limited understanding of what socialism really means and how it can be obtained. As such, it is susceptible to being misguided and suppressed, as the capitalist ruling elites advance their plans for war and dictatorship.

Genuine socialism must be advanced clearly and with great determination. The Socialist Equality Party insists that genuine socialism is based on the principle of social equality, that the vast sums of wealth monopolized by the rich through the exploitation and immiseration of the working class must be seized and directed toward the satisfaction of social needs.

Genuine socialism is international, based on the principle that workers in every country have the same social interests and the same class enemies. A socialist movement must take up the defense of immigrant workers on the basis of the fight for open borders—that workers everywhere should be able to live and work where they choose.

Genuine socialism is inseparable from the fight against imperialist war, the product of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist nation-state system, which threaten to engulf the globe in a nuclear catastrophe.

Genuine socialism is based on the interests of the working class, the vast majority of the world’s population. It is opposed to all forms of nationalism, as well as the politics of racial and gender identity, which seeks to divide workers against each other and subordinate them to the capitalist system.

And genuine socialism is revolutionary. It proposes not mild reforms, which the ruling class will not tolerate, but revolution—the overthrow of capitalist property relations through the establishment of democratic control over the giant banks and corporations. It fights for the political mobilization of the working class, in opposition to the Democratic and Republican Parties, to take power and establish a workers’ government to reorganize economic life, in the United States and internationally, on the basis of social need, not private profit.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author is a senior editor with wsws.org, a Marxian publication.

This is not surprising. There's a lot more awareness of the evils of capitalism since Occupy. That's the main thing Occupy managed to accomplish before it was squashed.

People younger than 35, who aren't real estate agents or Evangelical ministers, are fairly likely to get that health care needs to be socialized, and that the Con-gress spent their birthright on F-35 bombers and cruise missiles.

Not sure HOW socialist they want to get. I doubt most American younger folks want to live in Karl Marx Hof and give up  driving for Uber, but I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 01:35:23 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2670
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2018, 01:27:38 PM »
Uber would be a better under socialism.  Drivers would get a better deal.  Paychecks don’t go away except when people play the extreme radical card to disrespect any discussion of socialism. 
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16126
    • View Profile
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2018, 02:12:16 PM »
Under socialism Uber turns into a cab license with a computer app, basically, as I see it.

These disruptive apps work for the drivers and the rideshare company because Uber (and the others)  avoids the responsibilities of an employer (more money for them of course), and more freedom for the driver to be his/her own boss.

Once Uber has to do all the things they avoid doing now, that regular employers have to do, like pay the employee's SS and do withholding and pay workman's comp, etc.,etc. then the juice is sucked out. The competitive advantage has more to do with lowering cost by avoiding taxes and regulations than it comes from technology. That's why Uber is fighting states that want them to be classified as an employer, like California.

The drivers want the work, but they want bennies and taxes taken out and for Uber to be the employer, and they don't get the basic problem with doing that, which is that the outsize profits go away, and Uber becomes another Yellow Cab.

I'm not saying anything about Uber being some great idea, or a great company, or that they should or should not exist. But I understand where the cash flow comes from, and how they get their big profit margin. The whole business plan gets much more mundane and far less exciting to investors if the drivers aren't self-employed independent contractors.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2018, 04:54:13 PM »
Under socialism Uber turns into a cab license with a computer app, basically, as I see it.

These disruptive apps work for the drivers and the rideshare company because Uber (and the others)  avoids the responsibilities of an employer (more money for them of course), and more freedom for the driver to be his/her own boss.

Once Uber has to do all the things they avoid doing now, that regular employers have to do, like pay the employee's SS and do withholding and pay workman's comp, etc.,etc. then the juice is sucked out. The competitive advantage has more to do with lowering cost by avoiding taxes and regulations than it comes from technology. That's why Uber is fighting states that want them to be classified as an employer, like California.

The drivers want the work, but they want bennies and taxes taken out and for Uber to be the employer, and they don't get the basic problem with doing that, which is that the outsize profits go away, and Uber becomes another Yellow Cab.

I'm not saying anything about Uber being some great idea, or a great company, or that they should or should not exist. But I understand where the cash flow comes from, and how they get their big profit margin. The whole business plan gets much more mundane and far less exciting to investors if the drivers aren't self-employed independent contractors.

Meanwhile, algorithms make really shitty bosses.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3062622/how-ubers-app-manages-drivers-without-technically-managing-drivers
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: A Lefty Skewers Bernie
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2018, 05:30:42 PM »
Quote from: Eddie
This is not surprising. There's a lot more awareness of the evils of capitalism since Occupy. That's the main thing Occupy managed to accomplish before it was squashed.

Moreover, Occupy really changed the language before Cheney wielder the apparatus of the National Security State in November 2011: the idea of "the one per cent," "We Are the 99 Percent,"  "I am a nurse without health insurance," Obama is not a brown skinned socialist who does out free health care, you're thinking of Jesus," Move Your Money," "Do You Feel it Trickle Down Yet," "Privatize profits, socialize losses," "I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one," and "End the Fed."

The movement petered out but the ideas live on.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
6019 Views
Last post November 16, 2013, 11:40:03 PM
by illdill
0 Replies
209 Views
Last post October 13, 2015, 07:37:04 PM
by MKing
2 Replies
432 Views
Last post November 19, 2015, 11:25:39 AM
by MKing