California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Let's Talk About the Communist Bogieman

by John Lawrence, October 8, 2020

After the vice Presidential debate last night Trump called Kamala Harris a communist. Let's be clear: communism is a system in which the government owns all property and makes all economic decisions. Let's also be clear about this: nowhere in the world today does communism exist. Not in Russia. Not in China. Not in Cuba. In Russia private ownership of enterprises and property had essentially remained illegal throughout the Soviet era, with Soviet communism emphasizing national control over all means of production. In the 1990s, during the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin, there was  large-scale privatization of Russia's state-owned assets, particularly in the industrial, energy, and financial sectors. Privatization shifted Russia from the Soviet planned economy towards a market economy, and resulted in a dramatic rise in the level of economic inequality. It facilitated the transfer of significant wealth to a relatively small group of oligarchs.

In China private property and state owned enterprises co-exist. According to the NY Times: "Today, the private sector contributes nearly two-thirds of the country’s growth and nine-tenths of new jobs, according to the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, an official business group." In fact the reason why China has pulled 800,000 people out of poverty in the last 40 years is that the economy has been partially privatized. There are more billionaires in China than in the US. Many people in China went from being poor to middle class due to the privatization of the housing market. So although China is still ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, its government is communist in name only. They should probably eliminate the word "Communist" from the party's name.

Now consider Cuba. In 2010, Cuban leaders Fidel and Raul Castro made the decision to abandon the old Soviet model of centralized planning. In 2011, new laws were enacted to expand the right to private property. In 2019, a new Constitution was approved which officially recognizes the right to private property, while also reconfirming the central government's authority over the regulation of production and land.

So if the accusation that Kamala is a communist is ridiculous, what about socialism? There is not one definition of socialism. Many of the western democracies like France, Germany, the UK and Sweden, which are US allies, have been governed by democratic socialist parties. These societies have market economies including the encouragement of entrepreneurialism, but also have a government provided social safety net including universal health care, free or inexpensive education from pre-K through college, allowances for child care, elder care etc. Sweden's government even owned a hamburger chain until recently and owns Sweden's state-run alcohol monopoly Systembolaget. The democratic socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders and others is nothing more than a model based on Sweden where there are high taxes on the wealthy which provide a government sponsored safety net for the middle class and the poor. Today there is one more reason why there should be a strong social safety net: global warming. It is clear that private enterprise is not up to the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero within a reasonable amount of time, reasonable meaning before the earth becomes uninhabitable.

Today in the US we  have a nominal capitalist or free market economy, but even in this economy the government institutes the rules within which the economy operates. The rules are set up and tweaked by those in power, those who have the money to hire lobbyists to convince legislators to write the rules in their favor, namely large corporations and the very wealthy. Don't be fooled by the meme that the powerful don't want government regulations. They do want regulations, but regulations that favor their interests and not the interests, necessarily, of the average person who doesn't have the resources to influence legislation by hiring lobbyists.

Today Kamala Harris and other Democratic progressives are really taking the realistic middle ground when they advocate for government policies which will mitigate and reduce climate change and provide a social safety net for the American people. This goes against the interests of the oil and gas industry to be sure. To advocate for universal health care is to advocate for the health care system that Canada and all our allies already have in pace. To advocate for policies that reduce the out of bounds economic inequality by taxing the rich and spending the money on raising the economic level of the poor and lower middle class only makes sense. None of these policies make Kamala Harris a communist since communism doesn't even exist in the world today. Formerly communist countries have given way to hybrid economies in which private enterprise and state owned enterprises coexist with, in the case of China, private enterprise having been the significant factor in improving the lives of the Chinese middle class.

Today, the US has gone way overboard towards an economy controlled by the rich and powerful in their own interests. Economic inequality has gotten way out of hand. The balance needs to be redressed and only a government which uses its authority to diminish the economic power of the wealthy and augment the power of the poor and middle class can provide the necessary change. Good paying jobs can be created which address infrastructure and climate change needs. So more or less a Green New Deal or whatever else you want to call it is necessary. Too bad that Republicans have gone out of their way to demonize that name as they've gone out of their way to demonize Obamacare or any other initiative progressive Democrats put forth. That is their stock and trade - not discussing the merits but demonizing the name.

Off the Top of My Head

It's Not About Radical VS Moderate. It's About Neoliberalism VS Social Democracy.

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden is not a moderate. He's about the continuation of neoliberal policies that got us to where we are today: the biggest economic inequality of all time. Neoliberalism is laissez-faire capitalism. The wealthiest 3 American families now own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of all Americans. Bernie Sanders is right about that. Social democracy is about evening out the distribution of wealth in this country. Joe Biden will continue the same policies that we have now: unending wars, nibbling around the edges of the income and wealth distribution, acceding to Mitch McConnell who will say "no" to every progressive policy. Going along with tax breaks for the rich and letting corporate lobbyists determine US environmental policies.

Since the 1980s the US has charged ahead with neoliberal policies which give tax breaks to the rich and subsidize profitable corporations because their lobbyists demand it. With Biden as President students will still be smothered with student loan debt. In 2005 Republicans led the way to taking away bankruptcy protection from student loan debtors. 18 Democratic senators broke ranks and cast their votes in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.

Joe Biden never met a credit card company he didn't like. He was known as the Senator from MBNA. All the credit card companies are headquartered in Delaware, Biden's home state. They will be enthusiastically cheering for him to win the Democratic nomination. In the 2003-2008 senatorial election cycle, Biden received more than $500,000 in help from credit card companies, financial services and banks. So this is the guy who is going to rein in Wall Street? Wall Street will get everything it wants under him including the continuation of student loan debtors without bankruptcy protection or relief.

It will be business as usual under a Joe Biden Presidency. Moderation means business as usual with neoliberal self serving policies enthusiastically supported. People that want radical change in this country including a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, student loan debt forgiveness and free child care paid for by taxes on the wealthy should get behind Bernie Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren. Warren said, “At a time when the biggest financial institutions in this country were trying to put the squeeze on millions of hard-working families, Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies.”

Social democracy does nothing to inhibit entrepreneurialism. The socially democratic Scandinavian countries have created their share of entrepreneurs and businesses. The Washington Post reported:

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is a big believer in the “American Dream,” and she thinks it’s a lot easier to achieve now in her country than in the United States.

“I feel that the American Dream can be achieved best in the Nordic countries, where every child, no matter their background or the background of their families, can become anything,” Marin told The Washington Post in an interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last month.

“We feel that the Nordic model is a success story,” said Marin, who became prime minister in December at age 34, making her briefly the youngest world leader (she lost that title in January when 33-year-old Sebastian Kurz returned to power as Austrian chancellor).

Bernie Sanders is a fan of the ‘Nordic model.’ Finland’s leader says it’s the American Dream.

Marin is hardly the first to claim that it’s easier to live the “American Dream” in Nordic countries. British politician and former Labour Party leader Edward Miliband said it in 2012. A New York Times opinion piece last year dubbed Finland a “capitalist paradise.” And presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-declared “democratic socialist,” has often said that the United States should be more like Scandinavia.

Not only are Scandinavian social democratic economic systems more conducive to business creation but also their political systems bear looking at. Proportional representation in a monocameral Parliament may be far more democratic than the dysfunctional US system where the Republican Senate routinely vetoes anything the Democratic House passes. The winner take all US system discourages third party representation and boils down to all out war between two bitterly divided rivals. Is this any way to run a country?

The single-member district voting system has been on the wane worldwide because it has a number of serious drawbacks. It routinely denies representation to large numbers of voters, produces legislatures that fail to accurately reflect the views of the public, discriminates against third parties, and discourages voter turnout. All of these problems can be traced to a fundamental flaw in our system: only those who vote for the winning candidate get any representation. Everyone else -- who may make up 49% of the electorate in a district -- gets no representation. This new reform is also beginning to get some attention: replacing our present single-member district, winner-take-all election system with proportional representation elections. Political commentators writing in The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor and USA Today have endorsed it. Grassroots groups in several states are now organizing to bring proportional representation to local elections.

With the US Congress at loggerheads with itself, a new political system as well as economic reform needs to be undertaken. The Scandinavian social democrats may be way ahead of the US both in economic, political and certainly in social terms.

Off the Top of My Head

How Come Democratic Socialism Works So Well in Scandinavia?

by John Lawrence, March 2, 2020

Bernie Sanders is being blasted by the old bugaboo of capitalism vs communism. This is a pitched battle which is so 20th century. The reality today is that what we have in the US and around the world is neoliberism, a virulent form of capitalism which is "an account of human nature where economic competition is the highest value [which] leads to a political theology where the prime duty of the state is to enable, and indeed mandate, such competition, and the result is a world wherein individuals, firms, and states are all continually constrained to express themselves via economic competition." Neoliberalism is a system in which "more and more people — especially young people who were born and raised in the neoliberal era — have started to question a system that has left their generation drowning in debt, burned out and mentally exhausted, and stuck in an endless loop of precarious uncertainty."

So what is democratic socialism? It is widely practiced in the Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. Currently, the Nordic countries are described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral form of governance which use proportional representation in their electoral systems. There is  support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to private ownership within a mixed economy.

Far from discouraging entrepreneurialism, these countries are hotbeds of it. The Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark are regularly ranked among the best places in the world to start a new business despite their high-tax environments. Well known businesses Spotify, Just Eat and airline Norwegian have all emerged from this part of the world to international success. Somehow, these small, Northern European nations have managed to pursue large income redistribution without disincentivising hard work and corporate invention.

So there you have it. Democratic socialist countries are arguably more democratic than is the US and countries modeled after it due to its unicameral legislative branch based on proportional representation as opposed to the winner take all two party system in the US. There is a spirit of comaraderie and cooperation instead of a spirit of solipsistic competition. A spirit that "we're all in this together." There is more social mobility than in the US. Harvard professor Raj Chetty proclaimed:"If you were an immigrant choosing where to go and have the best chances of climbing the income ladder, then statistically you’d have a better shot of achieving ‘the American dream’ if you’re growing up in Canada or in many Scandinavian countries than the United States." In addition you would have universal health care and free college education. Pretty much many of the elements Bernie Sanders advocates.

Many of the elements of democracy and common purpose that the US was originally founded on are better exemplified in other socialist democratic countries than they are in the present day neoliberalist US. Conor Lynch writes:

Neoliberalism is the opposite of solidarity. It encourages an extreme form of selfish individualism that ends up depoliticizing the populace and eroding the collective spirit of democracy. It also leaves the individual isolated and alone. “In a brutal, competitive, and atomized society, psychic well-being is so difficult that success on this front can feel like a significant accomplishment,” observes political theorist Jodi Dean. “Trying to do it themselves, people are immiserated and proletarianized and confront this immiseration and proletarianization alone.”

No wonder so many young people who are drowning in student loan debt and lack of medical care, not to mention a government not the least bit concerned about global warming, are finding inspiration in a more egalitarian system of government in which more entrepreneurial activity is taking place and more upward mobility is being realized than in the United States of America. The real debate is not between authoritarian socialism and capitalism; it's between democratic socialism and neoliberalism. What kind of a world do you want to live in?

Off the Top of My Head

The American Dream Better Realized in Democratic Socialist Denmark

by John Lawrence, February 20, 2020

In the other night's Democratic debate Pete Buttigieg mentioned that the American Dream is alive and well ... wait for it ...  in Denmark. As for America itself, there are 10 other countries in which it's easier to realize the American Dream which is that the children "do better" than their parents. "Doing better" has the dubious meaning of having more money. Leaving aside the fact that there are other dimensions to "doing better", America seems to be falling behind other nations when it comes to children starting low and achieving high. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders should have jumped on this as he's often put down as a democratic socialist. But, heck, if the American Dream is more easily achievable in a democratically socialist country like Denmark, this sort of makes Bernie's case, doesn't it?. By the way they have universal health care as a human right and free college education which are things that Bernie never fails to mention as a part of his debate spiel.

In an article in Politifact Steven Rattner said: "The United States is behind many countries in Europe in terms of the ability of every kid in America to get ahead." The article went on:

Families at all earning levels were growing together after World War II but have been growing apart since in the decades since, Krueger wrote. The country’s top earners have pulled a lot further ahead than the middle and lower class, he said, and the trend line suggests the future earnings of today’s children will be tied more and more to the income level of their parents.

"Not since the Roaring 20s has the share of income going to the very top reached such high levels," Krueger said, according to prepared remarks.

Krueger compared income inequality of 10 developed countries with the correlation between a parent’s income and their children’s (it’s more complicated than we described, check out the details in Krueger’s presentation or this Bloomberg infographic). The "Gatsby Curve" showed economic possibilities for children in European countries such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France were much less connected to their parents’ income than in the United States and United Kingdom.

MarketWatch reported in an article entitled Sorry America, Norway ranks No. 1 for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’:

The U.S. doesn’t rank among the Top 10 on a list of 155 countries

In fact, Norway ranked No. 1 for happiness and personal freedom, according to an analysis of three separate studies on life expectancy by the World Bank, on civil liberties from Freedom House, a New York-based nonprofit that conducts research on advocacy and democracy, on happiness from the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a group linked to the United Nations, and on rule of law from the World Justice Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit.

The analysis was released by information-analytics firm LexisNexis [which] found that countries that have established a strong rule of law have significantly more success in securing measures of life, liberty and happiness for their citizens. Sweden ranked No. 2 and Canada was No. 3, followed by Australia, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria. The U.S. ranked No. 19 just behind the Czech Republic, Japan and France. Afghanistan ranked last at No. 98.

Norway ranked No. 1 for happiness, the U.S. was No. 14

Norway was also No. 1 out of 155 countries on the 2017 “World Happiness Report,” up from No. 4 the year before, followed by Denmark (last year’s No. 1), Iceland and Switzerland. The U.S. was trailing at No. 14. These four countries rank highly on all the main factors found to support happiness: caring, freedom, generosity, honesty, health, income and good governance. “Their averages are so close that small changes can re-order the rankings from year to year,” the report said.

These kinds of reports should add fuel to the fire of Bernie Sanders' message that not only do people in these countries have a better chance of attaining the American Dream, these countries are socialist democracies which guarantee health care as a human right and offer free college education. No one in these countries has any student loan debt.

Not only that but, whereas the US is $20 trillion in national debt, Norway has a sovereign wealth fund.  It has over $1 trillion dollars in assets, including 1.4% of global stocks and shares, making it the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund. In May 2018 it was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen. It also holds portfolios of real estate and fixed-income investments. Many companies are excluded by the fund on ethical grounds.

Bernie Sanders should have driven Pete Buttigieg's point home. Now only are democratic socialist countries better off in terms of education and health care, they are also better off in terms of the wealth they own, a far cry from a debtor nation like the US that spends all its money on military adventurism. Each man, woman and child in America is responsible for $61,124.69 of that debt. The denouement is clear: US citizens are net debtors in terms of the national debt. Norwegian citizens are net creditors.

Off the Top of My Head

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Increasing Instead of Decreasing

by John Lawrence, November 29, 2019

Last year more Greenhouse gasses were emitted into the environment than ever. This trend is going in exactly the opposite direction that it needs to if planet earth will ever be a safe and welcoming place for our species and many others in years to come. Scientific American reported:

Global carbon emissions reached an all-time high in 2018, an extraordinary watermark in Earth’s history that underscores the need for faster and stronger action to address accelerating climate change, according to dozens of scientists.

A report released yesterday by a consortium of researchers known as the Global Carbon Project finds that global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are likely to have increased by about 2.7 percent in 2018, after a 1.6 percent increase in 2017.

What are we thinking? That the free market system is going to solve this planetary crisis? It is going to take concerted government action and the cooperation of governments around the world to deal effectively with this problem. The Green New Deal is absolutely essential in order the switch from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable economy. The US needs to lead the rest of the world in this development in cooperation with China and other nations. If the earth is to survive as a livable planet, radical action needs to be taken now although nothing will be done till Trump and his Republican henchmen are out of office. That means that 2019 and 2020 will probably see even further increases in global greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever is happening now in this regard is totally ineffective.

It is going to take the rapid development of India assisted in great part by the US and China in bringing the poverty stricken in that country up to developed world standards in clean water and sanitation. They have to be pulled into the modern world by outside forces and at the same time converted to a renewable energy economy. It is going to take radical changes from a cow based diet to a plant based diet. It is going to take a whole new mindset regarding food, transportation, housing and everything else. The inhabitants of planet earth will either make these radical changes or else future generations, not those living now, will have to live with the consequences or die with them as the case may be.

Sustainability, not economic growth, has to be the bellwether and the keynote. A sustainable economy will be one unlike the economic systems existing on planet Earth now. We will need to consume less not more in an attempt to grow the economy. The economy has to fundamentally change, not grow but become sustainable, plant based and renewable energy based. People will have to radically alter their lifestyles. Consumption will have to decrease. The basics of life will have to be provided for all people. Poverty and war must be eliminated replaced by cooperation if Earth is to survive climate change.

High taxation nations like Sweden are full employment economies because they provide everyone with a job. If they can't find one in the private sector, government creates one by taxing the wealthy to get the money. Very little money is, therefore, spent on unemployment related welfare. This has to happen here with a Green New Deal providing the jobs. Sweden is what social democracy is all about. Bernie Sanders is well acquainted with this form of economy, and that's why he is the best candidate to lead this country and win the election in 2020. We don't need moderate action at this time. We've tried that, and it has failed. We need radical action before the Earth becomes a terminal case destroying the lives of future generations.

Has Democratic Socialism a Future in American Politics?

Published on Sunday, July 08, 2018 by History News Network

The rise in American life of a rapacious corporate capitalism, a widening level of economic inequality, and the sharply right wing policies of many states and the federal government are clearly inspiring a revolt on the Left

by Lawrence Wittner

 

39 Comments

Posters for Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outside her victory party in the Bronx after she won the Democratic primary in New York's 14th congressional district. (Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images)

Recently, when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an obscure, upfront democratic socialist from the Bronx, easily defeated one of the most powerful U.S. Congressmen in the Democratic primary, the story became an overnight sensation. How, the pundits wondered, could this upset have occurred?

Actually, it shouldn’t have been a total surprise for, in recent years, democratic socialism has been making a remarkable comeback in American life. Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist U.S. Senator from Vermont, won 23 Democratic primaries and caucuses during his tumultuous 2016 election campaign. Indeed, he nearly defeated Hillary Clinton, all but coronated by the Democratic Party establishment, for the Democratic presidential nomination. In addition, numerous candidates backed by a Sanders campaign’s successor, Our Revolution, won Democratic Party primaries and election to office in 2017 and 2018.

Other indications of socialism’s recent popularity are numerous. They include Gallup polls done in early 2016―one showing that 35 percent of Americans had a favorable view of “socialism” and another revealing that 6 out of 10 Democratic primary voters felt that “socialism” had a positive impact on society. Polls found that socialism was especially popular among young people, a key factor behind the jump in membership of Democratic Socialists of America from 5,000 in November 2016 to 40,000 today.

Of course, democratic socialism―centered on the idea of democratic ownership and control of the economy―has had periods of growth, as well as decline, over the course of American history. During the first decades of the 20th century, it flourished. By 1912, the Socialist Party of America, led by charismatic labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs, had succeeded in electing socialists to 1,200 public offices in 340 American cities, including 79 mayors in 24 states. But, within a few years, the party was largely destroyed by government repression (thanks to its opposition to U.S. entry into World War I) and by its bitter feud with the rising Communist movement over the Communists’ contempt for political democracy and civil liberties.

With the onset of the Great Depression, the Socialist Party experienced a modest revival, but soon began to fade as the Democratic Party, then in its New Deal phase, began to implement many of the key programs long championed by democratic socialists: collective bargaining rights for workers; minimum wage and maximum hour laws; public sector jobs for the unemployed; a social security system; and heavy taxes on the rich to pay for an array of social services. Increasingly, the Democratic Party attracted the support of the democratic socialist constituency, including some of its prominent figures―labor leaders like Walter Reuther, David Dubinsky, Sidney Hillman, and A. Philip Randolph, educators like John Dewey, women’s rights activists like Margaret Sanger, and popular writers like Upton Sinclair.

For some decades, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, founded in 1973 by the writer Michael Harrington and other committed socialists―and its successor, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)―tried to revive democratic socialism by cutting loose from fruitless third party election campaigns and focusing, instead, on fostering public support for greater economic and social democracy. On occasion, DSA backed worthy candidates in Democratic primaries. But it had only minimal success. For the most part, the best that DSA could do was to keep the democratic socialist current alive by pulling together socialist-minded activists scattered about in the labor, women’s rights, racial justice, and peace movements, and putting them in touch with a small group of sympathetic public officials.

Nevertheless, the rise in American life of a rapacious corporate capitalism, a widening level of economic inequality, and the sharply rightwing policies of many states and the federal government are clearly inspiring a revolt on the Left. As the Sanders campaign and the recent election victories of Ocasio-Cortez and other leftwing candidates indicate, in electoral politics this revolt is finding expression largely inside the Democratic Party.

Although it’s too early to know how this revolt will play out, there are signs that it is beginning to alter Democratic Party politics. With a heartily-despised Donald Trump in the White House and with rightwing Republicans now dominating Congress and the Supreme Court, many newly-energized leftwing voters will probably close ranks with mainstream Democrats in an all-out Democratic Party effort to drive the Right from power. At the same time, there is a comparable recognition among establishment Democrats that, unless they welcome the growing number of democratic socialists into their ranks, they have little chance of winning elections. This might well explain why so many leading Democratic politicians have now turned to backing the staples of the Sanders campaign, such as Medicare for all, free public college education, and curbs on corporate power. It might also explain why the Democratic National Committee is busy cutting back the establishment-controlled superdelegate system for choosing a presidential candidate.

As a result, just as the Democratic Party largely absorbed America’s democratic socialist constituency during the 1930s and 1940 and, in turn, was itself transformed by that process, the same phenomenon might be underway today. For many years, sectarian leftists have railed against the activity of democratic socialists within the Democratic Party, claiming that it has held back a workers’ revolution or some other ostensibly glorious occurrence. But this contention seems dubious. Instead, democratic socialist activity within the Democratic Party helped produce the kind of progressive politics and public policy that delivered significant economic and social gains to most Americans in the past. And it might well do so again today.

© 2017 History News Network

Off the Top of My Head

The Split Between the Dems and Trump on Foreign Policy

by John Lawrence, July 2, 2018

The Democrats are apoplectic about Trump's cozying up to Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin. How dare he destroy the rationale for the military-industrial complex and the outlandish military budget? While Gorbachev famously said that by dismantling the Soviet Union Russia was going to deprive the US of an enemy, it hasn't quite worked out that way. The US defense establishment with full support from the Democrats and Republicans (before they became the Trump party), has managed to recreate Russia as our arch enemy, and to support a different scenario is nothing short of treason. Even John Bolton, who a short time ago wanted to nuke North Korea, is fully on board with Trump's initiatives. Trump's perfidy, as will probably become apparent when the Mueller investigation is reported out, consists of his using the Presidency to enrich himself and cut business deals with Russia and even North Korea. He did comment about what a wonderful shore line North Korea has, as he lusted after building condos there.

The Democrats are having nothing of it. The self-enriching Presidency is a non sequitur as far as they are concerned so they try to force Trump and the Russians into the conventional mold: Trump has committed treason and the Russians are our eternal enemies. Why they even acquired new territory (which had historically belonged to Russia) and redrew national boundaries. Of course the US never did anything of the sort when it invaded Mexico and took about half of Mexico for its southwestern states. That was manifest destiny, right?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans have their heads up their asses. Trump's initiatives in the way of improving relations with Russia and North Korea are positive developments although I don't approve of much of anything else he has done. The progressive Democrats should take these developments and run with them. What both US major parties fear is that Trump will use these peace initiatives to reduce the US bloated and oversized defense budget. They are horror struck over that development. Why Trump even said he might recognize Crimea as a legitimate part of Russia! Quelle horreur! Reducing the defense budget might even free up some money for infrastructure development. Trump is such an amateur when it comes to foreign policy. Doesn't he know that the US needs Russia as an enemy so that it can continue to ignore domestic needs and continue to spend on worthless defense items?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the right track. They are the left wing versions of Trump. Like him they are disrupters. They are the kind of people we need more of in government. They tell it like it is and don't pussyfoot around the issues like most Democrats. Bill Clinton let the Republicans like Newt Gingrich play him. Obama was so intimidated by them, his main goal was to keep his head above water and depart the office with a shred of dignity. I hope the progressive Democrats and Democratic Socialists will continue to take their message again - like Bernie Sanders did in 2016 - to the American people. They just might listen this time.

As Interest in Democratic Socialism Surges, Ocasio-Cortez Explains to Colbert What a 'Moral' Economy Would Look Like

Published on Friday, June 29, 2018 by Common Dreams

"I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

87 Comments

"I think that no person should be homeless if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said during an appearance on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert." (Photo: CBS/Screengrab)

Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's stunning primary win over Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday, interest in democratic socialism—the label Ocasio-Cortez unabashedly uses to describe her platform and political outlook—has surged exponentially, prompting corporate TV networks to feature segments on the term and driving a record-breaking membership boost for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

"I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live."
—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

In an interview on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" Thursday night, Ocasio-Cortez—who is one of DSA's 42,000 members—was given a chance to explain the core principles of democratic socialism to an audience of millions.

"I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez told Colbert, who claimed that democratic socialism is "not an easy term for a lot of Americans."

"So what that means is healthcare as a human right," Ocasio-Cortez explained. "It means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it. And, you know, I think that no person should be homeless if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."

Watch:

While democratic socialism may not be an "easy term" for Republicans and corporate Democrats, a large percentage of Americans appear to have no problem with the label.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has self-identified as a democratic socialist for decades—is by far the most popular politician in the country, and polls have shown that Democratic voters prefer socialism over capitalism.

In an attempted takedown of Ocasio-Cortez's ambitious progressive agenda, Fox News host Sean Hannity inadvertantly demonstrated why many Americans view democratic socialism favorably, particularly during a time of staggering inequality, soaring healthcare costs, environmental degradation, and falling wages.

"Many are hailing Cortez as a rising star on the political landscape, but in reality, her views, her policy positions are actually downright scary... Look very carefully," Hannity ominously warned in a Wednesday night segment. "This is the future, this is the modern Democratic Party."

The camera then proceeded to show a list of widely popular proposals like Medicare for All as well as basic, humane principles like "Women's Rights" and "Support Seniors."

As Vice summarized, "Sean Hannity accidentally made a great argument for socialism."

Comrade @SeanHannity brings our message to the masses. ✊ pic.twitter.com/fkKI6BscjL

— Jacobin (@jacobinmag) June 28, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

 

Off the Top of My Head

The Balanced Society: A Capitalist/Socialist Hybrid

by John Lawrence, March 2018

Frank Thomas had an excellent piece yesterday in which he wrote about the European societies as being hybrids of capitalism and socialism in which they are continually trying to adjust the balance to get it just right so that the societies serve the people and not just the rich or not just the poor or not just the corporate lobbyists. I commented that these societies are reflective of human individuals most of whom are not completely selfish nor are they completely altruistic. Most individuals are a combination of both. So a society which reflects individual character but not extreme character types is probably the best fit for the majority of the population.

Communism expected individuals to be extremely altruistic in that everyone was expected to be completely unselfish and work for the betterment of all with no individual property. Free market capitalism caters to those individuals who are extremely selfish and don't want their tax dollars going to help any other individuals. They want to keep everything for themselves rather than to put anything towards the betterment of society in general or helping poor people. The US is an example of free market capitalism, at least that's what the party in power, the Republicans, are trying to create going forward. If they had their way, there would be no social welfare programs and every function of society would be privatized. Everything would have to be paid for by individuals and, if they couldn't pay, they would have to go without. This is Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, the opposite of which is Social Democracy, a capitalist/socialist hybrid.

The European societies are generous when it comes to free health care, free education and spending for public infrastructure available to all. At the same time, they encourage everyone to work and contribute to society. Entrepreneurialism is encouraged and even supported. In Sweden, if you can't find a job, the government will help you find one. They keep a database of available jobs for the whole country. They will support you until you can get started in a new job which they've helped you find.

As Frank Thomas reported, Netherlands Is In Top 5 Most Competitive World Economies.  Four out of Five of the top competitive societies are European ahead of the US which is number seven. And by any measure Europeans seem to be happiest compared to other societies.

In the US social security and medicare are the main social programs which are a legacy of the period when the US society cared more about people in general and not just feathering the nests of the rich and giving them huge tax breaks. Ayn Rand, the philosopher, represents the extremely selfish individual and the kind of society in which extremely selfish individuals flourish. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a follower of Ayn Rand as was Treasury Secretary Milton Friedman. Many Republicans subscribe to her theory of life and society.

As I wrote previously:

In a National Geographic survey, Denmark ranked as the world's happiest country. It's a combination of several factors including the feeling that their country cares for them. They can never sink too low because their country will always help them if they are willing to help themselves. They can truly pursue their passion in life because they are set free from worrying about the need to just survive. They have free health care, free education up to and including the university level and parental leave at full pay for a year after every child is born. This can be shared between the two parents including gay and lesbian parents.