And when we all go on-line and buy everything our little hearts
desire, without needing a single human type assistant, the entire
house of cards will implode because we'll all be out of work. I can
envision a day in our future when there is a gadget for everything.
We'll have invented a computer-like device that sets about inventing
new gadgets. We'll be able to travel to Mars in two hours, or
vacation on Venus. With a flick of the finger our dinner will be
brought to our recliner, and our favorite TV programs will appear upon
our in-head viewing implant. But of course none of us will be able to
afford such a life, because we'll all be unemployed.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/14/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Talking about ramblings, here are some of mine for this morning. Several
weeks ago, I was excited to see that NLS had added The New Yorker to BARD.
But when I downloaded it, I discovered that it wasn't the entire magazine,
even though the title would lead one to believe that it is. After all, there
are many other magazines on BARD and if you download them, you will see that
they are what they claim to be. But the New Yorker was just four or five
articles, not the entire magazine which has a structure and many short
andlonger articles, no table of contents. I indicated to NLS that although I
was happy to have what they offered, it wasn't the entire magazine and I
thought that this should be indicated in the title. Usually, I listen to
just 1 or 2 of the articles. By the way, they did have the article that Amy
Goodman talked about the other night, Madness, in the May 2 issue. This
time, I happened to read the last article which was followed by the
announcement that the whole thing was a production of Audible. So that
explains how NLS got it. For several years, I actually purchased that
Audible version of the New Yorker when I was using Audible. It was a bit
more detailed back then. At least they told you what section of the magazine
each article came from. I stopped purchasing it when I discovered that there
were important articles that they were omitting. For example, they didn't
include Seymour Hersh's articles while he was still writing for The New
Yorker. So now there is an even more clipped down version coming to us
through the good graces of Audible which, by the way, is no longer Audible,
but just one more part of Amazon. Amazon, the company which provides us with
everything from garden shears to books, Amazon, which embodies a new way of
buying things, from what you see on a screen with no sales person with whom
to chat and ask questions, Amazon that treats its employees, or rather,
contracted workers, like robots whose actions are timed down to the second
so that we, the customers can buy those garden shears as inexpensively as
possible. Technically capable blind people love Amazon because they can sit
at home in front of a computer and shop. Everyone else loves Amazon because
it's a time saver and they don't have to drive from store to store looking
for products. And people worry about a nanny state? They are deriving the
same benefits or being damaged by nanny corporations. They have Amazon and
Google. And as for Google, people believe that it has the answers to every
question. There was a little piece in The New Yorker about a high school
civics class in Brooklyn where the kids were doing a mock debate between
Sanders andd Clinton before the New York Primary. There were two teams, one
for each candidate. Each kid had a phone or laptop and as the teacher asked
debate questions, the kids googled to find pertinent responses. They found
responses, but they were superficial. This was supposed to be education, I
guess. I think the article was suppoed to demonstrate what a great class
this was.What it demonstrated was that the kids latched onto the first
things they saw, usually statements from CNN or some other such font of
knowledge.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 11:06 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
crisis
Ah yes, Thomas Frank. A wise man, indeed.
Notice how we praise those who dare to agree with us? Or us with them?
But as my dear old grandma would say, "Just keep on keeping on".
That's all any of us can do. I don't expect to change America, or bring the
Empire to its knees. But I can make certain my ramblings are shared around,
helping other people to rethink and reshape their own values. Unless enough
of us come to understand that Materialism is the Road to Hell, we will go
down in a flaming ball of fire.
Remember, we are living in the most exciting times in human history.
We are in a race for our very existence. Will the "Bomb" get us first, or
will the Planet turn to ashes? Or will we come to our senses and join
together with our brothers and sisters around the world, and take control
away from the "Flat Headers" who think only of short term profit?
Carl Jarvis
On 5/13/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At the end of Listen, Liberal, Thomas Frank says something like, the
Democratic Party doesn't want to reform itself and our legal
arrangements are such that third parties cannot gain any traction. I
suppose that he's using different words to say what you're saying.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
crisis
On 5/13/16, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fact: Any candidate, regardless of Party affiliation, will not,
repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA
is a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the
thorough replacement of an established government or political system
by the people governed".
Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of the
military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a
people's uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie
were elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism
reigns, there can be no compromise.
So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and Stein
in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like this:
I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted
out in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they
like best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game.
But nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and
if that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the
next, in hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the
quarterbacks will dare try something out of left field. They have
all been thoroughly schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They know
all of the rules.
I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to
cheer for one quarterback or another.
Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the
1%, they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us
understand that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land"
is not on the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about
putting our own team on Center Field.
"Preacher" Carl Jarvis
On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-socia
m ay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
/ 18 hours ago
May 2016 Sanders
By JEFF MACKLER
U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy
itself, has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S.
socialist movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an
extraordinary level of confusion and disarray. The spectacle of most
U.S. socialist organizations’ supporting, in one form or another, an
open Democrat is a sure sign of a left in crisis.
Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his
race with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent of
all remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention majority
and
82 percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates. The
latter have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy and
pledged long ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these
lifelong professional ruling-class politicians will accede to the
“popular will” and shift to Sanders is absurd. But promoting this
illusion is Sanders’ current bait-and-switch tactic.
It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders to
“fight on.” He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED National
Public Radio (NPR) interview: “I think we are perpetuating the
political revolution by significantly increasing the level of
political activity that we’re seeing in this country. I think it is
good for the United States of America and good for the Democratic
Party to have a vigorous debate, to engage people in the political
process” (emphasis added).
NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
“energizing voters” and, therefore, “boosting the Democratic Party
to victory in November.” He contended that Democrats do well and
Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. “So I’m going to do
everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country
and get young people, working people, involved in the political
process.”
Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late
April, Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he would
fight for his delegates to have substantial convention
representation on the Democratic Party’s “Platform Committee,” where
party leaders supposedly would hammer out the program to be
implemented should Clinton win. Only the most naïve in politics
believe that ruling-class policies are decided by a handful of
delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party conventions. Sadly,
however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe that the Sanders
campaign represents some sort of “political revolution”
that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review
this almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a
welcome addition to the periodically orchestrated “lesser evil” sham
employed by ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating and
sophisticated think tanks. They know full well that capitalist
elections are essential to maintaining the myth of democracy, on the
one hand, and to dissipating the anger and hatred at its inherently
anti-working class, racist, and sexist policies into safe electoral
channels, on the other.
Well before Sanders proclaimed his “democratic socialism,” national
polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49
percent of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over
capitalism.
Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism
over socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole were
higher, with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring
socialism—in their view a more egalitarian and less predatory
society, in which human solidarity and social welfare trump the
greed of the elite one percent.
Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past
year as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic
Party. He has consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating that
“dissident”
ideas, or perhaps better, “dissident” rhetoric—as with his
frequently touted expression, “political revolution”—is acceptable
terminology inside this tried and true ruling-class institution, the
nation’s infamous “graveyard of social movements.”
Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics just
as well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of
capitalism’s most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the
feminist, humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned
politician they are projecting as Clinton’s campaign image today. As
we go to press [May 11] a nervous Clinton has moved another step to
the “left,” according to the New York Times, by embracing in part
Sanders’ single-payer “Medicare for all” proposal.
Political discontent rising in U.S. population
In due time, we will all “feel the Bern,” or better, witness the
“fizzle,” when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling
votes on Clinton’s behalf to save the nation from the “greater
evil”—Donald Trump. Step one in the current two-stage “lesser-evil” game
was Sanders’
shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back
into the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders’ making
every effort to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled
into his orbit but might yet decide to quit the electoral shell game
in disgust with the thought of voting for Clinton.
The fact that capitalism’s media pundits felt compelled to lend an
air of legitimacy to Sanders’ fake socialism is an indication of the
questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
percolating in the consciousness of working people.
A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine
percent had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in
explaining why Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party
candidates, largely refrained from the red-baiting tirades that have
been the usual stock-in-trade of capitalist politics. Attacking
Sanders as a socialist might well have the effect of advancing his
credibility, not to mention socialism’s!
In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes shape
in forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of
capital and its liberal “third-party” middle-class-based variants
like the Green Party, working people will find genuine political
avenues and mass organizations of struggle to express their disgust
at capitalist austerity and social regression. This combination of
renewed and massive mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated
and democratically led union fightbacks, and in anti-racist,
anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and pro-environment struggles will
undoubtedly find an expression in the political arena.
But this magnificent and longed for “music of the future,” based on
the deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties,
to be effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the
endless variations of “lesser evilism” that are consciously
presented by the most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist
politics—can only be grounded on the foundation of working-class
independence. The desire for political “independence,” however vague
this term might be, is today gaining ground in the United States. A
full 43 percent of the electorate, according to a recent Gallop
Poll, is registered as Independent, with Democratic Party
registration at 32 percent, and Republican Party registered voters at 23
percent.
These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where
registered independents are excluded in the primary process, Hillary
Clinton’s margin of victory over Sanders was quite significant. In
states with an “open primary,” that is, where “independent” voters
can participate, Sanders is expected to win a substantial, but still
insufficient majority, as in the June 7 California primary.
Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full
story since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the eligible
electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual percentage of
all eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent! The vast majority
of non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more generally, many of
whom are consciously excluded due to reactionary legislation or are
disillusioned with the entire electoral charade.
U.S. left collapses before Sanders
There is no doubt that Sanders’ “political revolution” and
“anti-establishment” rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
“democratic socialism,” has captured the imagination of and spiked
interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist
ideas more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the
consciously orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and
its pundits are more than capable of appealing to the best instincts
and highest aspirations of working people for a better life for all
in order to once again lure them into their life-extinguishing
anaconda-like institutional clutches.
Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who
seriously consider themselves socialists—have been active partisans,
if not enthusiastic advocates, of today’s ruling-class-promoted
Bernie Sanders brand of lesser-evilism.
Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders’
supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist
and against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed
Socialist Alternative’s Seattle campaigns, and the associated
Socialist Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis.
Socialist Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns,
contributed financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went
door-to-door, and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring
socialist effort.
This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist Alternative
originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these campaigns as
joint efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But Green Party
leaders rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist Alternative with
a critical decision as to how to proceed. To their credit, they took
the high road in working-class politics and ran as socialists, but
their penchant for the middle-class Green Party was never far from
their perspectives.
Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist
working-class politics against the Democratic Party, has been
abandoned, with Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually
campaigning for Sanders in all the Democratic Party primary contests.
In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant
gives an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She
writes:
“To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would be
the opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the vital
energy and momentum we have built over this historic past year. We
simply can’t afford to make this mistake. That’s why I have launched
a petition calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the way to November
as an independent, and to use his campaign as a launch pad for a new
political party of the 99%.”
Sawant immediately continues: “If Bernie’s only concern is that
running independently could open the door to a President Trump, then
why could he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where it’s
generally clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win?
Even in this way, while not putting his name on the ballot in the
5-10 closely contested ‘swing states,’ he could still run an
historic campaign if linked to building a new party” (emphasis in
original).
But Sawant’s “new party” in this case is, again, the middle-class,
pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its supporters
to vote Democrat in “swing states” or simply declined to seek ballot
status in these “contested states.” Sawant’s petition calls on
Sanders to run on the same ticket as the Green Party’s presumptive
presidential candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace Stein on the
ballot with Sanders.
Here it is important to remind readers that the terms “independent”
and “third party” are not always clear. There are several “third
parties”
today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to
liberal, reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the
Working Families Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green
Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in
six states via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan’s incipient
fascist Reform Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party’s ballot line in
return for making reactionary statements limiting the right of women
to abortion and restricting immigrants from entering the country.
(See Nader’s June 21, 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the
American Conservative.)
None of these “third parties” are independent of and against the
fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans.
Or, to be precise, none seek to organize the working class to
replace the capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the
private ownership and control of the nation’s banks, corporations,
and wealth is ended, and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to
reorganize society for the common good. None are based on, financed,
and controlled by working-class organizations like trade unions or
other democratic mass working-class organizations. None, as a matter
of class principle, reject voting for capitalist parties. Indeed, in
local elections, as well as national, Greens routinely endorse
“progressive” Democrats, and in races where the Republican is a bit
too overtly reactionary, “not so progressive Democrats.”
Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported
for his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to
change its spots. Or better, it’s akin to yet again playing politics
in the ruling class’ institutional party ballpark.
Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like
the Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have
habitually supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today
supports Clinton, while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until
Sanders drops out.
Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on
Sanders to run for the presidency as an “independent” or as the
Green Party candidate. The Workers International League also speaks
favorably of an “independent” campaign by Sanders. Workers World
Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, both of which have
called for votes for left-sounding Democrats in the past, including
Jesse Jackson, are fielding their own presidential candidates this
time around, but nevertheless have called for Democratic Party
primary votes for Sanders.
Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
generated by capitalism’s deepening crises and sparked by the
Sanders campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have
sponsored a series of well-attended public debates where most of the
above socialist organizations, as well as representatives from the
Labor for Bennie campaign, shared the platform for fruitful exchanges.
While the “lesser evil” syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the
presentations of these socialist groups, we were heartened to see
that the Marxist-grounded revolutionary socialist ideas of Socialist
Action were well received and that our proud party, a consistent
participant and advocate of independent mass-action united-front
mobilizations against all aspects of capitalist racism and plunder,
won new members to the cause of socialist revolution.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 43Share on
Facebook (Opens in new window)43 Click to share on Google+ (Opens
in new
window)
May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
Sawant, Sanders
Related posts
Is Sanders campaign a ‘new movement’?
Socialist Action sponsors election debates
Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
Post navigation
← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12) March
2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
(7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12)
March
2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
(10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
(10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13)
August
2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
(14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17)
December
2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19)
April
2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May
2011
(19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January
2011
(15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2)
May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009
(16) September 2009
(3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7)
April
2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10)
December
2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008
(14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2)
April
2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006
(11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15)
August 2006
(11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6)
March
2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August
2005
(9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December
2004
(14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22)
August
2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000
(17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June
2000
(26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000
(18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26)
October 1999
(25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June
1999
(24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
(29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
Get Involved
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
