Evan,
Before I try to do a bit of responding to some of your points, I have a
question. Why do you feel impelled to defend the reputation of our country to
me? Why not just admit the truth of what I say when you recognize that some of
what I say is true? Of course, we know that no one is perfect and of course we
know that the civil war was fought to keep all of the states united. It was not
fought to end slavery, but it was fought to keep the states in one country. And
if you listen to discussions of this and read about it, you'll see that most of
the reasons have to do with economics. Motivations are mixed. People are
complex. The history of our country has been taught to us as a series of
national myths. Our present situation is presented to the public in competing
stories promoted by different power elites. Sometimes the stories overlap. And
as far as our national mythology is concerned, it's based on bits and pieces of
factual material. All I try to do is get beyond the mythology and the fairy
tales. After all, Donald Trump and the current Republican Party wasn't
manufactured out of thin air. All of the stuff that comes out of his mouth that
you hate, is not only believed by his base, it's part of American culture. It's
been present all along.
Billionaires are making money today because millions of people have been killed
in the Middle East and Africa. Some die directly from the fighting. Some die
from the famine and disease caused by the fighting. Some die while trying to
flee to other countries to escape from the fighting. The people who benefit are
the corporations who make all of the military equipment that is used in the
fighting, who employ the contractors sent to do all the things that the actual
soldiers don't do, the fossil fuel companies, all of the shareholders who
benefit from the profits made by all of the companies. Why do you suppose that
the US continues its close relationship with Saudi Arabia? It's because of all
of the military equipment that our corporations sell to them, as well as their
oil. And yes, there were economic reasons for the US war with Japan. My memory
is bad so you'd need to do some research for the details, but the history is
all there. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a shock to FDR. He knew
there was going to be an attack, not precisely the date and location, but he
knew in advance that there would be an attack and a decision was made not to
prevent a surprise attack because it would provide the excuse needed to satisfy
the public so that the US could go to war with Japan. Not all of the reasons
for going to war were economic, but some of them were.
When you say that war ies less prevalent than it used to be, I suppose that you
mean war as defined by one country fighting another country with armies on a
battlefield. The nature of war has changed and there are two factors which have
kept nation states from fighting each other. One is that the US has been the
one and only dominant power since 1989. The other has been the fear of nuclear
catastrophe. However, there has been war raging for all these years, conflicts
which you can label as you wish, civil wars, terrorist attacks, proxy wars,
interventions, and the arms industry keeps flourishing and our military budget
keeps being radically increased to the detriment of all other government
services. People can mouth platitudes about how war isn't good for business,
but actually, it's very good for business. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, not
thought of as military contractors, have military contracts. And now, surplus
military equipment, developed for war in foreign lands, is given to our
domestic police forces to use against our own citizens. Soon, after having
become accustomed to using tanks in urban ghettoes, I imagine that police
departments will start ordering them directly from the manufacturers. Anyway, I
haven't seen evidence that war is bad for business. I haven't heard the Chamber
of Commerce making any such statements.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls
short
Oh man, why do these blind-democracy repetitions keep happening? I gotta keep
remembering to take them out. I think I got them all this time, although one
will reappear when this gets posted.
All of the wars our country has fought have been for economic reasons? Even
against the Japanese after they attacked the U.S.? Were we after their
resources? Do they have any?
I guess you could say that the Civil War was fought for economic reasons, but
it certainly wasn't the only motive.
And our founders were not perfect people. The government they set up was quite
enlightened, for its time. And they did write in provisions for changing the
Constitution; so they knew they weren't perfect people.
You may have missed it, but Roger was speaking in the present tense about
millions being killed to benefit billionaires, so this historical discussion
isn't really relevant anyhow.
Having said that, it is certainly beyond doubt that some of the wealthy have
benefited from conflict in history; and even now, some wealthy profit from it.
But today, far more wealthy benefit from trade and other peaceful economic
activity than benefit from conflict. War is bad for business overall, even if
some make a bundle on it, which is one reason, but not the only reason, why war
is much less prevalent than it used to be.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 3:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm
elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
The point is that all of the wars our country has fought, have been for
economic reasons and the people who benefit, are the wealthy. I wasn't talking
about all of the wars that have been fought by all people throughout history.
And it is now, in this century, that the wealthy are billionaires.
But that's because of how bans manipulate money. I don't know how much money
the ultra wealthy had back in the so-called Gilded Age. Back then, maybe it was
only millions, not billions. And as far as "resource wars" , as you call them,
they're fought so that the wealthy can get hold of those resources and use them
to profit themselves. Obviously, if our system was humanitarian, than the
products made from the materials that come from around the world would not be
sold to people so that company owners can get richer. If everyone were
benefiting, then resources would be willingly shared and wars wouldn't be
fought over them. What I'm doing is not "political posturing". It's offering a
different way of looking at things. I don't have all the answers to the
examples you give which are supposed to invalidate what I wrote. But at the
point at which the American revolutionaries freed themselves from taxation
without representation, they did choose to set up a different kind of
government. It wasn't a monarchy.
It was a democdracy for land owning white men. It was set up to benefit rich
white men, not everyone who lived in the former colonies. And as for the
motives of the German government, I have no idea what all of their motives
were. The Nazis certainly were racist, but I suspect that there were economic
reasons for that war. I do remember that the German people were susceptible to
nazi propaganda because of the financial austerity imposed on their country by
the countries that won the first world war. The nazi crimes against humanity
were so extreme, that we tend to be blinded by them, to all the other factors
and complexities that were involved in that war.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 1:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue
wave’ falls short
Nope, I don't agree.
Just one example, if the founders of our country simply wanted to stop paying
taxes to the King of England, they could have set up their own monarchy and not
bothered with the Constitution with its checks and balances and that Bill of
Rights.
Another example, Hitler and the Nazis did not go to war to benefit
billionaires, but because of their racial doctrines.
And resource wars are not wars to benefit billionaires, since resource wars
were fought long before Capitalism was invented.
No, this is not evidence, it's political posturing.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:36 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
Um, have you noticed the statistics on how many people have been killed in our
war on terror? That war is being wged for the benefit of billionaires.
Add on the numbers killed in the first world war and in the wars of conquest
that our country has waged like the Spanish American War. Actually, look back
to the Revolutionary War. Its purpose was so businessman would stop paying
taxes to the king of England. Whatever propaganda is fed to the public, our
wars are waged for the benefit of Business, and not the workers, but the
owners, the share holders, these days, the billionaires. If you look closely,
you'll find that there were even economic reasons for the second world war,
the "good war". And when Obama decided to pivot to Russia and China, why do
you suppose that was? Why are those countries considered our rivals? It
certainly has nothing to do with their autocracies. It has to do with our
country's wish for economic dominance. And who benefits from that?
Billionaires.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm
elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
Okay, given the Asimov quote in your signature, I have no doubt that you have
solid evidence to back up your claim that:
"there are millions of people around the world who are killed in the
billionaires' pursuit of greater profits."
I look forward to seeing that evidence.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:37 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue
wave’ falls short
I don't think they would hesitate to kill you if there was a profit in it for
them. You might want to consider whether you will defend yourself if it comes
to that. After all, there are millions of people around the world who are
killed in the billionaires' pursuit of greater profits.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence
will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/19/2018 3:17 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Nope, not a billionaire, I simply don't use the word "enemies" to
describe people who have more money than I do.
The word "enemies" is used for people one wants to go to war with, i.e.
kill. If you're into that, then count me out.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 3:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
Oh? You are a billionaire?
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/14/2018 8:46 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Your class enemies perhaps, not mine.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections:
Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
If you know anything about Socialist Action you will realize that the
author of this article is not advocating that the Democrat party be
run in any way. That is the business of the Democrats. Rather, the
author is pointing out that the Democrat party is just generally not
in the interests of the large majority of the population at all. That
is, the Democrat party is a party of our class enemies.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? —
in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/9/2018 2:32 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Quoting the article in part:
"But the candidates within the Democratic Party “big tent” ranged
widely in their views—from Democratic Socialists of America members
to conservatives like party hack Joe Manchin in West Virginia—who
shamefully voted for Brett Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court...."
Now I don't like Kavanaugh at all, but I hope the author doesn't
think that only people with a narrow range of views should be
elected, as beginning the sentence with the word, "But", implies.
That doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to run a party or a
government. That's what's happening to the Republican party. I do
not want the Democratic party to become a mirror image of that. We
are talking about the House of Representatives after all. And
whatever I think of many other peoples' views, there are a wide
range of views out there. The House is supposed to represent those
views, not be a forum for a narrow set of them.
Again, quoting the article in part:
"Evidence that the “blue wave” did not flow significantly to the
left can be seen in the fact that a quarter of the Democratic Party
candidates in the Nov. 6 election have a background in the CIA, the
military, the State Department, or national security...."
The fact that a quarter of them had such backgrounds is a problem?
Does the author mean to say that only people ignorant of such
matters should be elected? If the fact that only a quarter of them
had such backgrounds is a problem for him, that would seem to be
what he's saying. Again, that doesn't sound like a very intelligent
way to make decisions. Whatever one's positions on matters of the
military, the CIA, the State Department, or national security might
be, it seems hard to justify ignorance as a good approach to making
decisions about matters involving them. Ignorance is Donald Trump's
approach to running things.
I hope this author isn't advocating a similar approach for Democrats.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 11:24 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’
falls short
https://socialistaction.org/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-democrats-b
lue-wave-falls-short/
Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
/ 2 days ago
Nov. 2018 Ocasio Cortez (AP)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of
America, was elected to Congress on the Democratic Party ticket.
(AP)
By MICHAEL SCHREIBER
“This is the most important midterm election in the modern history
of this country,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, and many politicians
and pundits agreed. President Trump spoke similarly during his
week-long campaign tour, aimed mainly at shoring up Republican
candidates in so-called Red States. “Everything we have achieved is
at stake,” Trump declared to his cheering admirers.
After the election, however, the mood quickly subsided; there was no
evidence that substantial changes had come onto the political landscape.
For one thing, the hoopla that Democrats had drummed up to create a
mighty “blue wave” produced merely a ripple of elected candidates.
In a Nov. 7 news conference, in fact, Trump boasted that his
campaign rallies had “stopped the blue wave.”
The Democrats’ lackluster finish came despite the fact that they had
received the bulk of Wall Street donations. The securities and
finance industry backed Democratic congressional candidates 63
percent to 37 percent for the Republicans, according to the Center
for Responsive Politics.
Of course, the Democrats did succeed in winning a majority in the
House for the first time since 2011, and made gains in many
relatively affluent suburban districts that had leaned Republican in
years past.
And here and there, a few rookie Congress members were elected who
consider themselves to be “progressives” or even “democratic
socialists.” More women, LGBTQ people, and people of color than ever
before were elected on the Democratic ticket.
But the candidates within the Democratic Party “big tent” ranged
widely in their views—from Democratic Socialists of America members
to conservatives like party hack Joe Manchin in West Virginia—who
shamefully voted for Brett Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. The
crook Bob Menendez was also reelected as a Democratic U.S. Senator
from New Jersey, despite having been censured by the Senate Ethics
Committee for accepting bribes from a wealthy businessman.
Evidence that the “blue wave” did not flow significantly to the left
can be seen in the fact that a quarter of the Democratic Party
candidates in the Nov. 6 election have a background in the CIA, the
military, the State Department, or national security. They included,
for example, Elissa Slotkin, who won a congressional seat from
Michigan’s Eighth District. Slotkin is a former CIA operative in
Iraq, who also served as Obama’s Iraq director on the National
Security Council. Later, she worked at the Pentagon, looking into
drone warfare, “homeland defense,”
and cyber warfare.
All in all, despite the addition of a few “progressive” Democrats to
Congress, the complexion of U.S. politics has changed very little
since the election. The policies of the capitalist Democratic Party
have not been altered one iota from the pro-corporate, pro-war,
anti-environmental ones of the past.
The social issues that the Democratic Party candidates addressed in
their campaigns were exceedingly narrow. “Medicare for All” was a
central plank of the Democrats this year, though we can expect that
the proposal will be watered down; as under Obama, the needs of the
insurance industry will have to be catered to before the proposal
ever reaches a vote in Congress. The Democrats also spoke about
repairing the country’s roads and bridges—always a safe bet at
election time—but ignoring the need for efficient mass
transportation and the use of renewable fuels.
Major issues of an international scope were ignored, such as climate
change and out-of-control environmental pollution, and pouring more
money into the military (most Democrats in Congress supported this
year’s $716 billion military budget). Likewise, questions such as
the sanctions against Iran, trade wars with China and other
countries, and the endless U.S. wars in Afghanistan and the Middle
East were virtually absent from the platforms of Democratic
candidates for Congress.
Moreover, important domestic issues such as raising the minimum wage
to be enough to live on; the right to low-cost housing; securing the
rights of women, immigrants, and LGBTQ people; and stopping police
violence against people of color generally received no more than a
nod by the Democrats.
A referendum on Trump
The main issue that the Democrats ran on was simply “stop Trump.”
CNN and AP VoteCast polls on the eve of the election both showed
that close to 70% of voters hoped to send a message to Trump with
their vote; about 26% to 28% of the respondents were for Trump, and
38% to 40% were against. Trump readily agreed that the election was
a referendum on his administration. He told potential voters in
Mississippi, “Pretend I’m on the ballot.”
The Republicans held onto their “strongholds” in rural districts and
in areas of discontented white workers who had voted for Trump in 2016.
Accordingly, the Republicans increased their edge in the Senate and
won several key governor races. In general, right-wing and
Trump-supporting politicians were elected, while more mainstream
Republicans did not do as well. In a Nov. 7 tweet, Trump
acknowledged the fact, saying, “Those that worked with me in this
incredible Midterm Election, embracing certain policies and
principles, did very well. Those that did not, say goodbye!”
One loyal Trump supporter who followed the formula, Marsha
Blackburn, was elected to the Senate from Tennessee. “I’m going to
work with President Trump all of the way to build that wall,” she
affirmed to voters. A Blackburn commercial started with a shot of
the immigrant caravan crossing Mexico. “I’m going to stop the
criminals who are going toward our border,” Blackburn stated in a
voice-over.
In order to rally his supporters in the weeks leading up to the
election, Trump relied almost exclusively on scare tactics, using
racist descriptions that are commonly employed by the ultra-right.
Trump described the Central American migrants traveling through
Mexico as “invaders” and “terrorists,” and he endorsed a campaign ad
that likened them to Luis Bracamontes, an immigrant who had been
convicted for killing two police officers.
Polls showed that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme
Court was a key issue for Trump supporters in the election. Only a
month before the election, Trump spread the conspiracy theory that
people protesting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination (“elevator
screamers”) were being paid for by billionaire George Soros—a figure
who is frequently denounced in anti-Semitic literature.
In the South, with its long history of injustices against Black
people, racism was merged with anti-immigrant prejudices in
Republican messages against the Democrats. In Georgia, Trump said
that Democrat Stacey Abrams, a Black “progressive” running for
governor, was “unqualified”
for the office, and that she “would turn Georgia into a giant
sanctuary city for criminal aliens, putting innocent Georgia
families at the mercy of hardened criminals and predators.” The
National Rifle Association in Georgia put out a message, “Defend
yourself. Defeat Abrams.” And ABC News reported that a robocall on
behalf of her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp, called Abrams a
“negress.”
Should socialists work within the Democratic Party?
The elections reflected the broader polarization that has taken
place in the United States during the last few years, brought on in
part by the dissatisfaction and alienation that working people feel
toward the status quo in capitalist society. Some workers and
middle-class people, often in “rust-belt” districts that have seen
better times, have been hoodwinked by the anti-immigrant and racist
messages of the right wing.
But likewise, there is no doubt that the reactionary pronouncements
by Trump and the right have had an electric effect in mobilizing
people in opposition. The last two years have seen massive rallies
in the streets against Trump’s policies.
Unfortunately, at the present time, working people have no authentic
voice in the political arena except in the streets. Some socialists
mistakenly adhere to the idea that it might be possible to change
the pro-big business nature of the Democratic Party by working
within it, or that it might be possible to break a “left wing” (such
as Bernie Sanders
supporters) out of the party. But both scenarios are merely wishful
thinking.
Similarly, it is a deadly illusion to think that revolutionary
socialists can be elected to public office and work for significant
social change when using the ballot line of the capitalist
Democratic Party—always a “lesser-evil” trap for the unwary. History
has repeatedly demonstrated that the former party of the Klan, White
Citizens Councils, and Southern slavocracy serves the ruling class
elite unfailingly.
That this “graveyard of all fighting social movements” can be
considered a vehicle for advancing working-class interests is
preposterous. In general, when “progressive” or “left” candidates
run as Democrats, the party hierarchy forces them to align their
positions with those of the mainstream, not the opposite.
Consider Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the member of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA) from the Bronx, who was just elected to
the House as a Democrat. At first, the party leadership viewed her
with suspicion, but after winning the primary vote, she became a
celebrity, the subject of talk shows—and even Barak Obama endorsed her.
Accordingly, the DSA enlisted Ocasio-Cortez to travel to California
to raise money and support for other “left” candidates running in
the Democratic Party. We can expect, too, that the Democratic Party
leadership will use her services in selected and “safe” locales as
an opportunity to refurbish the party’s image when it suits their needs.
They understand that Ocasio-Cortez and other DSAers are fresh faces
who can attract young people and activists with new energy into the
party—and thus channel dissident voices into the double-talking
capitalist mainstream. Sanders played a similar role in 2016,
shepherding the unwary first into his campaign and then into Hillary
Clinton’s.
At her acceptance speech on Nov. 6, Ocasio-Cortez told supporters,
“We can make change … We are here, and we are going to rock the
world in the next two years … This is not the end. This is the
beginning.”
But real change will never be achieved from within the Democratic Party.
The beginning of a new day for working people in the United States
will arrive when they construct their own party, one that operates
not only at the ballot box but in workplaces and in the streets, and
with a revolutionary program to enable the working class to take
political power in its own name and abolish the rule of the capitalists.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 46Click to share
on Facebook (Opens in new window)46 Click to share on Google+
(Opens in new window)
November 7, 2018 in Elections, Trump / U.S. Government.
Related posts
The rise of right-wing violence in Trump’s America
The caravan that defies borders
Michael Moore flays Trump in ‘Farenheight 11/9’
Post navigation
← ‘We won’t be erased,’ say Connecticut protesters for trans rights
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month November 2018 (5) October 2018 (10)
September 2018 (8) August 2018 (12) July 2018 (13) June 2018 (11)
May 2018 (19) April 2018 (15) March 2018 (17) February 2018 (14)
January 2018 (13) December 2017 (13) November 2017 (13) October
2017
(16) September 2017 (15) August 2017 (16) July 2017 (17) June
2017
(16) May 2017 (17) April 2017 (14) March 2017 (13) February 2017
(19) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (12) November 2016 (19)
October
2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (10) July 2016 (14)
June
2016 (14) May 2016 (9) 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 (15) 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
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter View SocialistActionCT’s
profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation
Canada Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education &
Schools Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights
International Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist
Theory & History Middle East Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump /
U.S. Government Uncategorized Vote Socialist Action Women's
Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow
