If Facebook and Twitter outdate an email discussion list then the
quality of discourse is really deteriorating. That 140 character limit
on Twitter really squelches a discussion. It may be good for making
brief announcements with a link for more information, but trying to hold
a conversation can't be done beyond an exchange of quips. Facebook
groups are very similar to message boards. At least reading a discussion
is just like reading a message board, but that way entire threads seem
to be missed. An email list works very much better than either Twitter
or Facebook for an actual discussion.
On 12/12/2015 9:18 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
My point exactly and, by the way that does not, at least in my mind mean in the slightest that Roger and his views are not appreciated.
I think, in varying degrees all of us on this list are struggling for answers to fundamental questions.
And this list serve is a sort of "social medium" for tackling them though a bit outdated relative to things like facebook and twitter I guess.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Alice Dampman Humel <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 10:48 PM
*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] RE: [blind-democracy] ‘Lesser-evil’ politics
from Trump to Sanders
I repeat for the nth time: your explanations are not ignored, they
are (sometimes, at least) disputed.
On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:21 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It is more of the necessity of explaining it linearly for clarity
than that history actually progresses in a strictly linear way.
It would be better to say that it progresses in a loosely linear
way. There were, of course, many things that Marx was unaware of,
but I hardly see the relevance of his ignorance of the theory of
relativity to his analysis of history. Nevertheless, there were
things that he was acutely aware of that are relevant to his
understanding of history. For example, during his lifetime
slavery existed in the Americas along with and as a part of
capitalism. When that slave system was overthrown it was replaced
with a feudal system that existed along with and as a part of
capitalism. That is the case even though feudalism was overthrown
by capitalist revolutions and was replaced by capitalism. The
linear patterns were still apparent though even though they were
exhibited in an uneven way. The social systems are, loosely,
savagery to barbarianism to slave supported civilization to
feudally supported civilization to capitalism. Simply observing
the stages is not sufficient to determine a law of development
though. It is necessary to observe and describe the dialectical
relations that are occurring during the periods of transition. In
each case there is a good possibility of the situation developing
in one of various ways and those various ways can be grouped into
two trends, regressive or progressive. That is the main way in
which mixed and uneven social and economic systems come into
being. It also points up the ludicrousness of Miriam's use of the
word immutable to describe it. In any case, though, Marx never
intended that anything he ever had to say about social and
economic evolution be taken as carved in stone and anyone who
does assume that Marx was infallible is not really a Marxist. He
did make a lot of observations about history and he did draw
conclusions about it based on an objective analysis. It is
integral to scientific method, though, that all conclusions are
tentative pending incoming data. If observed facts contradict a
formerly held assumption then the assumption has to be discarded
and a new analysis has to be made taking into account the new
data. Now, if you think that Einstein's theory of relativity
somehow contradicts Marx's analysis of historical development
then do let me know just how you figure that. By the way, I
suppose I will have to resign myself to the fact that all that I
have explained will be ignored just like everything else I have
explained before has been ignored and that I will be treated as
if I am the one who does not know what he is talking about.
On 12/11/2015 8:50 PM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
History in Marxist terms is indeed linear. But in human terms it
is, indeed, not so.
Marx had this step by step advancement that is not born out by
antthropological data subbsequently available to Marx himself.
In fact he was in the relative dark ages to the date of Darwin
et al.
This is not a condemnation of Marx by the way but only denotes
some of the many flaws in his (along with many others in the
oingment so to speak.
Think about the data scientiffically for a moment here Roger>
If you wish to be a scientific socialist and not just a clone
considerthese things for exammple:
Consider the fact that Einstein's Relativity wasn't even
considerred in the Era of Marx.
Consider the facts that in economenic terms there was not a
singular notion of what it is meant to be equal.
Consider so many variables and it makes not Marx totally
irrelevent, but at least he and his opine along wiht othes to
be reconsiderred anew?
Amd moreover and double the sum for Adam Smith eh?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:08 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] ‘Lesser-evil’
politics from Trump to Sanders
I don't know where you get this stuff about immutable, but I am
interested in something else you said. Do you really believe that a
transition from slavery to sharecropping, even a brutally
enforced form
of sharecropping, was not an improvement? What do you think the
freed
slaves would say to you about that?
On 12/11/2015 6:01 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You need to know that I have no idea what you mean by "the laws
of history", but I assume that your talking abouthow Marxist
theory describes changes over time, dialectic something or
other? I know I read all this in college, but I surely didn't
focus on it. I gather that you believe that there are immutable
laws in history, sort of like in physics except that because
we're talking about the social sciences, individual activists
can kind of help things move along. I suppose that the problem
is that the imperfections of human nature keep messing up each
system that has developed. Feudalism was not an improvement on
the Roman empire, just a change. Communism, as it developed in
Russia and China, wasn't better for people than American
capitalism. I do like the social democracies of Scandanavia and
Great Britain and France were OK for a brief period of time, as
was the US for about 30 years. But things go on changing -
those immutable laws of history, I suppose, and they seem to
get worse, not better.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy]
‘Lesser-evil’ politics from Trump to Sanders
It was followed by feudalism though. Do you think that the
Roman Empire was immune to the laws of history? If so, then
what do you call the economic system that replaced it if not
feudalism?
On 12/11/2015 3:31 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I don't know about the laws of history, but I do know about the
political character of the US population And I also know that
climate change is moving at such a rate that its consequences
will eliminate human life unless immediate changes take place
in how we live. I don't see the US moving toward socialism.
When the Roman empire imploded, it wasn't followed by peace
and equality throughout the world.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy]
‘Lesser-evil’ politics from Trump to Sanders
Can you think of any reason that the US would be immune to the
laws of history?
On 12/11/2015 11:30 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Aside from a few mis statements, this is a pretty good
summary of the situation. The problem is, I feel like it
leaves us nowhere. Does the Socialist Workers' Party or any
other socialist of communist party actually think that there
can be a socialist revolution in the US? I suppose that hope
springs eternal for some folks.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:19 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] ‘Lesser-evil’ politics from Trump to
Sanders
http://socialistaction.org/
‘Lesser-evil’ politics from Trump to Sanders
Published December 10, 2015. | By Socialist Action.
Sasha Murphy, of the ANSWER Coalition, leads demonstrators in
a chant during a protest against Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump's hosting "Saturday Night Live" in New
York, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2015. Despite a 40-year history of
lampooning politicians while inviting some to mock themselves
as on-air guests, booking a presidential candidate to host
the NBC sketch-comedy show is almost unprecedented.
(AP Photo/Patrick Sison)
Sasha Murphy, of the ANSWER Coalition, leads demonstrators in
a chant during a protest against Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump's hosting "Saturday Night Live" in New
York, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2015. Despite a 40-year history of
lampooning politicians while inviting some to mock themselves
as on-air guests, booking a presidential candidate to host
the NBC sketch-comedy show is almost unprecedented.
(AP Photo/Patrick Sison)
By JEFF MACKLER
That the leading Republican Party presidential candidate,
multi-billionaire Donald Trump, is a full-blown reactionary
caricature of a capitalist politician is now the common
parlance of most major media outlets. Even the relatively
conservative Washington Post featured a Dec. 1 Dana Milibank
column entitled, “Donald Trump Racist Bigot.”
Milibank, reflecting the general unease at Trump’s virulently
racist, misogynist, and xenophobic outbursts, wrote: “Let’s
not mince words:
Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist. … There is a great
imperative
not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this
campaign
has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos,
Asians, women,
Muslims and now the disabled…
“It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s
outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some
point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed
as bigoted: You are a bigot.
“It has been more than a quarter century since Trump took out
ads in New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for
“criminals of every age” after five black and Latino teens
were implicated in the Central Park jogger case. The young
men, convicted and imprisoned, were later cleared by DNA
evidence and the confession of a serial rapist—and Trump
called their wrongful-conviction settlement a ‘disgrace.’”
“Since then,” Milibank continued, “Trump led the ‘birther’
movement challenging President Obama’s standing as a
natural-born American; used various vulgar expressions to
refer to women; spoke of Mexico sending rapists and other
criminals across the border; called for rounding up and
deporting 11 million illegal immigrants; had high-profile
spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets;
mocked Asian accents; let stand a charge made in his presence
that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are a ‘problem’ in
America; embraced the notion of forcing Muslims to register
in a database; falsely claimed thousands of Muslims
celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey; tweeted bogus
statistics asserting that most killings of whites are done by
blacks; approved of the roughing up of a black demonstrator
at one of his events; and publicly mocked the [physical]
movements of New York Times (and former Washington Post)
journalist Serge Kovaleski, who has a chronic condition
limiting mobility.”
What is perhaps a bit different in today’s virtually
year-round election hyperbole is the fact that virtually
every one of the dozen or so Republican presidential
contenders have remained all but silent as Trump daily spews
out his noxious diatribes. Indeed, until quite recently, most
of the corporate media relished covering Trump’s every
anti-social rant, fearful perhaps that failure to do so might
lose them critical media ratings.
Trump himself has repeatedly affirmed that any coverage,
especially free media coverage—and to date he has by far had
the lion’s share of the latter—could only work to his advantage.
On Nov. 8, Trump delighted in the opportunity to appear on
the popular “Saturday Night Live” television show, where
wacked-out comedian Larry David, who plays the part of an
obnoxious liberal racist on his “Curb Your Enthusiasm” show,
took up DeportRacism.com’s offer of a $5000 prize to publicly
heckle Trump and call him a racist. David, who has yet to
collect his winnings, did just that—with Trump’s explicit and
prior, if not enthusiastic, agreement. In capitalist America
today, a real live, laughing, racist billionaire is a
profitable talent to broadcast!
Meanwhile, the front-running Trump has a dozen Republican
challengers, including the second in the polls—retired
surgeon, Christian fundamentalist, and climate and evolution
denier Ben Carson. All afford Trump virtually free rein in
his fear and hate-mongering campaign, with a few occasionally
and cautiously seizing the opportunity to one-up this racist
bigot in order to better capture an ever greater portion of
the Republican Party’s alienated, largely middle-class, Tea
Party-enthusiast voter base.
No doubt Trump’s rants find fertile soil in a small layer of
the overall electorate, but even less in the general
population, some half of which increasingly does not bother
to vote.
But Trump’s backwater histrionics are not new to the
increasingly polarized and crisis-ridden world capitalist
scene. Overtly far-right, if not neo-fascist, views are
similarly expressed in France, England, and across Europe. In
the former two nations such right-wing parties have, for the
first time in nearly a century, outpolled the traditional
capitalist stalwart parties of the status quo.
Trump is the American reflection of overtly racist and
neo-fascist ideology— if not a conscious experiment with it.
His racist rants in some instances have encouraged the use of
violent physical attacks by his disaffected followers, who
find his scapegoating of the oppressed to their liking.
Democratic Party charade
On the Democratic Party side of capitalism’s electoral
charade, this ruling-class party’s lead candidates take the
opposite tack, portraying themselves as the font of
progressive values.
In their first nationally televised debate, all five of the
original Democratic Party contenders, led by “socialist”
Bernie Sanders and matched by Hillary Clinton,
enthusiastically decried the “casino capitalism” of Wall Street.
Their purported vision of the future society is one in which
the U.S.
“returns” to the moral values of its much fantasized “small
business”
and “hard-working little man” roots, where prosperity awaits
all who conscientiously put in the effort. References to
America’s slave-labor and robber-baron origins are absent in
this scenario.
Given President Obama’s significantly declining poll ratings,
none of the present Democratic Party contenders sought his
overt political support. “Mums the word” with regard to
Obama’s record of leading the nation in implementing each and
every corporate assault against unions, workers, and the
poor. None chose to identify with Obama’s unprecedented
corporate largess in the form of multi-trillion-dollar
bailouts to the richest sectors of the U.S. ruling class.
Rhetoric aside, Sanders’ Democratic Party voting record
stands at 98 percent, while Hillary Clinton’s financial
support from corporate America’s giants, as with Obama before
her and Bill Clinton earlier, topped all contributions to her
Republican opponents.
We might add that former Secretary of State Clinton backed to
the hilt every imperialist war effort of the Obama
administration from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to today’s
U.S. war efforts in Syria. Obama’s countless covert and drone
wars abroad murdered millions while stuffing the coffers of
the military-industrial complex at home. But virtually no
comment from Bernie or Hillary!
Meanwhile, Obama’s hard-working “legacy” promoters struggle
today to posture the president as a keen environmental
advocate, an ally of immigrant communities, a champion of
health care for all, a friend of the working class, a
champion of democratic rights, and a man who is reluctant to
send more troops to fight in the interests of U.S. imperialism.
Obama has become the media-promoted rational champion of
climate science, currently partaking in the UN-sponsored
Paris talks as the chief “defender” of the earth against the
ravages of global warming.
Yet, Obama’s administration holds the modern-day record for
increasing the use of fossil fuels, opening the floodgates to
corporate off-shore drilling, and maintaining the obnoxiously
high government tax breaks for the leading Big Oil polluters.
Obama’s recent squelching of the infamous Keystone XL
pipeline provided his administration a momentary fig leaf of
credibility that immediately vanishes when contrasted to the
massive increase of environmentally destructive pipeline
complexes in place or under construction across the country.
Obama, the “Great Deporter,” with a record two million
immigrants brutally forced out of the country to his credit,
gifted $13 trillion in bailouts over the past seven years to
the corporate elite. He presided over the wholesale shredding
of civil liberties (as so ably exposed by the Snowden
revelations). His signature “affordable” health care
legislation gifted $3 trillion over the next 10 years to the
private and largely monopolized insurance, hospital, and
pharmaceutical industries—as opposed to a single-payer
alternative that would have saved $1 trillion in government
expenditures over the same period.
A Dec. 5 New York Times article entitled, “Jobs Report Seen
as Strong Enough for Fed Action” [to raise interest rates on
today’s nearly zero-rate “loans” to corporate America]
nevertheless revealed some bitter truths about the Obama
administration’s seven-year record.
“At 62.5 percent,” The Times notes, “the proportion of
Americans in the labor force remains near mid-decade lows.
The jobless rate for African-Americans rose by 0.2 percentage
points in November to 9.4 percent, which is more than twice
the 4.3 percent for white Americans.”
“Moreover, The Times adds, “the economy is still 2.8 million
jobs short of where it would have to be to match
pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing new
entrants into the workforce. … Even if the current trend
continues, that so-called ‘jobs gap’ will not be closed until
mid-2017.”
Another Dec. 5 New York Times article, “Lawmakers Near Deal
on Billions in Tax Cuts,” notes that the upcoming bipartisan
tax-cut legislation, in almost all cases written behind the
scenes and negotiated secretly by the technocrat specialists
of the corporate elite, amounts to nothing less than a
five-year duration transfer of $840 billion from us to
them—from tax-paying working people to the tax-avoiding
richest portion of the one percent that really rules America.
A general shift to the right
Today’s political/electoral drama, almost always devoid of
the crooked corporate machinations that lead to tax cuts and
other perks for the super-wealthy, can best be summarized:
“The Republicans talk the talk:
the Democrats walk the walk.”
The silky and “progressive”-sounding Democratic Party
election-time jargon is no accident or fluke. It is
consciously designed to pose this wing of the ruling class as
the “civilized” representatives of an egalitarian society
that respects, if not cherishes, democratic and human rights
and economic fairness.
Similarly, the Republicans’ election posturing as a racist
nut-case party of almost deranged hate-mongers, climate
deniers, and war hawks is not without its own logic. The
extreme verbal political divergence between Democrats and
Republicans lays the foundation for capitalism’s well-honed
election-time lesser-evil scenario, wherein alienated voters
who would more than likely abandon the two-party shell game—a
60 percent majority favor a new third party, according to a
recent Gallup poll—feel compelled to once again allow
themselves to partake in “choosing”
capitalism’s preferred horse in the race.
The seeming Republican Party scapegoating mania combines well
with a generalized disgust with “establishment” politics, and
it allows Democrats to move ever further to the right. Few
doubt that President Obama and his Democratic Party
political, social, and economic policies are far to the right
of the most “evil” Republican propositions of yesteryear.
This generalized shift to the right of ruling-class politics,
and the associated feigned public disputes, never fail to
reach resolution in the hidden congressional and corporate
corridors, where “compromise”
solutions, always at the expense of the vast majority, are
routinely arrived at.
The chaotic and crisis-ridden capitalist system itself—in a
crisis virtually equal in magnitude to that of the Great
Depression of 1929—best accounts for today’s public partisan
discord. Different wings of the ruling elite are today at
odds with regard to how much, how fast, and with what
means—mass repression or “friendly” persuasion—to most
effectively advance their common corporate interests.
Sanders pledges to support any Democrat
It is in this context, where massive disillusionment with and
alienation from “traditional” capitalist parties and politics
has reached new heights, that one can also understand the
rise of long-time registered “independent,” now “socialist,”
Bernie Sanders, as well as the racist social dissident,
Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders is now an official Democrat, having pledged in
advance to support whoever of his party competitors emerges
from the upcoming election primary contests as the winner. In
some recent polls in the early primary states, like New
Hampshire and Iowa, Sanders’ ranking appears to be in the
political ballpark—that is, he could win.
It was perhaps some 50-60 years ago, when I first encountered
the “lesser evil” dichotomy at work—Kennedy vs. Nixon and
Johnson (LBJ) vs.
Barry Goldwater—that I half seriously predicted that the time
would come when the ruling-class elite, when it believed it
was necessary to head off a likely working-class move toward
a break with the capitalist two-party duopoly, would run a
“socialist” for president, under the Democratic Party
imprimatur, of course.
That day has arrived, with “Bernie” filling the bill almost
perfectly as today’s central sheepherder of the unwary back
into the Democratic Party fold.
Sanders’ service record on capitalism’s behalf falls well
within the boundaries of ruling-class politics. He supported
the Obama administration’s wars in Afghanistan, Libya,
Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen—although he, like most other
liberals who feigned opposition to the Iraq War, including
Obama, now claim that this war was a ”mistake.”
The Saddam Hussein government after all, they have been
compelled to
admit, never had “weapons of mass destruction.” The U.S.
slaughter of
1.5 million Iraqis, we are told with a straight face, was a
mistake!
“Socialist” Sanders gave his assent to countless
trillion-dollar military appropriations bills, including all
congressional measures that supported Israel in its genocidal
drive to eliminate any Palestinian presence in their historic
homeland.
Thus, campaigning for and organizing mass forces to demand
the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. troops
from every nation on earth is not within the Sanders
campaign’s calculated political territory. He knows full well
that any real socialist would view U.S.
imperialism’s wars everywhere as nothing less than the
extension and embodiment of U.S. ruling-class policies at home.
Sanders has indeed disappointed some of his liberal and even
“socialist”
supporters today due to his perceived “weakness” on
foreign-policy issues and his failure to unequivocally
challenge and condemn the ever-increasing brutality and
police murder of unarmed Blacks. When confronted with a Black
Lives Matter representative who jumped onto the stage
demanding to know where Sanders stood on America’s deepening
racist attacks, the “political revolutionary” was speechless
and quickly exited, leaving the audience stunned. When he was
soon afterward advised that his well-crafted liberal image
had to include a modicum of support to Black rights, he
meekly assented, but only to the point of not significantly
interfering with Clinton’s prior turf “claim” to the Black vote.
Sanders has also made clear that he is not the kind of
socialist that seeks the social ownership of the nation’s
wealth and the establishment of a revolutionary state that
once and for all places society’s means of production and
wealth in the hands of and under the democratic control of
those who produce it, in the framework of a government of the
working class and its allies. Sanders’ “socialism,” he
insists, includes respect for private property—operating,
perhaps, in a bit more humanely manner.
In short, Sanders, like his “socialist” counterparts in
France or in the Scandinavian countries, seeks a “kinder
gentler capitalism.” The fact that he seeks to emulate
Europe’s historically bankrupt social-democratic capitalist
model while these nations are engaged in supporting all of
NATO’s wars and imposing the same, if not worse, austerity
measures against their respective working masses is not
unexpected.
In these troubled times “Bernie,” in fact, perfectly fills
capitalism’s needs for legitimacy. His chatter about the need
for a “political revolution” in the U.S. is subordinate to
his quarter-century service as Vermont’s leading elected
official—unchallenged by the Democratic Party.
His current assignment, for which he will undoubtedly be
richly rewarded down the line, is to corral working-class
discontent back into the capitalist framework and, when the
Peter Pan fairy dust has cleared, to back Hillary Clinton.
Santa is in exile!
There is no Santa Claus on Wall Street, dear friends—neither
in the form of Bernie and Hillary nor charitable gift-giving
billionaires like Gates and Zuckerberg. Indeed, the real
Santa likely abandoned his North Pole abode at the first
signs of Industrial Revolution capitalist-caused global warming.
That once pristine ice-capped area, increasingly barren
today, is the domain of happy Obama’s helpers, including the
Chevron Corporation, which seeks to mine the exposed earth
for the very fossil fuels whose continued use spells doom for
all human kind. The real Santa likely moved his helpers to
cities around the world to join the fight to restore his
homeland and ours, and to return to the people of the earth
the opportunity to collectively build a joyous world, free
from those who would irrationally destroy it in the pursuit
of profit.
Another Christmastime hero, a young Jewish rebel who lived a
bit more than 2000 years ago, may have left us with some
insightful words to ponder. “Drive the money changers from
the temple,” he exhorted. Not a bad holiday admonition!
Indeed, the socialist movement of the early 19th century did
include followers of Jesus, who believed that socialism was
the modern-day expression of the teachings of the Lord.
Today’s Marxist revolutionaries base themselves on a
qualitatively grounded or materialist understanding of the
roots of capitalist society’s countless horrors. As the gap
narrows between workers’
mounting hatred of the dread consequences of capitalist
exploitation and oppression and their reluctance to enter the
fray to challenge it in all its fundamentals, we will see
countless millions of new and clear-sighted fighters break
with all of capitalism’s ruling-class-based institutions of
coercion and control.
That day is not far over the horizon. Today, the conscious
organization of a deeply-rooted mass revolutionary socialist
party—aimed at ending capitalist rule forever and bringing
forth a new world dedicated to advancing the finest yearnings
for freedom, justice, and equality—is Socialist Action’s
reason for being. Join us!
Share this:
Tumblr
Posted in Elections. | Tagged Clinton, Democratic Party,
Republicans, Sanders, Tea Party, Trump.
Get Involved
Join Socialist Action
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Events
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
JAN. 2014 p.1 jpegJAN. 2014 p. 12
Subscribe Today
Subscriptions to the monthly print edition of Socialist
Action are
available for the following rates:
- 12 month subscription for $20
- 24 month subscription for $37
- 6 month subscription for $10
Learn More
Email Updates
Enter your email address to subscribe to our free e-mail
Socialist
Action Newsletter. Also to receive notifcations of new web
posts by email.
Learn More
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month December 2015 (4) 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 (12)
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) 0 (2)
Learn More
Pamphlets/Books
Socialist Action publishes a wide variety of pamphlets on burning
issues of today such as global warming, women’s liberation, the
Middle East and other subjects.
Learn More
Socialist Action (U.S.): socialistaction@xxxxxxx | (510) 268-9429
Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste (Canada):
barryaw@xxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © 2015 Socialist Action. All Rights Reserved. Site
Design
by Lucid Digital Designs | Site Utilities
