It's finally happening: The Rise Of Socialism In America
I've been waiting for this my whole life, and it might finally be happening.
"Has anybody been angry before about capitalism?" Hannah Allison, a 29-year-old organizer with the Democratic Socialists of America, asks from the stage of a recent meeting in Los Angeles...
The group, which officially formed in 1982 but has roots in the early-20th-century socialist movement, has experienced a renaissance of late. The LA gathering is one of the group's largest in 25 years. And since last March, the DSA's membership has nearly tripled, to more than 15,000 members, with 90 local groups in 37 states.
...
Credit Bernie Sanders for DSA's explosion in growth. The Independent Vermont senator ran for president last year as a Democrat but has long identified as a democratic socialist – or, as he defined it in a 2006 interview, someone who believes in a democracy that's not influenced by Wall Street. At the time, he described democratic socialism as a system in which the government plays a strong role in ensuring all of its citizens have access to health care, childcare and a college education, regardless of income. "It means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment, that we create a government … not dominated by big-money interests," he said. "I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly."
Bernie did the DSA a huge favor, but it wasn't Bernie that caused it's surge in membership. It's Trump that gets credit for that.
DSA National Director Maria Svart says of new sign-ups, “You could literally see the moment when Trump was declared the winner.”
...For now, DSA is proving an on-ramp for those frustrated with Trump and the Democratic establishment alike...DSA’s tiny national staff, funded entirely by dues and small donations, has been overwhelmed by requests to create new chapters around the country and is looking for ways to expand accordingly.
The DSA is the most obvious political party for this new awakening (more than 2,000 new members have registered in the last two weeks alone), but it isn't the only one.
The Socialist Alternative, a Trotskyist party, said its membership has grown by more than 30 percent since Trump's election.
The Socialist Party USA's national secretary office said by email that they had also encountered "a solid spike from right after the elections", although they declined to provide further details.
Obviously the numbers are still tiny, but no movement starts out big (In the 2012 presidential election, fewer than 18,000 people voted for socialist candidates).
What is unmistakable is the potential for massive growth.
The Harvard University survey, which polled young adults between ages 18 and 29, found that 51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent said they support it...
Although the results are startling, Harvard's questions accord with other recent research on how Americans think about capitalism and socialism. In 2011, for example, the Pew Research Center found that people ages 18 to 29 were frustrated with the free-market system.
In that survey, 46 percent had positive views of capitalism, and 47 percent had negative views — a broader question than what Harvard's pollsters asked, which was whether the respondent supported the system. With regard to socialism, by contrast, 49 percent of the young people in Pew's poll had positive views, and just 43 percent had negative views.
The Trump Administration is so captured by Wall Street that they are beginning to worry how obvious it looks.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have conceded the field of economics.
The GOP are free-market fundamentalist fanatics who will destroy the government.
The Democrats are hopelessly corrupt and more interested in courting Romney voters than the working class.
The only real alternative is socialism. The time is right.
Gallup shows that since the election, a remarkable 14 million Democrats have become independents. So many people have left the Democratic Party that Republicans now outnumber Democrats in a progressive country.
Comments
It reminds me a bit of marijuana legalization
Neither political party was interested in ending pot prohibition.
It required a grassroots movement and demographics for legalization to go mainstream.
Prop 64 is not a good example of grassroots
thanks for having hope, but Prop 64 was sponsored by billionaires, not grassroots. I think "track and trace" is a terribly stupid plan, really terrible. Have your read the law? Has anyone finished reading it yet? heh
Follow the Money
http://theweedlynews.com/2016/08/28/when-you-follow-the-money/ tl;dr it leads to Soros, Monsanto.
Layman’s Reading of Prop 64 (from Utah medical user)
https://californiacannabiscoalition.org/laymans-reading-prop-64/
What "grassroots" laws make it to the ballot in California? The ones that pay the most money for each signature gathered. "That's the system."
Get signatures, make money: How some gatherers are making top dollar in this year's flood of ballot initiatives
Yeah I'm also still wondering "when will it stop?" Thanks
Great flow chart on mj money
in CA. Wonder if it holds true for MA,ME, NY?
The real model for American cannabis legalization
The real model for American marijuana legalization is Colorado's, not California's. Colorado's effort was Bernie-style grassroots from the start (as were the several failed attempts in Colorado before it; this is just the one that "took".)
EVERYTHING in California costs corporate-level money. Check out housing prices in San Francisco if you doubt me here.
"Don't Californicate Colorado; DE-Californicate California!"
-- me
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hickenlooper literally recommends "clampdown"
I am watching Gov. Hickenlooper at the Senate Governance and Finance Committee hearing yesterday. The media archives are here: http://senate.ca.gov/media-archive
I downloaded the yuge video. It is my State Senator Mike McGuire hosting, I did not vote for him, he doesn't represent anything that matters to me, quite the opposite probably. Hickenlooper speaks the first half hour or so. "Clampdown on home growers now." Meh, keep your advice in Colorado, thanks. He kicked my guts nearly drooling over the available tracking technology, it is Monsanto's dreams coming alive, "right down to the water molecule". And he even praises Silicon Valley, can't wait! He literally thinks he can "destroy the black market" by lowering taxes, after starting too high. omg Glad y'all like your Governor, but I'll pass. Okay.
Here is the person Brown put in charge of monitoring every move every single piece and part of every cannabis plant grown in California, for ever and ever rAmen. Larry Ellison already scoping out new islands to invade (always be one more than Zuckerberg probably).
LOL I hope that's wrong.
Uh huh Trade Enforcement. Just like wine-grapes, making it all about imaginary property, "proprietary brands" and shit like that, stuff the Navy loves to go war about. Unreal.
Figures Monsanto would be in on in...
We'll be smoking Roundup Ready Weed...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
Magic 8 Ball strikes again
naturally, the folks you'd want producing cannabis would be the chemical weapons death merchants. All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto
Some expert please say again why Monsanto and Syngenta invested in RNA Interference Technology for cannabis, among other GMOs. Seed patents! Fake property, imaginary property rights are BFDs for free traders. Soros has NO moral conscience, he said it himself on TV and I watched the video. More than once. These people are insane, they are the ones to be protesting, not propped up on a purple pillar, saving us all from... what now? I don't know.
As you probably know, gjohnsit,
I have posted here many times that I am a firm believer that all real change comes about as a result of social movements. I am heartened to read that so many people, especially young people, are rejecting capitalism and looking toward socialism.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yes, yes, yes.
Amen, gg98. It reminds me of the line..."The people are marching! I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." I believe this is also true of the gains in LGBT rights over the last 20+ years. The pols eventually had no choice but to follow.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Question
Did you mean the Socialist Equality Party?
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I like the poll results that said 47% do not support
capitalism. You younger you are, it seems, the more capitalism has given you a raw deal. I am not surprised by the surge in support for socialism. I am surprised that Harvard would poll this question.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I'm about done with the Green Party too
The undemocratic way Jill Stein did Hillary's dirty work after the election turned me off
Jill did Hillary's dirty work?
Why did Jill in the name of pure elections
only challenge results in states which Trump eked out a victory? She was shilling for Shillary. That's when I gave up on her, regretting the vote I had cast for her.
Was she shilling for Hillary though?
Yes, Jill Stein choose only states where Hillary lost, but if she picked New Hampshire, the reality is that the Hillary supporters who funded those recounts (I don't think it was Green voters), wouldn't have had reason to contribute. Why would Hillary need Jill Stein to do it? I've never heard a reason, and it's very clear looking at videos of the recount and reading how it went that the Democratic Party really didn't have anything to do with it. The only evidence then is the states picked, and those were the smart states to pick to actually make waves. It effectively served to be of the few lights we've ever had shined on the lack of security in voting, and it certainly did nothing for Hillary in the end (especially considering that Hillary would have had better standing legally, and that was a major issue for Jill).
Yes, she was. Either that or she was looking for publicity to
make herself better known.
@psychodrew Yes.
Yes.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I am of 2 minds
(usually 3 or 4 so not bad considering). I first had the same reaction, oh come on! But Im now persuaded by Sane Progressive. It's the absolute duty of any person who asks you to vote for them to examine and protect the validity of votes cast. Bernie should have had a team in place to contest all iffy results. It should have been integral to his campaign. Don't urge people to turn out for you in all weathers, with polling stations closed, machines malfunctioning etc, and then ignore the apparently manipulated results. You are discarding your supporters for a strategic purpose? Perhaps to avoid savage reactions from the MSM on your being a sore loser? Your voters deserve more. So Im fine with Stein challenging the votes she thought most troublesome.
I was upset that Bernie didn't look into the voting fraud too
what did he do for the people who were kicked off the voting rolls, had their party affiliation changed or any of the other discrepancies that happened during the primaries?
The Nevada caucus was blatantly obvious that they were breaking the rules and helping Hillary.
And the exit polls didn't add up with the votes.
Bernie was asked if Hillary had won the election fair and square and he said yes and he's also spouting that Russia interfered with the election when they did no such thing,
I posted a link to this article and have asked for feedback on it but so far I haven't heard from anyone. Please take a look at this and see if it rings true.
It's stating that the DNC was in bed with a Ukrainian company called crowd strike
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/indict-clinton-for-the-russian-dnc-a...
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Here's my entry in 10th dimensional chess
(I am not as expert as to be rated eligible for 11th dimensional chess). By avoiding being called a sore loser, as per his campaign coordinator, Bernie could have been playing a "long game" by thus keeping status as a leader in the moribund Donkey party. The press now reports on his actions more than Chuck E. Schumer.
@GusBecause She didn't challenge
She didn't challenge any of the vote-rigging done by Hillary against Bernie. Challenging stuff that Trump may have done without challenging the shit Hillary did is a way of sweeping Hillary's ill deeds down the memory hole. So yes, doing Hillary's dirty work for her.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The Greens never showed me enough.
They did OK for a while in Europe but became establishmentarian too quickly.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Holy Cat!
Now no mention of Jill Stein on the GPUS website (per your source, gjohnsit)!
Seems much of the Greens shares your distaste for Stein's defacto support of Hillary Clinton!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Yeah.
You're going to give up on the Green Party because one of its members behaved inappropriately?
You've been a Green Party member since when?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
I've been a Green Party member since 1996
I think that's long enough
So you stuck around in 2004
when the convention was rigged to make David Cobb the Presidential candidate for that year, ignoring the popular vote for Ralph Nader and in the convention hall itself, but you're quitting now because of Jill Stein (who hired David Cobb as her campaign manager)?
Myself I thought the 2004 outrage was the bigger one.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
@Cassiodorus It's hard to deal
It's hard to deal with the fact that Jill ran off and played footsie with the Clinton political machine all over the mainstream media. Yes, Jill does not=the whole Green Party, but to the extent the GP has a public face, it is that of their presidential candidate. I don't blame anybody for feeling suspicious of the GP now, because the implication is that any GP Presidential candidate--maybe any GP candidate--might switch loyalties and go to work for the worst of the corporate Dems. The main motivation for supporting the Greens in this country is being disgusted with the corporate Dems. The idea that the GP's presidential candidate could willingly act as a tool for the worst of the corporate Dems is poison to the GP--which was probably a desired side effect of this particular operation.
The primary objective of the operation was to erase Hillary Clinton's corrupt behavior during the Democratic primary from the public consciousness.
Anybody who could add could see that by attacking Trump's supposed election fraud, which might well exist--I wouldn't be surprised--while ignoring the blatant election fraud being perpetrated by Hillary throughout the primary, Jill was effectively replacing Hillary and her corruption in the public mind with Donald and his corruption. There is no more effective way to erase the knowledge of Hillary's corruption from the public mind than to give it another instance of election fraud to rail at and harp on that person and his crimes over and over and over.
Stein was actually doing very important work for the Clinton machine after the election, and while we might be upset that Stein's folly tarnished the reputation of the entire GP, what does it say about a party if it has so little control over its candidate that its candidate can successfully oppose and undermine that party's very reason for being? Even given that the majority of the GP was innocent of this shit--and I believe they were, and here's to Margaret Flowers for making that clear--it remains the case that they have no clear way to prevent this shit from happening again. And if they don't, there's no way I'm going to vote for them again--and I've voted Green more than once, and been Green for stretches of years more than once.
If the Green Party wants to remain relevant, or become more powerful, the number one priority must be for a united party leadership to announce, as Dr. Flowers did before, to the American people, that they vehemently oppose the actions Stein took after the election, and that they have figured out a way to prevent such free-lancing by a candidate again.
If they can't come up with a way to prevent such shenanigans, I sympathize; corruption is a difficult thing to counter when power is as asymmetrical as it is in this country. But you can't expect people who are, essentially, fleeing from Clinton corruption, to willingly vote for candidates willing to dance to her tune.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Are they really mutually exclusive?
Does Socialism mean that private enterprise is forbidden? Or just controlled, allowed to explore new products but not allowed to dominate politics and enslave their workers?
I, for one, have no desire to live in a Soviet Republic of America. If the government is that powerful, it is just another monopolist.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
That is a false dichotomy that is always proffered by
hardcore capitalists. The rentier class would like you to believe socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. But there is nothing inherently incompatible in having a combination of both.
Just look back to the 40's, 50's and 60's. This was a time of one of the greatest economic expansions in American history as well as the concurrent rise of an egalitarian society never before seen in the history of the world.
Unfortunately, unless something is done in the near future, it may prove to be an anomaly. Just a small blip on the long history of mankind's servility to other men.
That is the dichotomy in the OP
Capitalism or Socialism. Full Socialism being state owned enterprise. In the '60s we had state regulated capitalism with laws against monopoly and protections for unions. it worked pretty well.
I'm willing for so-called "natural monoplies", power, gas, internet to be heavily regulated monopolies but I'm fine with state ownership of them. But not auto companies or steel mills.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
That's not my socialism.
I thought the idea was that the public, and not "the state," would control the means of production.
Karl Marx never believed in the state, not once. The Karl Marx utopia is an expansion of the "realm of freedom," and not of "the state."
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Fantasy
Sorry, Cass. We agree on so much, but I can't swallow stateless control by the people. It might work in places like Scandinavia, but never here.
What we are staring in the face is State control of ostensibly "free" enterprise. i.e. Fascism. It began with Bush, accelerated under Obama and will come to full flower under Trump. If Pence comes to power it will be Religious Fascism, what Philip Jose Farmer called "the Sturch".
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@The Voice In the Wilderness Is that really
Is that really what we're staring at? Cause it looks to me like the richest people in the world, some of whom are American, and some not, have bought a controlling interest in the US government and are operating it as an elaborate puppet show. Sometimes this results in so-called "free market" policies and sometimes in policies that give more control to the state--whichever provides higher profits to those controlling interests at the moment.
I don't see the government controlling much of anything at all. The only parts of the government that look like they have any power are the Pentagon, the alphabet-soup agencies (intelligence, security, etc--also affiliated with the military) and, at a more local level, the cops.
Of course, you have to ask "controlling what?" I don't mean that the government can't control little ol' me--that's basically what they're for, at this point. But the government is in no way in control of policy. For God's sakes, half the time the legislation arrives from outside the government ready-made--down here in Tallahassee one silly legislator forgot to take the ALEC letterhead off of it before submitting it. And then I just heard on C99 the other day that the CIA has put its people as staffers throughout Congress. I haven't verified that one yet, but I won't be surprised if it's true.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I wouldn't, either.
The State is the Left hand. Corporations are the Right Hand. That's the essence of Fascism. No struggle for control. Does your Left hand struggle with your Right hand? That analogy leaves the question, "Who is the Brain, that controls both hands?" Many think it is the CIA, but I dunno. Maybe. Maybe it's brainless like a worm. Sure looks brainless right now, doesn't it.
However, it's not hopeless. Mussolini looked invincible but how did he end up? With "the lowers" spitting on his dead body hanging by his heels. Hitler looked invincible but how did he end up? Blowing his own brains out before Russian troops arrived to do the job for him.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@The Voice In the Wilderness We're
We're basically on the same page. I tend to think the public sector is mostly puppet show, with a military and surveillance police state attached, and the wealth guys pulling the strings--but your idea is just as possible.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@The Voice In the Wilderness
If you mean what I think you might mean? by the above, following a re-reread, any truly democratic government is in the public service, obliged to act in the public interest, and existing for the purpose of administering the country and public resources in the interest of the public.
What you might term the State is a construct of, by and for the people in order to ensure and enhance their welfare and that of the country, and to provide the unified force of the public in preventing the predation by any upon others with the enforcement of public-protective law/regulation.
Those in public office 'own' no public property themselves but are paid and are delegated powers to use in the interest of the public good; the State is not the master of the people and country but essentially an administration tool staffed at public expense and in the public service.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@The Voice In the Wilderness
And real socialism being publicly-owned - not State-owned - essentials/resources.
The country does not exist as such to serve a State, but the democratic State exists for the people within and to serve the public interest. The public clearly forms the body of stakeholders, so to speak, not whoever may happen to be holding public/State office.
Semantics matter because they do have meanings and affect perceptions and interpretations.
Edit: thanks, Cassiodorus! Should have known you'd be on that!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Capitalism has as its main prerequisite the division of society into an owning class and a working class -- the owning class lives off of profit, whereas the working class must survive off of the wages the owning class condescends to pay it, and often does so poorly. Socialism is the utopia of the classless society, in which the workers control the means of production and are no longer obliged to alienate their collective labor to a cadre of owners.
The Scandinavian countries are capitalist social democracies. They do not serve as examples of socialism.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Scandanavian countries are not socialist
But since they are far more socialistic than this country will ever be, we can look to them as examples to strive toward.
I suppose you could do that.
If you were really ambitious about it you and your family could try to move to Norway or Sweden or Denmark yourself, and life would probably improve for you. I don't, however, view those countries as entirely benign. Norway and Denmark are net oil exporters in an era in which the world society ought to be looking to break its oil addiction altogether. Swedish corporations manufacture fossil-fuel-burning cars and weapons.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Two thirds of Statoil is owned by the government of Norway
Profits from this company plus investments in the stock market go into Government Pension Fund Global. This fund provides for pensions for all Norwegians. Citizens pay into their pension fund through work or special plans. When retired they will receive their pensions as per their contributions. There is also a minimum guaranteed pension, currently $866.65 month, that you will receive if lower. This is an example of socializing a country's inherent wealth using a capitalist method. We can call it egalitarian social capitalism. The workers from management down have been very successful and innovative and receive wages commensurate with the global market. The only difference is that profits accrue to the state instead of to the rentier class whose only labor is coupon clipping.
BTW, the US is the biggest pig in the world when it comes to hydrocarbon consumption. The cost of gasoline in Norway is three times that of the US and is a net exporter. The US still imports 40% of its oil from global markets. Taxes and other income from the nations wealth are minimum compared to profits and readily averted.
Oil consumption is only part of the equation. A better statistic is per capita consumption of the worlds resources as a whole. If we buy and use products made in China, then we are responsible for the energy and resources used in its manufacture. What matters is the footprint. We would need five earths to support the entire population of the world living like an American. The US has become extremely wealthy by pushing other nations away from the global feed trough, many times using military force.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/
I really can't fathom
why "the Left" thinks it's so important to shift responsibility to consumers when it comes to economic activism. If we are to save the world from the nightmare of runaway climate change, we are to avoid driving cars (except when we have to do so in order to make a living), start living off the fossil-fueled electrical grid (except in Florida where it's illegal and they'll put us in a fossil-fuel-burning jail), only buy local (except when your locality doesn't produce what you need), and so on.
I of course do not believe in consumer activism. Consumer consumption, as Foster, Clark, and York point out, is smaller in its net use of resources than producer consumption (i.e. that consumption necessary to keep the "global free market" going), and persuading a few well-off people to limit their use of air travel and to buy Priuses or whatever is not going to change anything.
If we want to avoid the climate change nightmare, we must start with production. Norway and Denmark, for instance, must stop producing oil.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Do you really think that hydrocarbon production can be
turned off with the flip of a switch? Our entire society is dependent on energy and the chemicals derived from them. Even the initial base required for renewables requires large amounts of energy. You have to produce the steel, aluminum, copper, plastics, chemical resins, cement (coal for cement production is rising 5%/yr), the list goes on and on. Then we need long distance transport and infrastructure to bring these items together from all over the globe. We also need the infrastructure for the human labor required to live and to get to the hundreds of related workplaces.
As the economy improves, there are more jobs and more goods, requiring more energy costs. US coal production has increased to meet these needs. Renewables are increasing at an ever increasing rate, but, global demand for energy and hydrocarbons has increased at an even greater rate. We need to step up production of renewables.
China is doing most of the work in this area. In case you think they should because they are now a major producer of greenhouse gases, they are lower on a per capita basis than the US. In addition, 40% of their exports are bought by America. The US has been outsourcing its pollution for several decades now. Another factor is the US has been responsible for creating the high baseline of global pollution from unrestrained coal/oil production in the past century and a half.
China is doing its part. When will the US step up?
The following is small "s" socialism on a massive scale applied to the world's greatest danger. It is also an example of a government, arguably, responding to its people much better than in major capitalistic nations to this danger.
Here's my version of it
No. The end of fossil fuel production must be managed. Start by nationalizing the fossil fuel companies.
Coal production under capitalism, like any production under capitalism, is not production for need. Rather, capitalist production is production for a market, a market which exists so that the powers-that-be can maximize value, and so if we need to shut down coal, we need to suppress the market for it and have people find other energy sources.
Lastly, "stepping up production of renewables" simply means that the renewables supplement fossil fuel production. "The market" is not going to make fossil fuel production go away, nor are the nice capitalists going to achieve the daunting task of satisfying "projected energy needs" (under capitalism) entirely through alternative energies. Rather, we need to create a society, together, in which alternative energy production meets energy needs. What we do now is imagine that fossil fuel production is going to magically vanish in a market economy dedicated to global production and global distribution for global profit for a global oligarchy if we add a few solar panels here and there.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
More than half of the worlds oil producers are nationalized
15 of the world's 20 biggest energy-producing companies are state-owned enterprises. This is about 80% of world production. The non-nationalized ones are The Seven Sisters (mostly US). They used to produce 80% of the world's oil. Now its 10%. Most of the non-nationalized oil companies are American.
Even if every nation in the world immediately put every penny of their discretionary budget into renewables, it would still take 50 years to switch over. In the meantime billions would starve.
@Cassiodorus Now, now, now
Now, now, now. You're questioning our Puritan ethical structure. Bad Cass, no dog biscuit.
There are just some things you're not supposed to question, like the guilt and moral responsibility for all ills resting on the shoulders of the little guy, and the need for the little guy's repentance:
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There is no truly socialist nor capitalist system in the world
and there never was. Every political system devised has encompassed a range of the features between the two polar opposites.
Take for example the uber capitalistic US. Taxation is a form of socialism even at flat rate. Government subsidies and bailouts to highly capitalistic corporations who are failing (for whatever reason) is also a form of socialism. These wealth transfers have always been framed in socialistic terms, ie how it will affect the 'masses' if not done.
The real root of the problem is individuals who 'game' the system to their benefit using their connections to power and extreme wealth. Wealth accrues wealth. Did you know that Bill Gates now has more wealth than 175 out of 191 countries? He could buy Mexico. (As a side note, if Gates paid $1 for every time a Windows machine hung he would be bankrupt in three years.)
Ah yes.
"True capitalism," the idealistic doctrine of the capitalists. As if in some ideal world people would consent to being exploited by capitalists on their own. "Omigod I'm totally incomplete all by myself! I need a capitalist so I can be happily exploited!" Said nobody, to no-one.
And as for CB's definition of "socialism" as any form of state intrusion into the economy ("Taxation is a form of socialism even at flat rate"), whatev. The capitalist state intrudes into the economy to keep the capitalists happy all the time, and to some extent it intrudes into the economy to keep the working class well-sedated so that business as usual can continue. Only according to the doctrines of apologists for capitalism do these intrusions count as "socialism."
Large numbers of people reading this message, however, might actually understand the definition of socialism that I've laid out in this diary. The apologists for capitalism, on the other hand, like to define our words (e.g. socialism) so as to make them unattractive to us. For them, "socialism" is defined as any form of state intrusion into the economy because Marx's utopia is something they could not possibly conceive. "Our brains are too small to understand Marx's utopia," they tell us.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
I touched a nerve?
Just testing the perimeter defenses.
They're intact.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Right!
We agree on the definitions, if not the desirability.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
socialism vs. sovietism
The latter. Examples exist in every Scandinavian country. Enterprises such as energy, water, wastewater, telephone, Internet, etc., which tend to be monopolies by their nature are nationalized and/or strictly regulated to insure that these monopolies take orders from society rather than give orders to society as they do under capitalism.
I have frequently remarked that Vladimir Lenin set the Socialist cause back centuries. With the sole exception of the democratically elected Veche in Novgorod, Russia had no experience whatsoever with egalitarian government. What Lenin and Stalin managed to do was to install a so-called "socialist" system in the Tsarist Empire which resembled the Tsarist system in all save name and religious orientation. The boyars of yesterday were replaced by the comissars of today, the Church was deprecated, but everything else was so similar that the USSR almost lost World War II to Hitler. Only when Stalin turned toward actual socialism was he able to win the necessary battles to get free of the War. And he dropped that egalitarianism like a radioactive potato the second the USSR was no longer at war.
The monopoly-capitalist nature of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics became patently obvious once the Tsarist Empire fell apart once and for all in the 1990s. The Commissars in the right places at the right times became wildly rich capitalists at the head of large, powerful corporations (ex: Gazprom) while the ordinary peoples continued to struggle under the same misery and poverty that they struggled under while Nikolai II was Tsar, or worse.
Socialism cannot and will not work without egalitarian democracy; and egalitarian democracy flatly requires socialism to operate as well.
It is for both of these we struggle and fight, each doing everything he can. Death under barbaric conditions is the only alternative. And those "with eyes to see" know that.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides That is a brilliant
That is a brilliant comment, thana...
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
thank you!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides My pea brain jumps
My pea brain jumps from capitalism to fascism without pause. It doesn't even connect socialism to communism.
Perhaps a pea brain is sufficient to wade through the waters of todays high tide of propaganda.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
I second the emotion!
Edit: except, of course, for the 'pea brain' joke. I wish more people had your capacities...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Fine post.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
thank you!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I'll buy that!
And vote for it too. But it's not anti-capitalist. It's anti-laissez-faire.
Without capitalism, the internet would still be just a government tool and there would be no smart phones or home computers. Can you see the government developing Facebook? Not that I approve of Facebook. But everyone doesn't have to like what I like. THAT's the free market, not Walmart and Comcast.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Your statement requires broader understanding by those
brain-washed "anti-socialists":
Both the right and the pseudo-left will not make that distinction nor will they allow that view to be promoted publicly.
the right and the "other right"
Too much common sense, truth, and that kind of thing which scares the crap out of them!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Excellent explanation.
Excellent explanation.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
thank you!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The "dictatorship of the proletariat"
is not the dictatorship of a secret club of the intelligentsia claiming to stand for the proletariat. It's actual rule by the working class, which the Soviet Union never had.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
actual rule by the working class
And a phrase which Lenin coined, into the bargain!
Of course, somewhere in this discussion we must consider how things might have turned out if Lenin had lived to a reasonably old age, and gotten Stalin packed off to Norilsk or some such place before he could seize power. Unfortunately, by the time Lenin knew how genuinely brutal and dangerous Stalin really was, it was too late: Stalin was already in charge and Lenin merely the figurehead, still alive but disabled by the series of strokes which would eventually kill him.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The term "dictatorship of the proletariat"
appears in Marx's "The Class Struggles In France," written in 1850 and apparently published by Engels on his deathbed in 1895. Here is the pdf; the term appears at the top of page 65.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Cool, thank you! :-)
Thank you!
Engels' later writings on Marx contain a lot of yummies. They're also where we receive the notorious "I am not a Marxist" from! (here)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@cassiodorus, the folks in Russia under the Sovjet Union regime
never worked ? /s
heh, just teasing. sounds weird in my ears to say that
in my humble opinion, there is no system or regime in which you don't have a 'working class'.
Heh, I work pretty much all the time, and I guess my Russian sisters worked all the time as well, no matter if we lived under capitalism or communism. The proletariat of yesteryears was a class of workers of the industrial revolution times. Those times are bygone or at least we don't have those anymore that distinctly.
Those who always work, aren't the dictators of whatever proletariat anymore. They are the poor chaps who have to live under conditions of the digital age, that can't be controlled anymore, aren't egalitarian and didn't evolve out of a population that could freely elect representatives, who would be able to control the digital technology, with the help of a proportional voting systems respecting the majority vote (may be for a good reason, I try to figure that out one day, but haven't yet)
Just blowing hot air out of my nostrils. I stay out of it. I always had no time to go into the theories of Marx, Engels and others. The discussion feels somewhat stale and a bit'out of touch' in today's technology.
May be today we live under the rule of the digits, manipulated by and for elite employers and employees, who still get sufficiently good income up to insane profits for their 'services'.
You are discussing to organize a revolution against a system that is based on digital technology, while using it to organize the resistance against it? How can this work?
Don't understand it. You don't have to answer to this. I know that I didn't figure out the basics yet.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@mimi
Lol, the meaning was that the working-class never ruled in Soviet Russia, so that was no form of socialism. If I missed your joke, I apologize.
Edit: had coffee now, lol.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
ha, that's what you get if a non-native English
speaker reads English and gets it wrong. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I indeed read it in a way that it was not meant to be read. My comment makes me chuckle at myself.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@mimi
Speaking as something of an expert on brain shut-down, I hear ya! Coffee helps, but often not enough, lol.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Capitalism is based on human greed.
Your definition of Socialism is based on human sharing. I'm old and I've seen a lot. Mostly human greed. Hate and greed are stronger than Love and Sharing. People are scum. That's why we need a Bill of Rights.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@thanatokephaloides
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@The Voice In the Wilderness I think there should
I think there should always be room for an entrepreneur.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Older Americans are still scared of 'socialism'
But they love 'social' and 'democracy'.
Very few realize that is was the capitalist's fear of socialism that allowed the rise of the middle class.
The only real alternative is socialism.
In this hour -- and in every hour.
We only have one set of natural resources. They can either enrich a very few beyond the wildest dreams of humankind and leave the rest of us struggling, or they can be harnessed so that we can all live reasonably well; but not both.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That non-regenerative natural resources are being exhausted
is the worst, big FU to all inhabitants of this planet. Should fools not see the obvious, may Karma exact the proper toll from all of those responsible.
Fighting for democratic principles,... well, since forever
Karma
You know what they say about Karma......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I've been waiting too
The minute I saw your title I thought of the Jimmy Dore-Pelosi clip you posted. The way democracy has been equated with capitalism is probably a product of McCarthy. So glad young folks are awakening.
Did you see the interview with Nick Brana, former national political outreach coordinator for Bernie Sanders. Lee Camp learns why Brana resigned from progressive political action group Our Revolution and his current effort to draft Sanders to lead a new political party, the People’s Party. (26 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f28dVrtEWA
His take on the rise of the republican party was interesting.
Thanks for the insights gjohn...I appreciate your informative posts.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Collapse of the Democratic Party
Sanders refused.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/sanders-rejects-effort-draft-him-star...
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews He's either
He's either extraordinarily lame or he doesn't want to get punched again.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was raised by Socialists.
[video:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDVsprWRCQ]
OMG my poor dogs
second time tonight I've woken them up with hysterical laughter. Thanks for the video! The first time was when I was scrolling through Twitter responses by Canadians to the rumor that Trump had appointed Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada. My favorite: Dear President Trump. Please just bomb us instead.
Canada: Meet 'em half way.
Instead of the real Sarah Palin, let's send the Canadians the fake Sarah instead (Tina Fey)!
Everybody would be better off!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Yes, please!
Yes, please!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
"Has anyone been angry before about capitalism'?
29 year old should review some history. Over the last 150 years there have been many angry about capitalism, and a number of movements against it and for socialism. The hippie movement was against greedy capitalism and largely for socialism.
Is now any different? Probably not. But the key is it should be up to the people and some kind of hybrid would no doubt be acceptable to the majority. But as we know, it ain't up to us, that's what we have to change.
Bernie nixed the notion of being drafted
earlier today on Meet The Press. (Or, at least, that is my impression.)
Here's a link, and a partial excerpt:
[Re-paragraphed/italicized for emphasis.]
Mollie
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."--Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
IOW, Bernie wants to be the Judas Goat
that leads us to the slaughter of the DNC/Third Way/Wall street/Clintonism.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
gotta leave it there
..... and chickening out and running away..... Sir Chuck Todd ran away, he bravely ran away.....
[video:https://youtu.be/cFdgjYoBMIg width:480 height:306]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Pages