Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘New Left’ Category

George McGovernSource: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

If George McGovern was a loser, than America needs a lot more losers just like him. When it comes to knowledge, experience and judgement, because he is one of the finest people America has ever produced. And we are lucky to have a man like him. Because here’s a distinguished teacher, historian, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator and again historian, as well as U.N. Ambassador for Food and Agriculture. Who was always about two things. Public service and public progress.

When it comes to Senator McGovern’s politics. We probably do not agree on much at least as it related to economic policy. He was a real FDR Progressive Democrat and the real thing unlike some of these so-called Progressives today. That I’ll talk more about later, but he and I are probably pretty close as it relates to things like civil liberties and personal freedom. So on those issues Senator McGovern was probably to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Another thing I would say about Senator McGovern was that he was a real FDR New Deal Progressive Democrat. As it related to economic policy, foreign policy and national security. Who wasn’t anti-military, or anti-law enforcement. Unlike a lot of his supporters who helped cost him the 1972 presidential election. But he was someone who had a real respect for limited smart power. And not just as it related to economic policy, unlike a lot of the so-called Progressives today. Who sound more like Socialists and even Anarchists at times.

WTTW Chicago: Chicago Tonight- John Callaway Interviews George McGovern in 1978

Read Full Post »

CDS
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Socialism is one of those things that is hard to explain and define for many people. Which is why it means different things to different people sort of like liberalism. But to put it simply socialism is anything provided by government for the people that is funded by public revenue. Generally through taxes, but not always and it can financed through state-owned enterprises as well. Which was common in Cuba before they moved to a state form of capitalism a few years ago.

When people tend to think of Socialists, they tend to think of people who are Marxists. Named after the famous Far-Left philosopher Carl Marx. And a Marxist is someone who believes in state-owned economics. And believes the state meaning the central government for whatever given country should own and operate the economy and all of it’s enterprises on behalf of the people. To see that no one has too little or too much. I guess that would be what I would call a Classical Socialist to go along with the big welfare state. And all the social services that would come from the central government.

But anyone whose familiar with the developed world as it is called that is the wealthy countries of the world that have large middle class populations and even a decent number of wealthy people, but even the fast developing countries of the developing world like Mexico, China and India to use as examples, know that these countries don’t have state-owned economic systems. And that most of the industries in these countries are in private hands subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

But these countries aren’t completely capitalist either and have large and expansive welfare states. That provide most of the services that people need to do well in life. Like education, pension, health care, health insurance and other services. A lot of these countries tend to be social democratic and run by Social Democrats on the Left. Or people on the Right who even though they might not be Social Democrats aren’t interested in dismantling the welfare state. But in many cases there to see that it doesn’t expand and that these programs are run better. And even getting competition from the private sector to perform these services as well.

The future of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats especially in America, but the developing world and Europe as well I believe is not the Marxist Socialist approach of government trying to do everything for everybody. But it is the Bernie Sanders wing of the socialist movement. Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont the only self-described Socialist in the United States Congress.

Senator Sanders is someone who believes in capitalist private enterprise economy. But that is highly taxed and regulated to protect workers and consumers from capitalist predators, but also so the central government has the resources to provide most of the services that people need to live well in life. Which is the type of Socialist that gets elected in America, but also in Europe as well.
Munder Larkst: Howard Zinn on Democratic Socialism

Read Full Post »

Socialists USA

Socialists USA

Source: Socialist Party USA: Paulie Frankel- Socialist Party Response to The State of The Union

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics, have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe. But the need for more democratic socialism in America, again to make America more like Canada or Europe. For the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Again more like Canada and Europe, “so we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that Progressives doesn’t trust the private sector to do. Things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government. One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the Progressive Party . Bring in the Democratic Socialist Party, the Green Party, progressive Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Progressive Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political parties. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own Movement. But together into one Progressive Party, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.
The White House: 2012 State of The Union Address

Read Full Post »

Glenn Beck
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times

Glen Beck is right that the Progressive Caucus in Congress and their allies in America want profits to at least be limited. Where some industry’s even get nationalized, or where there’s at least public options to them. Health care would get nationalized, Medicare would be the only health insurer in America and perhaps private hospitals would be nationalized as well. Or there would at least be a Federal health care system with Federal hospitals and clinics. Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, managed to get public funding for community health clinics in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Under a democratic socialist system in America, the banking system would either be nationalized, or for-profit banks would become illegal. And there would be Federal Banks. Private schools would probably get nationalized, or the entire education system in America would be nationalized. Whatever is left of the private sector if the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party ever came to power in America, would be highly taxed and regulated with strict limits on profits. There would be strict limits on how much individuals could make. And when they go over at, the Federal Government would collect that money in taxes.

And all of this money would go to fund a vast welfare or superstate looking something like they have in Sweden. Or it would trump that, paying for everything from health care, health insurance, Unemployment Insurance, retirement, education. All things provided for by the Federal Government, none of it free by the way. With tax rates ranging from 25-90% if not higher like back in the 1950s. Where Glen Beck goes off the deep end to the point where he’s drowning in his own hot water, (you can’t drown in Hot Air) is lumping Barack Obama and his Administration in with the Progressive Caucus/Party.

Beck is right about the basic goals of the Democratic Socialist movement. But wrong that the entire Democratic Party is in favor of it. It’s only a faction maybe 20% of the party that believes in this agenda. Which is a good thing otherwise I wouldn’t be a Democrat. Glen Beck has a habit of making good points and speaking out of his ass in the same editorial. He’s like a doctor making a brilliant diagnosis about someone with a bad back who doesn’t feel any pain. Even though they were injured and this person has had a back for a long time. But then the doctor gives a speech about nuclear energy something he knows nothing about. He diagnosis’s the wrong problems and issues.

Glen Beck has a pretty good idea about democratic socialism in America. But knows very little about the Democratic Party, except the Socialists in it. That again only make up around 20% of a very large party. Its like someone who thinks they can be a great football coach, because they watch the games on TV. And have the opportunity to say that didn’t work, they should’ve done this instead. And then they get a chance to coach and have no idea what to call, or why their calls didn’t work. People should just speak to what they know about, which for Glen Beck is probably only a few subjects.

Glen Beck is no more an expert on the Democratic Party a party I’m a member of and I’m a Liberal Democrat by the way, not what’s called a Progressive Democrat, that I call Democratic Socialists, then Sarah Palin is an expert on anything important. But lets use foreign policy for the sake of time. And he should just speak to the subjects that he understands like socialism and libertarianism. And let people who understand liberalism and the Democratic Party like myself analyze those things. And I won’t try to analyze nuclear physics or engineering subjects, because I know basically nothing about as well.

Read Full Post »

Source: The Hill: Kevin Baogardus- AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka Looks to Independent Labor Movement

If you look at the American Labor Movement today, it more resembles the politics. Especially on Economic Policy, of the British Labor Party, or the Canadian Democratic Party, that I call a Socialist Democratic Party. Or the German Socialist Democratic Party. More then the politics of the American Democratic Party. Organized Labor in America, at least at their Leadership Level. Tends to be in favor of Democratic Socialism and expanding Democratic Socialism in America. Like Single Payer Health Care, guaranteed pensions, guaranteed employment and then they tend to be Anti Business, Anti Free Trade. Even though a lot of their members work for business. Even though the Democratic Party still supports the Right to Organize and Collective Bargain, including for Public Employees. And the Democratic Socialist Faction of the Democratic Party is still in Lock Step with Organized Labor. Especially the House Progressive Caucus, they are still a small faction of the party. The Democratic Party has moved away and I believe for good reason from the policy’s of Organized Labor, for about twenty years now. And have become a Liberal Capitalist Party. Still liberal on Social Issues and supporters of the Safety Net. But doesn’t believe government can solve all problems that society faces with more Government Programs.

The Democratic Party had been handcuffed to a certain extent to Organized Labor in the past. Organized Labor still has strong roots in the Democratic Party but no longer runs it. Organized Labor still controls about 20% of the party, the House Progressive Caucus. They are becoming a movement without a party and their numbers are shrinking. They need to realign and reform and find a party that they can influence. If they still want to be a major force in American Politics.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: