It's convinced me that you don't know what you're talking about, and a good bit of it is offensive.

I just...I mean...REALLY?

Ridiculous.

But alas, like the GOP/RWers and the Libertarians are sooo on the DU lately.

Thanks!

which is that Democrats had the same election record the GOP has had from 1992-present (one for six popular contests). Its like they forgot or never learned either in school, or online, who George McGovern, Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis were. Or what happened.

Non-stop against her on going, won't stop. I'm not surprise about the no democracy goings on on the DU. As a Democrat, and when a Dem wins the WH and hopefully the Senate, things will settle down here somewhat.

which is nothing like the classic soviet-style socialism you seem to think, very incorrectly, that he is promoting. The Scandinavian countries are parliamentary democracies (actually, they are constitutional monarchies, though their monarchs are essentially figureheads with mainly ceremonial functions) in which people own property and businesses are privately owned. Their governments do not own or control the means of production or distribution of much of anything; with a few exceptions such as some airlines the governments do not own or operate businesses. The "socialist" aspects of these countries refer to the fact that there is a very substantial social safety net by means of which people receive free or low-cost health care, college education, child care and pensions. These services are not regarded as handouts since they are available to everyone. People don't go hungry because they can't find jobs and they don't die because they can't afford medical care. Since these countries are democracies, it would seem that these are things that the people want and voted for through their representatives in their parliaments. They also regularly make the lists of the happiest countries in the world.

With respect to taxes: the top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%, and there was no outflow of businesses to other countries. On the contrary, this was one of the most prosperous, high-growth periods in our history.

Bernie's "socialism" is exactly what FDR's New Deal exemplified. He is trying to reintroduce the principles of the New Deal that the Democratic Party used to believe in before it was taken over by the neoliberals and Third Wayers and Wall Street cronies like Tim Geithner. Bernie is the real Democrat.

even tho yes the USSR was not a country I or anyone mainstream would honeymoon in, but Scandinavian-style socialism wouldn't work coming from the federal government! Those Scandinavian countries which have socialism are the size of medium US states, with a few million people in them maximum each. The US federal government could not implement that kind of thing for 300 million people across 50 of them feasibly or affordable. Also, you claimed people don't go hungry. So you're saying there's no poverty in those countries? Almost like no homosexuality in Iran.

Back in the Eisenhower years, the tax code had a lot more loopholes which have since been sealed, which is why no serious economists posit going to 60%+ tax rates.

Of course some people are not well-off, but to a much lesser extent than the US, where 17% of the population is poor (defined here as making less than 50% of the median income). In Norway it's 7.5%; in Sweden 9.1%, and Denmark, 6%. http://www.borgenmagazine.com/nordic-welfare-model-less-poverty-scandinavia/ While not everything that works there would necessarily work here in exactly the same way, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the safety net rather than acquiesce to its continued shredding. We can do better.

You offer no proof other than your ipse dixit that the New Deal wouldn't work now. On the contrary, we need it now more than ever.

precipitated an answer from the author, with which I also must disagree. Bernie does indeed exemplify the New Deal, but a better, more modern, less racist New Deal. As to America not being able to handle a single payer healthcare system, that's ridiculous! We already have the structure in place - it is called Medicare. We could simply increase the payroll tax and two things would happen: 1) Businesses all over the USA, especially smaller ones, would rejoice because they would shed one of their biggest expenses; the increase in profits would be immediate, and would precipitate more economic activity, and b) our costs would actually go down in terms of the ratio of healthcare expenditures to GDP. Even with the ACA (did you notice the OP called it 'Obamacare?'), our healthcare expense is still a greater portion of our GDP than it should be. And drug costs are simply TOO HIGH. Why, they are much cheaper in Canada, which is the next highest after us. And they are cheaper still in those 'socialist' northern European countries that he claims we cannot emulate because they have too few people. Oh, and I've actually BEEN to Holland for an extended stay. There are NO hungry or homeless people there.

Funny story: I was staying with this guy Leo and his wife Geisha (pron kHaisha). They lived in Rotterdam, which was leveled by German bombs during the Second World War. Leo took us to the Amsterdam and we were in the centrum. We had these great pork kabobs with peanut butter sauce called satay...well, that's a different story...then we were on the way to the Reichsmuseum, which is VERY cool. On the way I was approached by a seedy looking young man who asked me for money because he said he was homeless. I immediately gave him a couple of the coins which were worth around $2 each when I was over there, and as we went on, Leo LAUGHED at me.

I said, "What the hell? Why are you laughing at me? I gave money to that homeless guy, so what? How can you laugh?"

I was really getting wound up, you know, and Leo replied, "That guy wasn't homeless. He just saw you were American and figured you were a soft touch. We don't have homeless people in the Netherlands. If they don't want to work, or cannot, the government takes care of them."

I looked back and fingered the coins still in my pocket, said, "Oh."

Opinions differ among other Democrats.

that are open not closed, banned, locked or shut down no matter what corporate media tells you. The DU was once open but now its one sided and not what the USA I love is about.

If this is socialism, I'll pass.

which many of the same types who hated Clinton because she's a "neocon" lauded. No coincidence.

and then hidden by a "jury" who is one sided, this is not Democracy. If this is Socialism, I don't want to be a part of it.

How DU "one-sided"? It seems that this argument is, at least, two sided.

so-called Third Way Dems. They are neoliberal/neocon - hawkish and very much in support of the big bankers and Wall Street.

What a pile of misinformation you have set forth!

Ya, this one is showing it's colours often.

and what was the comet that had a tail?

Have you read Web of Debt?

We vary in our views, just as democrats and socialists are all slightly different. Speaking for myself, I'll tell you what I believe.

1. I too believe in a mixed economy. I believe the banking industry should be reigned in a lot further. I believe health care should be not for profit. I'm not in favor of nationalizing any industries by government seizure of the means of production. I believe social security should be strengthened and expanded. I believe in a minimum income for those who are able to work and cannot find work. I think it would reduce crime and improve the lives of many and save us a lot of money that we waste on incarceration. I think we can afford it.

2. I do not believe America is the hope of the earth. I don't believe it's the worst country either, and that we can take a leadership role. I believe that leadership can and should be shared with other countries. I vehemently oppose military action merely for the purpose of seizing oil or throwing our military weight around to achieve outcomes that are only good for huge corporations, not for average Americans. I believe we can do a much better job taking care of our veterans and provide them with high quality free health care and high quality training and jobs programs and free educations. I think the military-industrial complex is too powerful in this country. Too many mainstream democrats do nothing to curb it primarily because they are beholden to large donors and lobbyists who gain financially from it's continuation.

3. I think single is something we should be striving for. We have more than enough wealth in this country to achieve it. I'm please that many more Americans are covered by health insurance and won't go bankrupt by an illness, under the Affordable Care Act. I also believe insurance companies and the health care industry take too much profit and that government can and should reign it in to provide lower cost health care to more people.

5. I don't scream 'jail the banksters!' I'm more interested in what we do going forward. I believe the big banks, those deemed 'too big too fail' are a monopoly that should be broken up. No one industry should have that much power. I'd be don't mind the 40% income tax so long as we increase the capital gains tax to Clinton era levels, which are double what they are right now.

I'd go further and say de-privatize the prisons. There are some things that SHOULD be run by the government for the common good, and one of those things is prisons. Another is healthcare, because the profit motive and providing us the best possible care don't mix.

You should check out his other videos, he's brilliant.

I first noticed him when he played at a Skeptics convention in 2007.

His ditty "Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual" (nsfw) is hysterical.

It's called Medicare. So, we know it can work.

And American Exceptionalism is a disease.

I'd say more about your flawed 'analysis', but I'm quite certain it wouldn't do any good.

One thing we ARE exceptional at, though, is killing lots of people really fast, and we can absolutely be DEPENDED upon to step on any country's toes on behalf of our business interests. Like we just did to India, which wanted to put a subsidy in place that favored local providers of solar technology. But under 'free trade' we insisted that was unfair to US companies and sued India. The result? No subsidies for local Indian solar technology providers and India remains one of the most polluted countries on the planet.

Yep. American exceptionalism at its finest!

I do think individual states could potentially have single payer, but having the federal government try to do it is not gonna happen. Medicare only covers the elderly and disabled, which is much less expensive than the entire population.

Also, even Obama believes in American global leadership. Ask his 2009 Nobel Prize speech.

as if Obama isn't just another neoliberal like Bill NAFTA Clinton was. Of course he buys into American Exceptionalism.

Medicare (or something better, actually) could definitely be extended to everyone, and it would actually *reduce* health care costs. But Big Insurance and Big Pharma don't want that.

Referring to women as "tail"? Sickening.

-spray some jingoism F** yeah 'Merica
-deny racism exist ;say that to the family of the unarmed black men and women that just died this year alone from racist pigs
- spew libertarian taking points taxation

heck you would thing a conservatives just posted

Ronald Reagan's ghost must be visiting

don't put words in my mouth. But America is a global player is not racist. My post had nothing to do with whats been going on with the police. The police situaiton here is a result of adverse selection into the force.

Libertarian talking points? I pointed out that Democrats believe in a progressive but not excessive tax. Why haven't Obama and Clinton pushed for 60%+ taxes on the rich? Or other Democrats (Bernie isn't a Democrat but Independent, remember.) I'm against flat-taxes, and I make it pretty clear.

that existed under a Republican president? You know, this guy.

I believe this OP insults the intelligence and perceived reading ability of some DU members, while representing something that other DU members fervently wish would be swallowed unthinkingly.

I will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie. So will my family and friends. He is the candidate most like what I consider a Democrat.

She's "THE" Democrat?

leaving aside your arbitrary attempt to define sanders out of the Democratic Primary process that he, undeniably, is participating in, what the fuck is O'Malley?

Oh, yeah, but no "inevitable" coronation entitlement at play here, nope.

and yes, there's Martin, Lincoln, and other Democrats. I don't know why the Sanders fans can't vote for them instead if they don't wanna vote Hillary.

Furthermore, Sanders is running in the Democratic Primaries for the Democratic nominaton, so he's a Democrat. i'm sure when he caucuses with our party and provides a winning Senate vote, very few people dont want him on our side then.

But, "you don't know why"... Yeah, I dont know why about some things, sometimes, too.

Like.... I dont know why Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would side with Sheldon Adelson instead of sick and suffering people, on the topic of medical marijuana in Florida.

Shit can be confusing, amirite?

You want to know why "Sanders fans" can't be for one of the "other democrats" running, as if Sanders supporters are supporting him because he's not Clinton and we could pick one of the other dems in the race. I like Chafee, he's a good guy who was a moderate to liberal republican until a few years ago. I like Webb, who was a moderate to conservative republican a few years ago. I am not interested in voting for either of those former Republicans as the standard bearer of the party and it's ideals, and I don't think they would be good Democratic Presidents. I do not support Clinton in the primaries; I personally would have preferred she not run at all. I have a lot of reasons for my view that I will not go into in this reply. I support Bernie because he is someone I have admired for many years - since before I became a DU'er, which was in 03, and he's always been a DU favorite. I have followed his career and work in the House and Senate closely for all of that time, and it took some work for me to do it, as I am in NC, far from his sphere of influence and attention. Like most of his long-time supporters I never dreamed he would run for POTUS. I support Bernie because I like him best, and because he is closer to FDR/JFK/RFK style, liberal democratic principles and policies than any of the other candidates. O'Malley is currently in first place for me, behind Bernie. Your OP is misleading...Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, not a Socialist. There is a difference, as has been noted in previous replies.

the US Congress in 1992. It is interesting that you, a Hillary supporter, would consider him as his voting record and hers are nothing alike. It might be more effective to point out that Lincoln was a Republican yes vote on CAFTA while Hillary Clinton voted no on that nasty free trade agreement as did Bernie Sanders.

"Get out of my party, you nasty little socialist."

Do you think Democrats can win by driving people out?

Демократы не готовит билет Путина Гринвальд на 2020 !

wants the socialist method I do not, I believe in giving opportunity for everyone to work hard and play by the rules. I do not begrudge those in the 1%, in fact many in the 1% are very generous, I appreciate their generosity. I would like a fair tax system where everyone pays their fair share. I don't think the DNC was ever socialists.

I listened to Rachel Maddow talking about the candidates, I decided after hearing her talk about Bernie Sanders will not be my choice because of the socialists beliefs..

I am not a fan of labels. That being said almost all of the nations being held out as 'socialist' on this board are mixed economies like we have in the United Stares, albeit mixed economies with stronger regulatory schemes, higher rates of taxation, and more robust welfare states.

Don't let those lines tie you down to firmly, you end up strangling on your own biases.

But I hope your "compatriots" can see how this post damages Hillary far more than Bernie. Who could read this OP and not say to themselves, "If that's what the average Hillary supporter actually thinks and believes, I want' no part of it."?

this could have come straight from the bowels of the Cold War.

You forgot God...incidentally this is why under God is in the pledge and money you silly.

1) Read up on the differences and actual definitions of socialism. Your characterizations are extremely misinformed.

2)Your overly simplistic post just reinforced the argument that there is little difference between the two parties.

It's true that DWS did not address the Socialist question because she 'didn't want to upset the Bernie people,' but it also showed how distant she is from the pulse of America. Also I'm sure her definition of socialism differs from ours because of how broad a topic socialism is. Now to address your points...

1. Establishment Democrats believe in well regulated capitalism. They have seen how much money there is to be made in the game of politics, and only talk to/socialize with those who have benefited, directly and indirectly, from this capitalistic system. Socialism is an extremely broad term. After it's conception, this single idea spread throughout the entire world quickly because of it's potential. What CLASSICAL socialism says is not that the government controls all aspects of the economy. That's nothing but STATE CAPITALISM, and I doubt Bernie would advocate for that. What we believe is more PUBLIC ownership of both products and means of production. This is the key difference here because replacing private corporations with the government doesn't help anyone and leaves us in the same place.

2. America is a world leader because we have control of the money/debt and have a military that is ready for WW3 at any moment. We also use our nuclear weapons stocks/super aircraft carriers/drones to intimidate anyone who even speaks out against 'American interests,' interest that include letting investors rape and pillage the natural resources and cheap labor in a 3rd world country for personal profit. Would other countries do this if it wasn't us, most likely yes. Does that make it okay for the US to do it, no.

3. I'm sure you know the debate between private insurance vs single-payer. All I will say here is the rest of the world understands in order for a country to prosper and grow, you need healthy citizens. The best way to have healthy citizens is to make sure EVERYONE knows that if they go to the doctor it won't end in financial ruin and debt that their children will be burdened with. And all this for private profit for a small amount of shareholders. This is not progressive values and to say it shouldn't be fought against is why liberals are always classified as weak and unable to lead.

4. This is probably the most ignorant example, and only because "socialist just want to throw them all in jail" You must not have been listening, again, because we don't want to jail ALL the banksters. We just believe that those who broke the law should face justice the way every other citizen does. However, that is not what happened. Because of the revolving door between Wallstreet and government positions, especially this administration and the last, the game is completely rigged. Don't want to get in to much detail because I could go on for hours, but all we want is true justice. Not fining a company less than 10% of their earnings from a criminal act that brought the world economy to it's knees for private, personal gain.

Shameful shit has been going on in this government, since WW2 IMO, and now people are seeing it more clearly. We are sick of establishment candidates who bring empty promises and tiptop around everything in order to not piss off their 'donators.' We are sick of the 1% and their hacks polluting the environment anywhere they can get away with it with no major repercussions when neglect is proven. We are sick of the massive amount of inequality that has created 2 different Americas. We are sick of fundamentalist capitalist that believe the best way for a country to prosper is whatever the market says it should be. A market run by a very select few, white, privileged males who get off on creating wealth on the backs of the rest of the citizenry (TPP). We believe Bernie has the PEOPLE in mind with every decision he makes and not just what he and his friends portfolio looks like.

--by Ellen Schrecker

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker6.htm

(Snips)

"Quantification aside, it may be helpful to look at the specific sectors of American society that McCarthyism touched. Such an appraisal, tentative though it must be, may offer some insight into the extent of the damage and into the ways in which the anti-Communist crusade influenced American society, politics, and culture. We should keep in mind, however, that McCarthyism's main impact may well have been in what did not happen rather than in what did the social reforms that were never adopted, the diplomatic initiatives that were not pursued, the workers who were not organized into unions, the books that were not written, and the movies that were never filmed."

"The most obvious casualty was the American left. The institutional toll is clear. The Communist party, already damaged by internal problems, dwindled into insignificance and all the organizations associated with it disappeared. The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the party itself. With their demise, the nation lost the institutional network that had created a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement on their left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing attacks and thus rendered less effective."

"In the realm of social policy, for example, McCarthyism may have aborted much-needed reforms. As the nation's politics swung to the right after World War II, the federal government abandoned the unfinished agenda of the New Deal. Measures like national health insurance, a social reform embraced by the rest of the industrialized world, simply fell by the wayside. The left liberal political coalition that might have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by the anti-Communist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them were either unheard or under attack. McCarthyism further contributed to the attenuation of the reform impulse by helping to divert the attention of the labor movement, the strongest institution within the old New Deal coalition, from external organizing to internal politicking."

"The nation's cultural and intellectual life suffered as well. While there were other reasons that TV offered a bland menu of quiz shows and westerns during the late 1950s, McCarthy-era anxieties clearly played a role. Similarly, the blacklist contributed to the reluctance of the film industry to grapple with controversial social or political issues. In the intellectual world, cold war liberals also avoided controversy. They celebrated the "end of ideology," claiming that the United States' uniquely pragmatic approach to politics made the problems that had once concerned left- wing ideologists irrelevant. Consensus historians pushed that formulation into the past and described a nation that had supposedly never experienced serious internal conflict. It took the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War to end this complacency and bring reality back in. "

On Progressive “Red-Baiting”

by Tamara K. Nopper

http://www.blackagendareport.com/print/content/progressive-%E2%80%9Cred-baiting%E2%80%9D

(Snip)

"Red-baiting of course is not new and today many people throw the word leftist as well as radical, revolutionary, Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist, around like they are accusations rather than oppositional, albeit diverging, positions against capitalism, the state, and for some of us, white supremacy. Most of the people who are the most vociferous in publicly denouncing leftists are white conservatives, including corporate news personalities and members of the inherently racist and white nationalist Tea Party. Yet progressives critical of racism, poverty, corporations, and government officials have their own ways of red-baiting."

(Snip)

" Not all of the targets of this red-baiting of which I speak are associated with Marxist organizations or have specific organizational affiliations. Nor do most progressives publicly use pejoratives such as “Commie” or “Pinko.” Yet some will easily use terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radicals” or “revolutionaries” when trying to deflect questions posed by people unimpressed with their political positions but whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed as driven by white supremacy or conservatism. In the process, these progressives often avoid having to explain why they are committed to the positions they take by calling their critics “radicals” or “revolutionaries,” thus situating their positions as logical or natural as opposed to ideological. Such gestures are consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to hate such terms due to the aggressive campaigns by the mainstream press, most academics, and the state to demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional."

(Snip)

There are of course important ideological and analytical differences and sources of contention among all of those thrown under the bus by these progressives, with some not necessarily having a particular organizational affiliation or having to critically engage limitations within the organizations we are a part of, especially around issues of racism, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, and gender politics. And critical engagement and reflection among the left is important and sorely needed. Whatever the case, terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radical,” or “revolutionary,” while perhaps confusing to some, are basically code for being too oppositional against capitalism and white supremacy or being Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist. The term is also a code for being dogmatic, too aggressive, socially inept, unwilling to listen to ideas, and having a difficulty integrating useful nuances into, or dealing with contradictions in our ideological frameworks. While yes, I have met leftists of all stripes who possess all of these tendencies—and I could easily be accused of the same—I have also met and seen and read and heard thousands upon thousands of capitalists, pro-capitalists, and progressive democrats who also possess these traits.

(Snip)

" Yet for some reason, perhaps because it is more compatible with the capitalist party line and more appeasing to whites, being an authoritarian progressive who is anti-leftist or anti-radical or anti-revolutionary is not considered by many as a form of dogmatism, but rather political “common sense” and purportedly more humanistic than, let’s say, openly confronting or naming the sources of millions of people’s misery. "

-- by Ron Jacobs

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/misrepresenting-the-left-we-are-not-liberals/

(Snips)

" Despite the current media-induced confusion, liberals are not
leftists. This misconception is not only embarrassing to those of us
who are genuinely leftist in our politics, it is also discrediting the
Left. From the New York Times to FOX News, the portrayal of the US
Democratic party and Barack Obama as leftist is creating a perception in
the US populace that leftists are ineffective politicos who have no
principles they won’t modify. Of course, the Left has not done that
great of a job explaining the situation in any other way, thereby
leaving the way open for the misconceptions put forth by the media to
appear as truth. "

" If one wants to know what a liberal is, they need only to look at The
US Democratic Party. From Hilary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, that
party is in no way leftist. How can I say that? To begin with, liberals
differ from leftists in fundamental ways. For starters, liberalism is
founded on the sanctity of private property. According to John Locke,
who is quite possibly the godfather of liberalism, it is the possession
of property that gives humans their freedom. Indeed, in its early days,
liberalism only saw freedom as being deserving to propertied males.
While not disparaging the positive aspects of liberalism’s early
days–its opposition to monarchy and the role of the Church, to name two
of the most important ones–it is crucial to acknowledge the shortcomings
of a philosophy grounded in the ownership of property. Since the fact
of private ownership was a qualification for entry into self-governance
it obviously excluded many members of those societies where the politics
of liberalism replaced the monarchy and the Church. Add to this fact
the denial of political power to women and (in the newly created United
States) the acceptance of slavery, and the shortcomings of liberalism as
a philosophy guaranteeing liberty and equality become glaringly
obvious. It is understood by those that utilize a Marxist analysis to
understand history that liberalism is a bourgeois philosophy, primarily
because it protects the dominance of that class in those societies where
it flourishes. "

" The Left believes in justice. According to most liberals, so do they.
However, the Left also believes that there can not be genuine justice
for all unless there is economic justice for all. To put it briefly,
human rights can not exist for all regardless of class until economic
inequality is addressed and minimized. Ideally, this means that the
motivation of profit is eliminated altogether. It does not deny the
right of people to own their own property, but it does deny those who
would profit from letting others use that property through rent. Unlike
liberalism, leftists publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature
economics plays in how political structures operate. This doesn’t mean
that liberals don’t understand the essential role capitalism plays in
maintaining the liberal state in all its guises, it just means that
leftists know that to lessen the inequalities that exist under
capitalism, it is necessary to change it with the eventual goal of
ending its predominant role in determining social relations. In short,
leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social
inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot
cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief
exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is
true. "

" Like liberals, there are several varieties of leftists. All, however,
share an understanding that capitalism is an essentially unfair
economic system that rewards those who already have capital much more
frequently than those who just work their tails off. They also
understand that capitalism needs wars to survive and requires inequality
to function. This is why they oppose it. As stated before, liberals
have a much rosier view of capitalism and have historically been willing
to do whatever it takes to save it. So, while they may be the Left’s
occasional allies, they are not the Left, no matter how many times FOX
News and the New York Times say they a

piece posted in full as writer gave permission years ago to post in full and pass around the net and it is public domain.

The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System

As the political Dog and Pony show reaches it's ultimate faux crescendo ... once again let us leave Never-Never Land and examine The Very Real and Duplicitous Function of the Democratic Party in the American Political System: Make copies, pass it around to your foolhardy friends who are warped by the incessant marketing campaigns pushing the latest Military-Corporate Puppet.

The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.


Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.


The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.


Can Progressives "Take Over" the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to "take over" the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly "taken over" by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid '60's, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.


But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word "progressive" refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight's name -- "class warfare." Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, "By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!" This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly "make all boats rise" over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth -- and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

http://www.thebellforum.com/forum.php

-- by Albert Einstein


http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.

(Snips)...

" Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

" I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. "

" The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. "

" Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. "

I see you have some homework to do.