Socialism Is The Future

Third world socialist nations had inadequate medical services because of sanctions and or attacks by American forces. Cuba had limited supplies but managed to provide its citizens with good medical services, during American sanctions. Nicaragua suffered during American sanctions and attacks on its nation and the mining with explosives of its harbor by Americans. In Iraq, the Americans bombed all government installations, including safe drinking water plants, sewage treatment plants, and electric generating stations. In Iraq, the American invaders set up fake news newspapers to spread the fake image which claimed the Iraqi people were pleased with the American invaders. Now we know that the Americans lied to the UN to get justification to invade Iraq for the third time in 43 years, to steal oil. Before the criminal invasion of Iraq by Americans, Iraq had the best medical services in all the Middle East. Even the oil rich Saudis used to go to Iraq when they needed surgery. In contrast, here in America you get kicked out to the curb if you don't have health insurance. And if you don't have the 20% deductible, you get kicked out to the curb. And if you don't have the co-pay, you do not get your medicine.

 

Bigot is not Democrat. Bigot is Republican. Trump hates Spanish speaking people. He said they rape and murder.

 

trud

LOL I’m never going to choose you for my football team.

A direction must lead somewhere so what is the desired destination?

 

Then why has my current country and ALL their neighbors been socialist for much longer than any of your examples?
Why do we have lower healthcare costs and citizens who say they are happier than the USA?
Why is the press and speech free here? There are Nazis they go on about the Muslims raping their sister just like in America. For some reason they have all the freedoms you think are only possible under a selfish system.


How can you ignore the flaws in capitalism and keep going on about the day when socialism will fail. It never really has. Cuba is doing ok for what they are and the USSR was not a socialist state. Venezuela is capitalist.

So I wonder what example you have. I don't think you understand what socalisn is which is why you have such weak examples.

 

In a democracy we can vote for whatever flavour politics we want...it would seem that no bugger really wants your socialism ..in socialist countries they don’t have a choice..Cuba eh? ..is that the only one...?

 

Yeah I don't have anyone I could vote for. I'm not officially a citizen of the EU so I really can't for a while at least lol. It's very Republican here you have to earn it and even marrying a local is not always enough. But other people have far more choice than the USA.

Political parties in Belgium - Wikipedia

 

That's a lot of talk to show that you didn't listen to his points.

 

More ignorance. Ignorance tras ignorance. Lies and lack of knowledge and thought. No tiene sangre en la cara!

 

Dude.

 

So those of us who haven’t been voter suppressed by cheap shot Republicans maybe can, if the voting machines haven’t been tinkered with, if we don’t live in Florida where the Secretary of State stops the recount, if we don’t live in Waukesha County, WI where ballots are mysteriously discovered to tip the election. I live in Washington State where vote by mail has been in effect for some time and is an accurate inclusive process....why do you think Trump is so afraid of it? Course we also get unlimited spending in politics by the wealthy so our “democracy” Tends to be the finest government money can buy.

 

As right wingers never seem to get there are many forms of ‘socialism’ as there are with ‘capitalism’ and there have plenty of places that the US has hailed as been anti-communists and capitalist that have been bloody handed authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Some forms of capitalism have caused the death of millions other have failed bringing bout financial crashes, depressions and again the death of many. Many forms of capitalism favour the interests of the few to the detriment of the rest.

It was those failures of capitalism that caused the rise of ‘socialist’ ideas and socialism put forward ideas and suggestions for creating a better society and adaptions of these ideas have been used all over the world.

For example if you look at the 10 ideas put forward in Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto many have been adopted to one degree or another in many countries around the world (including the US) but are not thought these days to be socialist or communist. Such things as progressive taxation and publically funded education, welfare progammes, forms of inheritance tax and the regulation of banking and markets and even nationalisations are common now and accepted as normal.

Basically some types of capitalism 'failed' and needed reforming and many of the ideas that reformed such systems came from socialist ideas.

 

First I’d explain a bit of history about left wing politics in the US and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these were and are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Mayors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas.

Socialism in the US was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued if not intensified

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison (freedom of speech had been suspended by the Sedition Act) From his jail cell he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach left wing ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**

What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas, were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and Social Democratic ideas - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

 

Proportional Representation.

Here are examples from America’s past on how the power of the two major political parties could be lessened. But how fear of ‘communism’ and racial prejudices were used by the political establishment to bring about its end.

Proportional Representation could change the political landscape, it did before when it was used in the US.

Here are extracts from - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States, [by bold]

“The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.

Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.

Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.”

What scuppered PR movement was money and fear - doesn’t that sound familiar in todays America.

“In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.

Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR... They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a "Negro mayor." Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin..

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as "the political importation from the Kremlin," "the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country," and "an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This "red scare" campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.”

As the piece concludes -

“While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system”

 

Problem is that there is the ability and the worth.

It has even been expressed on the forum in the idea ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’ the idea that you can’t vote for what you want only what you don’t want.

Others have argued that the US should have at least four major parties (right, centre right, centre left and left).

And without the political establishments systematic destruction of the Socialist party and PR it is very possible it could have become major third party.

In a two party system it means that you can have for example anti-gay Christian fundamentalists, and white supremacists voting alongside gay and black right wingers for the same political party, which just doesn’t seem right.

A fairer system would be proportional representation but again as has been pointed out in the past this was again attacked by the political establishment

[edit]

When there are not multiple vote worthy political parties in fact only two in the US what happens is you get factional fighting and dominance within those parties – the Republican Party used to me dominated by the neo-cons their downfall after Bush Jr brought about a political vacuum out of which rose Trump. The Democrats have long been influenced by ‘Clinton’ (neoliberal favouring) democrats but a new generation is appearing with more progressive view. But whatever the faction in dominance at any one time it does mean others are excluded and only voting because they think the other side is worse.

To me that is not healthy

 

Lo tiene mucho sangre De Los Democraticos Y De Los Sandinos!

 

Here you go Baldy:



BOBW!

 

Trud

Can we have your views?

 

Baldy

Man you watched that fast!

Let's talk about that first. What's your initial reaction? In brief.

 

Trud

Can we have your views on what i said before we move on to things you didn't say?