Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Reform Or Revolutoin? Rosa Luxemburg’s BIographer Revisits Question With Library Crowd – New Haven Independent

Socialism or barbarism? Reform or revolution? These phrases both describe modern political debates and essays written by leftist political theorist Rosa Luxemburg over 100 years ago. The New Haven Free Public Library made this connection explicit Friday night in its event Rosa Luxemburg and a Century of World-Changing Women, featuring a talk with Luxemburg biographer Dana Mills and adult services librarian Rory Martorana during lunch hours, on Zoom and Facebook Live.

A titan of political thought, Luxemburg was never a leader in her time. She was one the founders of the Polish Social Democratic Party, which would become the Polish Communist Party, and later worked for the communist Social Democratic Party in Germany. She critiqued socialists and communists from the left, taking issue with both moderate reformism and the less democratic side of what was then-nascent Leninism.

Mills, author of Rosa Luxemburg, walked the viewers of this talk through Luxemburgs life her intellectual development and the historical moments that led to her murder at age 47 at the hands of members of a conservative German paramilitary group with the expertise of someone who has fully studied another, and the sense of living vicariously that comes from it.

The talk with Mills, a self-identified leftist based in Israel but teaching in Amsterdam (and speaking in New Haven), showed the best potential of our current remote reality. Radiating a love for her subject matter and always eager to quote Luxemburg directly when appropriate, Mills was quick to connect Luxemburgs times with our own lives, from her Jewish identity to her socialist-feminist ideals.

But the true beauty of the talk and Luxemburgs most urgent relevance came out in the audience Q&A portion of the event. Zoom webinars dont offer the perk of an observer knowing just how many people have tuned in, and Facebook Live is an imperfect tool. But the caliber of questions helped one imagine a full lecture room anyway. Martorana fielded questions across platforms and asked them verbatim, and Mills answered with aplomb. On socialism and feminism in Luxemburgs thought, Mills said, Luxemburg was an intersectional feminist before it was cool. She was born and died in a very different world from ours ... she was the lefty celebrity of her time. She didnt see gender as separate from class. one of the people she closely collaborated with was ... Clara Zetkin, another member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany who led the organization of the first International Womens Day in 1911.

Luxemburgs unwillingness to sacrifice democracy in favor of revolution is a hallmark of her thought, and in leftist discourse, an extremely prescient one. Electoral politics and direct action, Mills said, both have places in todays society.

We need both legal changes and structures and revolution, Mills said. Thats why we need each other none of these changes happen on their own ... you have to form collectives that will support you.

Mills cited her own attitude toward politics as one of obligation: I always consider my role in history. For me politics is not a joyful activity. Its something you do because there is a moral calling that you have to do. In cultivating her own sense of duty, and the sense of needing to work toward change even in dire circumstance, she drew directly from Luxemburg.

Another thoughtful question by an anonymous attendee (others commented more publicly, particularly through Facebook) asked about how to dispel fears about the word socialism in contemporary U.S. political discourse. Mills thanked the asker for the generous question and delivered a compelling answer. It began with the long history of socialist organizing within the United States, and then pointed toward the regard for politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But fundamentally she advised people to define what socialism meant beyond its strict economic meaning (that is, the means of production are in the hands of government, rather than in the hands of property owners, as under capitalism, or of workers, as under communism) and in a broader political context.

Socialism is about equality. Its about equal access to dignity. The very simple assertion that no one should be starving if there is enough to feed everyone, Mills said. Its about respecting everyone, putting in place the integrity to protect ourselves ... healthcare is so important for us. No one wins if there are poor people in our midst.

As Mills repeatedly pointed out, Luxemburg lived in a world very different from our own, but she summoned us here today. Many of the issues she wrote on the intersection of class and gender, the need for both reform and revolution, the necessity of a different way of life than that which capitalism could provide are still just as relevant and just as debated.

Mills ended her talk with an exhortation: Keep reading, keep talking to each other keep connected. Its so important. It is, after all, what Luxemburg would do.

Millss biography, Rosa Luxemburg, is available at the New Haven Free Public Library. Visit the librarys calendar to view talks and other virtual events the library is hosting.

Go here to read the rest:
Reform Or Revolutoin? Rosa Luxemburg's BIographer Revisits Question With Library Crowd - New Haven Independent

The 2020 Election Was a Rebuke of Socialism – Reason

Two days after the 2020 election, which saw Democrats capture the White House while losing ground in Congress, House Democrats held a conference call to discuss what went wrong. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (DVa.) was unequivocal: "We need to not ever use the wordssocialistorsocialismever again," she said.

Indeed, socialism was something of a political loser this election cycle. The specter of it likely cost Joe Biden his chance at winning Florida. It appears President Donald Trump won over many Latinos in the state with targeted ads tying the Democratic Party to left-wing authoritarianism in Latin America. And while voters reelected all four members of the socialism-friendly "squad"Reps. Ayanna Pressley (DMass.), Ilhan Omar (DMinn.), Rashida Tlaib (DMich.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.)the consensus among the party's leadership seems to be that thes-word is toxic outside of heavily left-leaning districts.

Rep. James Clyburn (DS.C.), the House's third-ranking Democrat, urged members not to run on "Medicare for All or socialized medicine" in the future. Even some progressive Democrats echoed these concerns. "I think Republicans did get some traction trying to scare people on this socialist narrative," said Rep. Jared Huffman (DCalif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "What's the point of embracing a phrase like that?"

Flirting with socialism may have cost Democrats dearly. If Republicans win either of the two runoff Senate races in Georgia, President-elect Joe Biden will face a GOP-controlled Senate. That would mean Republicans could block virtually all of the structural changes that progressives were counting on in order to consolidate power, such as D.C. statehood, an expansion of the Supreme Court, and nuking the filibuster. The Senate can also kill off lofty legislative proposals, vote down Biden's judicial picks, and thwart liberal Cabinet nominees. "The Biden presidency will be doomed to failure before it starts," frettedNew Yorkmagazine's Eric Levitz.

For democratic socialists, the 2020 election cycle began with great promise: The hard left had not one but two progressive primary candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) and Bernie Sanders (IVt.). But neither Warren nor Sanders could overcome Biden, the Democratic candidate who worked hardest during the primaries to put serious distance between himself and socialism.

Democratic socialists thought they were riding a blue wave. Instead they gave us divided government. That's not what they intended, but it might be the best possible outcome.

Visit link:
The 2020 Election Was a Rebuke of Socialism - Reason

Letter to the editor: Socialism vs. fascism – TribLIVE

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original here:
Letter to the editor: Socialism vs. fascism - TribLIVE

This Democrat is worried about bottom-to-top, wealth-redistribution socialism – The Topeka Capital-Journal

Topeka Capital-Journal

I am a Democrat, one who is very concerned about socialism in America. As I understand it socialism is government policy to redistribute wealth from one group to another. I am not talking about Cuba or Venezuela, those are dictatorships. Their governments have been taken over by criminals who then steal the country's wealth and give it to their friends and themselves. I am talking about elected representatives of a democracy making policies to cause a lawful transfer of wealth.

Take Amazon for example. It pays no federal income tax but uses the taxpayer subsidized post office to save expenses. Or Fox News Corp. they pay little to no tax but use the education system to hire educated employees. Trucking companies pay nowhere near enough road taxes to make up for the damage they do to roadways. Mitch McConnell made sure that tax deductions were restored for the three-martini lunch in the COVID stimulus bill.

U.S. tax policy is the greatest socialism imaginable. The tax law allows property owners (hotels for example) to deduct the value of the property (depreciation) on tax returns making more cash for the owner. It gets better. When the property is sold the deferred taxes aren't collected then. The tax code says if you roll that money into another property the tax can be deferred further.

I agree with others who worry about socialism in America. It is time to stop the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top of the economic ladder.

Ron Desch, Topeka

More:
This Democrat is worried about bottom-to-top, wealth-redistribution socialism - The Topeka Capital-Journal

Who are you calling a socialist? Republicans are the real party of socialism in America – USA TODAY

Steven Strauss, Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET Dec. 18, 2020 | Updated 2:04 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2020

Republicans attack Democrats as socialists, but the policies they support show they're the true socialists. Progressives should hold them accountable.

With Senate control on the line in two Georgia runoff elections next month, Republicans are claiming that President-elect Joe Biden and the Democrats are socialists. Thats their shorthand for government interference in the economy, corruption, failure to enforce the law, incompetence, and subsidizing people who should support themselves.

Let me suggest four areas where the incoming Biden administration, allied with serious conservatives, can fight socialism while upholding progressive values.

Eliminate farm subsidies and farm support programs (which will cost $46 billion this year up from $22 billion last year and will account for about 40% of this years farm income) that interfere with agricultural markets. As Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute noted: Agriculture is no riskier than other industries and does not need an array of federal subsidies. Also from the Cato Institute: About 97%of all farm households are wealthier than the median U.S. household. Farm income was 52%higher than median U.S. household income.

I know of no progressive organization that supports these farm subsidy programs. However, Americas farmers are different from other Americans. They are 95% white and do one thing the majority of Americans refuse to do: Farmers overwhelmingly vote Republican (President Donald Trump may have gotten as much as 85% of the farm votethis year).

Eliminate the money-losing socialist National Flood Insurance Program. From the point of view of progressives (who believe climate change is a real and pressing concern), NFIP makes no sense. It encourages living in flood-prone areas (where progressives believe flooding will get worse due to climate change) by offering subsidized federal flood insurance.As the General Accounting Office noted: NFIP premiums do not reflect the full risk of loss, which increases the Federal fiscal exposure created by the program, obscures that exposure from Congress and taxpayers

In 2017, Congress wrote off $16 billion in losses from this program. But by March 2020, it had already accumulated another $20 billion in losses. About 60% of NFIP policies were issued in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, which all voted for Trump this year.

U.S. Capitol building on March 25, 2020, in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images)

Invest $10 billion per year to fund IRS tax enforcement, targeted at the very wealthythose making over $1 million a year. According to a recent estimate by former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, University of Pennsylvania law professorNatasha Sarin and former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti, this investment would yield about $100 billion a year in extra Federal tax revenues.

Sen. Sherrod Brown: Corporations exploit workers even amid COVID. They don't deserve to run the economy.

If youre a conservative who thinks defunding police enforcement is a bad idea,you shouldthink the same aboutthe recent defunding of IRS tax enforcement (by cutting the IRS budget).The IRS budget shrank 20% in real terms from 2010 to 2019,while in the same period the U.S. economy grew about 25%. The result is that the number of audits of Americans making over $1 million per year declined by about 75%.At the same time, the IRS was pressured to focus its scarce resources on auditing low income Americans. Notably, the main driver of thisIRS defunding is the GOP.

Make states routinely subsidized by the rest of the countryget their act together. Most American states are roughly in balance between what their residents pay into the federal government and what they receive back.A few states (mainly Democratic) are maker states (among them Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York) that pay vastly more to the federal government than they receive.

Then there are states that get back a lot more than their residents pay in taxes. These taker states are mainly low-income states in the southeast, most of them dominated by Republicans. Given our progressive tax system and safety net, federal money tends to automatically flow to these states.

If youre a conservative, transferring money from makers to takers is generally frowned on.If youre a progressive, it makes sense to ask some hard questions about whats going on with these taker states. Because, despite all the money these states receive, they dont do a good job for their citizens.

Mississippi illustrates just how bad this situation is.Annually, Mississippi receives $19 billion more from the federal government than it pays into the system.Despite this support, Mississippi has the highest homicide rate, highest infant mortality ratesand lowest median household income of any American state.

No socialist nightmare: Georgia, if youre listening, ignore conservatives peddling socialist Senate hallucinations

It's time the leaders in these poorly run states make changes toimprovethe lives of their citizens hopefully while reducing their hefty dole from the rest of the country. If they are unwilling to reform, maybe federal money and programs should be cut off.

Some of what Im proposing will require legislation, and the devils in the details. But if youre an ideological conservative, you should be willing to work with the Biden administration to implement some or all of these proposals.

If youre a hypocritical member of the GOP (that is, you want to keep using federal tax dollars to buy the farm vote for Republican candidates), and-or a Trumpist, you probably loathe everything Ive proposed.But its time for the incoming Biden administration to pull back the curtain on which is the trueparty of socialism in America.

Steven Strauss is a lecturer and visiting professor at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairsand a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @Steven_Strauss

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/12/18/republicans-real-socialists-farmers-flood-insurance-defund-irs-column/3923878001/

Excerpt from:
Who are you calling a socialist? Republicans are the real party of socialism in America - USA TODAY