Mediaboss Marketing

By Marcus Day and George Marlowe 20 June 2017

The 2017 Peoples Summitorganized by sections of the Democratic Party, the trade unions and pseudo-left organizationsattracted a heterogeneous audience in Chicago. As with last years Summit, attendees were predominantly middle class, including former Vietnam-era antiwar protesters and members of liberal organizations in and around the Democratic Party, as well as college students the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrats are recruiting to run for office.

In addition, several young people and others interested in socialism, including some openly hostile to the Democrats, attended. Some spoke with the World Socialist Web Site.

Jess Mazour is a community organizer in Des Moines, Iowa. She noted that the financial crisis of 2008 had politically radicalized her. Before 2008, I wasnt even aware of why capitalism was a problem, she said. I graduated with a ton of student loan debt and I work at a non-profit that doesnt pay a lot of money.

Jess spoke at length about the issues that motivated her to come to the Peoples Summit. Our country doesnt have an adequate health care system to deal with the issues that everyone faces, including mental health care. Health care needs to include mental health too. More people in the younger generation suffer from mental health issues.

When asked what she thought of the Obama administration, she immediately said, A failure. He deported more people than any other administration. The drone program was absolutely disgusting. He didnt do anything he promised and then he passed a terrible health care bill too. I voted for him the first time but I didnt vote for him the second time.

She added that she wants an alternative to the two-party system. But Im not against using the current system to advance our issues either. There has to be a living wage and everyone needs access to health care and other basic rights.

Our reporters explained that the fight for the social right to health care, jobs and education are revolutionary matters today, and it would take a political movement of the working class to break the economic and political stranglehold of the corporate and financial elite and replace capitalism with socialism. To claim as Bernie Sanders and his supporters do that such a change could come about through transforming the capitalist Democratic Party into a peoples party, they said was a political fraud.

Asked about the conflict within the ruling class and the neo-McCarthyite hysteria pumped out by the Democratic Party against Trump, Jess said, I think the Russia issue is a distraction from issues that affect my community.

Sam and Vanessa Ely recently moved to Chicago from Texas. I work at a distribution company, Sam said. We were both big Bernie supporters in Texas and came here to learn more.

I was not really affiliated with the Democrats. Like a lot of people, I was not happy with the way things were handled in the elections. The Democratic Party has claimed that its the party of the people, but they use identity politics to manipulate minorities and working class people. The way they treated Bernie and progressive voters was really just a turnoff to me.

With Obama, we had war and drone bombings of innocent civilians. That was not OK. Just because the US deems someone a threat, that doesnt give them the right to kill innocent people. The budget also continues to rise for the military. Donald Trump is now giving a huge budget for the military. Obama did the same thing. And Trump is also making cuts to Meals on Wheels and social programs. Why should we keep having these wars and increasing our military budget?

Jennifer, a junior studying environmental geology at Beloit College in southern Wisconsin, came to the summit with Food and Water Watch, a health and environmental NGO. She said she supported Sanders in the 2016 election primaries, and that she had wanted anyone but Trump to become president.

Jennifer noted the informal and unserious atmosphere of the summit, saying, I feel like there are a lot of people wandering around, and not taking the talks super seriously.

Our reporters explained the WSWSs analysis of the Peoples Summitthat it was a political trap to contain social opposition within the Democratic Party, and that what was necessary instead was a break with bourgeois politics and the building of a mass socialist movement.

Jennifer asked the reporters how they would define socialism, to which they responded that it would entail workers democratically controlling societys wealth and resources to meet human need, not private profit. In contrast, they said, What is capitalism today? A society based on enormous inequality, and war, and repression. As socialists, we fight for building a mass antiwar movement in the working class, for peace, and for equality.

I feel like thats what Im really into, Jennifer responded. Im completely antiwar.

Read the original post:
People's Summit attendees discuss Democratic Party, war, socialism - World Socialist Web Site

An outright majority in Frances parliament for a movement founded just over a year ago is clearly a huge achievement. Emmanuel Macrons fledgling force has captured the imagination of the entire world following yet another exceptional election win on Sunday.

Those left stunned by the blitzkrieg-style success of La Rpublique en Marche! (LREM, or The Republic on the Move!) should not, however, overlook a development that is arguably of far greater significance: the sudden death of Socialist France. That 351 out of 577 MPs will now make up the Macron cohorts in the National Assembly is remarkable, but the fact that a Socialist Party (PS) that was in government until last month will have as few as 29 seats is absolutely astonishing.

Such figures mean that the party of Franois Mitterrand, the longest serving president in the history of the Fifth Republic, is now a relatively powerless minority. Franois Hollande, who began his career as an advisor to Mitterrand, was a PS head of state with a comfortable parliamentary majority but he did not dare seek re-election because he knew wipe-out was coming.

Both Hollande and Mitterrand once represented the triumph of the romantic left one in which apparatchiks inspired by the class struggle and the excesses of capitalism were able to fight for social justice from within the Paris establishment, rather than from the street. The PS galvanised the immense revolutionary spirit of the French people and turned it into a formidable democratic unit. Now it is an anachronism that could only muster 6 per cent of the vote during the May presidential elections which saw Macron enter the Elyse Palace.

Macron says door 'remains open' for Britain to stay in EU

In terms of historical developments, this is on a par with the decline of the British Liberal Party before the First World War. A radical new movement Labour hastened the demise of the Liberals in the UK, and in France LREM is having the same effect on the Socialists.

Hollandes incompetence had a great deal to do with this. Before the start of his five-year tenure in 2012, he said: I dont like the rich. His attempts to introduce atop rate of income tax of 75 per cent led to entrepreneurs leaving France. The result of such initiatives was predictable enough: unemployment rocketed, along with the cost of living, as violent street demonstrations became the norm. Just like under Mitterrand in the early eighties, U-turns were essential so as to prevent economic collapse.

In Hollandes case, this involved appointing financially astute civil servants such as Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild banker, to try to bail the country out. Contrary to silly myths, Macron was by no means Hollandes protg. He was not even a member of the PS while an unelected finance minister, and was certainly not brought in to keep the Socialists in power under another name. Macron was solely seen as a bright problem-solver who could get things done.

Instead of using talent like Macron to bolster their overall image, however, the PS split between market-friendly social liberals, and the hard left. Most disastrous of all was the manner in which senior ministers just gave up on their party once it was obvious that Macron would prevail.

It was Hollandes Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a classic PS success story who rose from Spanish immigrant to the second highest office in the French state, who announced that the party was dead and gone, and that he wanted to join LREM. This was within a couple of days of Macrons presidential victory.

French president Emmanuel Macron offers refuge to American climate scientists

Perhaps the most disgraceful and most telling conduct came from Sgolne Royal, another of Hollandes most senior lieutenants who was drawn to LREM in recent weeks. Not only was she a former PS presidential candidate, but the mother of Franois Hollandes four children. Despite failing to win a parliamentary seat in 2012, Royal seemed to believe that entitled dinosaurs like her had a right to govern thanks to nepotism.

Hollande caused outrage when he made the mandate-less Royal his Ecology Minister in 2014. The deeply cynical Royal even expressed anger and surprise towards Macron when he declined to keep her on in the job this month.

Champagne socialists are referred to as la Gauche Caviar (the Caviar Left) in France, and there are plenty of others like Royal: those who owe their pampered, moneyed lifestyles to the PS, but who betray democratic socialism whenever it suits them. There was no question of them standing up for their party in the face of the Macron Miracle. They simply capitulated.

LREM is not aparty in the conventional way that the LR and PS are. It is a voting bloc with Edouard Philippe, an LR veteran as prime minister, and plenty of PS turncoats also in Macrons cabinet. New recruits who will now form the presidential majority in Parliament include scores of ordinary people from civil society, along with other pragmatic (some might say opportunistic) politicians from the left, the right, and the Christian democrat MoDem group. The proportion of women in the National Assembly is close to 40 per cent for the first time.

Yes, turnout was low in the second round of parliamentary elections (almost 43 per cent), and there are already concerns about the possibility of an unrestrained hyper-presidency, but opposition to Macron is, in fact, just as likely to come from within his eclectic coalition as it is from outside. LREM rejects extremism, whether from the far right National Front or the radical leftist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed).

A vital rebooting of French democracy is underway, as a progressive young president tries to halt the march of aggressive populism. Macron is not dictating any ideology, nor indeed any rigid programme. He is a consensus politician, who is prepared to listen, and to compromise.

In such circumstances, the PS had every opportunity to fight for its core objectives. Instead, it displayed a shameful defeatism that belies its important role in the development of modern France.

Excerpt from:
Macron's latest success heralds the death of French socialism and it was socialist defeatism that caused it - The Independent

It's clear that for anything resembling socialism to succeed, movements like Occupy and Podemos, electoral challengers like Bernie Sanders, sympathetic elected officials and an anti-capitalist party alongside a left movement, all need to be in the mix. (Photo:Waywuwei / Flickr)

Anti-capitalism needs a viable political party. Whether it's a big one, like the Democratic Party -- which Bernie Sanders' supporters are hoping to influence and dreaming, perhaps, of taking over -- or a robust third party that's openly socialist, it's clear that without a party that operates in conjunction with left movements, it will be difficult to achieve goals like Medicare for All, free higher education, student loan forgiveness, environmental and climate protection, and substantially shrinking the military and the vast prison system. Something on the order of Mlenchon's "France Unsubjugated" movement, which is solidly anti-capitalist, rejects the centrist austerity consensus and won a substantial portion of the national vote in the recent primary, would be up to the task.

That is precisely what several essays inRethinking Revolution: Socialist Register 2017advocate. Edited by Leo Panitch and Greg Albo, with 19 essays by different authors, two -- by Jodi Dean and August Nimtz -- attempt to resuscitate the idea of a vanguard party.Socialist Register 2017marks the centennial of the 1917 Russian revolution and so tries to draw lessons from it, a key one being a vanguard party. Though other essays in the book throw cold water on that idea, Nimtz's view is worth noting: Marx's writings on "independent electoral power and armed organization" of working people, memorized by Lenin, helped usher in the first-time-ever successful workers' revolution. Perhaps the problem here is with the term "vanguard," very popular back in 1917 but in 2017, not so much. Just a party, not necessarily a vanguard party, but just a party would do, as one of several elements necessary for socialism.

Indeed, these essays argue not only for a party, but also for other sources of power. It's pretty clear fromRethinking Revolutionthat for anything resembling socialism to succeed, movements like Occupy and Podemos, electoral challengers like Bernie Sanders, sympathetic elected officials and an anti-capitalist partyalongsidea left movement, all need to be in the mix.

These essays span a wide range of political developments, including eco-socialism in South Africa, the welcome rise of left Laborite Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, the heritage of Eurocommunism, how climate change will drive political uprisings, socialism in South America, the legacy of the Chinese revolution, the pitfalls of identity politics and much more, all linked together by the theme of how to bring about socialism. Of course, socialism has and will come about differently in different places, and one of this volume's aims is to articulate those differences and the distinct challenges socialism faces in various parts of the world.

"It doesn't take much imagination to associate climate change with revolution," writes Andreas Malm about the Middle East in his essay on revolution in a warming world. He mentions that the US military has long viewed climate change as a security threat, especially in the global South, envisioning "a century of permanent counterinsurgency in hot slums sliding into the sea." As global warming leads to famines and water shortages, people will revolt -- indeed, in the last century, famine had more than a little to do with propelling the Bolsheviks to power and then leading to disaster: "the scarcities seemed to allow for no other general course of action than a food supply dictatorship. Here the seeds of Stalinist counterrevolution were sown." That could well be what we are in for with climate change: famine, revolution and counterrevolution. If so, and if climate change is an inevitable corollary of capitalism, then anti-capitalism should land quickly on any thinking person's agenda; there is no time to wait for what Malm calls "the dawdling bourgeoisie." He also critiques the notion of the Anthropocene epoch, which implies that all of humanity is somehow responsible for climate change, when in fact it's wealthy Western countries that have left by far the biggest carbon footprint -- one that affects all people. "There are no jobs on a dead planet," he concludes.

David Schwartzman's essay on eco-catastrophism concurs, naming the two major threats to civilization: nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. "Only transnational class struggle on a scale not witnessed in human history has any chance of preventing catastrophic climate change," he writes. That struggle would be greatly assisted by coordination among various functioning anti-capitalist parties in different countries.

Besides nuclear war and catastrophic climate change, a third threat looms for humanity, if socialism does not succeed -- a threat not discussed in this volume: fascism. A fascist candidate recently made it all the way to the French election, while governments in the US, UK, Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and elsewhere have all lurched so far to the right that it would not take much to morph from reactionary to fascist. Meanwhile, centrist austerity will not only fail to counter fascism, but will create enough misery to fuel it: We have seen this happen many times in various countries since the 1920s. Where socialists have failed to organize, fascists have teamed up with capitalists to scorch the planet and dispossess billions, resorting quickly to the military. We saw this in the 1966 mass murder of leftists in Sukarno's Indonesia and in the South American dictatorships of the 1960s and '70s. Today, we are witnessing the murderous war on drugs in President Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines or, still nascent, in the anti-immigrant policy agenda of Trump's United States. In these precarious times, socialists and anti-capitalists everywhere have their work cut out for them.

One place with bright prospects in this respect is South Africa, whose workers are, according to an essay by Patrick Bond inRethinking Revolution,"the world's most militant." Bond's article, "South Africa's Next Revolt: Eco-socialist Opportunities," lists "red-green (socialist-environmentalist) victories since the fall of apartheid in 1994: access to free HIV/AIDS medicines, the partial decommodification of municipal water and electricity services and workplace health and safety class action lawsuits." But on the downside, "neoliberalism has dug itself deep into social and environmental management since 1994." And there have been terrible defeats: South Africa's powerful and militant National Union of Mineworkers led a wildcat strike in 2012, in which 34 workers were massacred by police, basically on the orders of a former union leader turned government official.

Unlike South Africa, Bolivia pretty much alreadyissocialist. In Robert Cavooris's essay, he expounds upon the history of Bolivian neoliberalism and austerity and how it led to Evo Morales's victory and the success of the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS). Cavooris argues that the rejection of neoliberalism throughout South America paved the way for outsiders to assume political control. Despite limited wage increases, he observes, the pink-tide states all put in place "popular welfare programs and worker subsidies." Unfortunately, as we have witnessed in recent years, without accompanying structural economic changes, for instance the nationalization of banks, these popular programs cannot hold off discontent, when, say, a worldwide slump in commodity prices (think oil in Venezuela) batters the country. The pink tide is not pink enough, according to Cavooris, who highlights "the distinction between a revolutionary transformation of the state and a doomed reformism." He writes that if "neoliberalism is thought abstractly as the dominance of the market over the state, then the presumed solution would be the wielding of state power to restore the balance."

For the troubles besetting the left and recently-left South American states, Cavooris prescribes "more power to the communes in Venezuela, more land for the landless movements in Brazil, more space for the self-management of unions in Bolivia and for the 'taken' factories in Argentina." Unfortunately, counterrevolution has already brewed in Brazil and Argentina. However, if an immensely popular left-wing leader like Lula makes a comeback in Brazil and if right-wing president Macri's penchant for privatizing and austerity stirs revolt in Argentina, things could change quickly.

In his essay on Venezuela, Steve Striffler argues that socialists must use electoral politics, despite ferocious counterattacks. "Attempts to change the structure, operation and even personnel of the state, while simultaneously confronting capital and putting key sectors of industry, finance and commerce under social control/ownership produces the fiercest opposition. This is precisely why, both Chavez and Morales recognized, the process must be accompanied by the creation of alternative organs, institutions and spaces of working class power." Striffler observes that this is an exhausting struggle, but a necessary one: The creation of a welfare state is not enough. "The power of capital must be broken," he writes. If not, the business elites will find a way to undermine socialism -- as they are currently doing in Venezuela and have done in Brazil and Argentina.

A salient difficulty besetting Venezuela and sabotaging its socialism is scarcity. "The opposition still possessed the capacity to seriously disrupt the economy," Striffler writes, adding that it was able to "generate political instability and undermine support for the government." Striffler observes that in a liberal democracy moving toward socialism, this will almost always be the case. Elites will fight back bitterly and not hesitate to reduce the country to poverty to further their aims, as has happened in Venezuela. "There is perhaps no better expression of this," Striffler writes about Venezuela, "than the periodic efforts by the business class to create a scarcity of consumer goods by reducing production, selling in alternative markets, limiting imports, or simply hoarding supplies, in effect promoting economic turmoil in order to foment political instability."

This has been going on in Venezuela for some time. Indeed, the recent lessons of socialism in South America couldn't be starker: While social welfare programs that provide housing, medicine, school and even cash payments to poor and working people are popular, in and of themselves they do not complete socialism's task. Capitalism must be confronted and restructured out of the picture, or it will come roaring back, dispossessing multitudes and roasting the planet, more destructive and chaotic than ever, and it will tear humanity's house right down to the ground.

Continued here:
On the Road From Anti-Capitalism to Socialism, We Need a Political Party - Truth-Out

We need only to revisit the 2016 presidential election to confirm many millennials preferred Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, to free market capitalists. Did they get the full picture of what a socialist society looks like? What they heard loud and clear were the words free," fair" and equal." Is there something in the way America has nurtured our children that lends toward an attitude of entitlement?

Americas foundation of a free society is built on the engagement of all society in the economy, initiative, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility. In socialist societies, the elite make the rules for the masses, thus stripping away individual freedoms. Senator Sanders promoted free health care, free education, and relief from college loan payback, which encourages an attitude of irresponsibility and loss of initiative.

What Sanders did not talk about is what socialism looks like in actuality. Cuba, for example, is no longer a classic socialist society because it wasnt working; recently it turned toward a mixed economy with some elements of capitalism. Socialism fails because it cannot financially support all the social programs for the masses. Prior to recent reforms, Cubans were denied private property rights. With socialism comes scarcity of commodities and greater poverty. Poor human rights records permeate many socialist countries.

Sir Winston Churchill, former prime minister of Great Britain, fought socialism within his country for 50 years. He understood it took away individual freedoms and would not lead to prosperity for the populous. Churchill revered Americas constitutional governance. Thus far, socialism has yet to yield prosperity for the masses.

I think some of what has attracted young millennials to socialism is the idea of equal distribution of wealth; the wealth gap in the world offends their sense of fairness. Perhaps the shrinking job market and burgeoning student loans have created a level of hopelessness that has led millennials to Bernie Sanders and socialism. Experience teaches that blessings given without working for them are valued less than those using the sweat of our brow. In a socialist society there is no benefit to the individual to invest greater effort, greater excellence, or innovation, so incentive is lost. This is not a path to personal prosperity. Is this a world you want to live in?

Ben Sasse, senator from Nebraska, has written a book that may give clues as to why millennials are susceptible to socialism. He questions the current culture of parenting in his book, "The Vanishing American Adult: Our Coming-of-age Crisis and How to Rebuild a Culture of Self-Reliance." The book discusses the dangers of delaying adulthood into the late 20s.

Sasse writes: Lowering expectations, cushioning all blows and tolerating aimlessness not only hurts them, it also deprives their neighbors, who desperately need their engagement."

In my experience, delaying adulthood encourages dependency, idleness, prevents growth of resiliency, initiative, self-confidence and the mental toughness necessary to successfully navigate adulthood. Millennials have grown up surrounded by bubble wrap, participation trophies" and safe places free from an opinion they disagree with.

Today's accepted norm is remedial classes for college freshmen to prepare students for college-level study. Sasse found that about one-third of college freshmen do not return as sophomores. When do they learn to navigate challenging situations which are always a part of life?

Overprotective parenting, or helicopter parenting," has led to 30 percent of teenagers reporting feeling sad or depressed (American Psychological Associations 2014 Stress in America survey). Christian Smith, sociologist from Notre Dame, reported the prevailing feelings of young adults are personal struggle, confusion, anxiety, hurt, frustration, and grief ("Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood," 2011). This kind of parenting coddles kids and gives them the impression they are the center of the universe, to their detriment.

Coddled youth are primed for an ideology that removes any responsibility for their circumstances. Experience taught me that free things are devalued, so why promote that expectation? Some millennials want fairness in all aspects of life. All people are flawed and treat people unfairly at times. If we practiced the godly principle of treating others better than ourselves, the results in society may yield more fairness.

Sasse promotes the idea of building five character traits: 1) Give youth more exposure to intergenerational experiences and break away from the tyranny of their peers. 2) Develop a work ethic. 3) Embrace limited consumption, dont overindulge in meaningless luxury. 4) Travel to learn about other cultures - discover what subsistence means. 5) Learn to read great literature.

Perhaps it is time to rethink our parenting styles.

Linda Holub, of Dakota Dunes, S.D., has lived in the Sioux City metro area for more than 40 years. She and her husband, Dave, have four adult children. A certified life coach professional with a master of arts degree from Liberty University in Human Services, Counseling: Life Coaching, Holub is co-chair of the Siouxland Coalition Against Human Trafficking.

More here:
THE REGULARS: Why are many millennials attracted to socialism? - Sioux City Journal

NEW GEOGRAPHY--California is widely celebrated as the fount of technical, cultural and political innovation. Now we seem primed to outdo even ourselves, creating a new kind of socialism that, in the end, more resembles feudalism than social democracy.

The new consensus is being pushed by, among others, hedge-fund-billionaire-turned-green-patriarch Tom Steyer (photo above). The financier now insists that, to reverse our worsening inequality, we must double down on environmental and land-use regulation, and make up for it by boosting subsidies for the struggling poor and middle class. This new progressive synthesis promises not upward mobility and independence, but rather the prospect of turning most Californians into either tax slaves or dependent serfs.

Californias progressive regime of severe land-use controls has helped to make the state among the most unaffordable in the nation, driving homeownership rates to the lowest levels since the 1940s. It has also spurred a steady hegira of middle-aged, middle-class families the kind of tax-burdened people Gov. Jerry Brown now denounces as freeloaders from the state. They may have access to smartphones and virtual reality, but the increasingly propertyless masses seem destined to live in the kind of cramped conditions that their parents and grandparents had escaped decades earlier.

A green peoples republic?

There is some irony in a new kind of socialism blessed by some of the worlds richest people. The new policy framework is driven, in large part, by a desire to assume world leadership on climate-related issues. The biggest losers will be manufacturing, energy and homebuilding workers, who will see their jobs headed to other states and countries.

Under the new socialism, expect more controls over the agribusiness sector, notably the cattle industry, Californias original boom industry, which will be punished for its cows flatulence. Limits on building in the periphery of cities also threaten future growth in construction employment, once the new regulations are fully in place.

Sadly, these steps dont actually do anything for the climate, given the states already low carbon footprint and the fact that the people and firms driven out of the state tend to simply expand their carbon footprints elsewhere in their new homes. But effectiveness is not the motivation here. Instead, combating climate change has become an opportunity for Brown, Steyer and the Sacramento bureaucracy to perform a passion play, where they preen as saviors of the planet, with the unlikable President Donald Trump playing his role as the devil incarnate. In following with this line of reasoning, Bay Area officials and environmental activists are even proposing a campaign to promote meatless meals. Its Gaia meets Lent.

A different kind of socialism

The oligarchs of the Bay Area have a problem: They must square their progressive worldview with their enormous wealth. They certainly are not socialists in the traditional sense. They see their riches not as a result of class advantages, but rather as reflective of their meritocratic superiority. As former TechCrunch reporter Gregory Ferenstein has observed, they embrace massive inequality as both a given and a logical outcome of the new economy.

The nerd estate is definitely not stupid, and like rulers everywhere, they worry about a revolt of the masses, and even the unionization of their companies. Their gambit is to expand the welfare state to keep the hoi polloi in line. Many, including Mark Zuckerberg, now favor an income stipend that could prevent mass homelessness and malnutrition.

How socialism morphs into feudalism

Unlike its failed predecessor, this new, greener socialism seeks not to weaken, but rather to preserve, the emerging class structure. Brown and his acolytes have slowed upward mobility by environment restrictions that have cramped home production of all kinds, particularly the building of moderate-cost single-family homes on the periphery. All of this, at a time when millennials nationwide, contrary to the assertion of Browns smart growth allies, are beginning to buy cars, homes and move to the suburbs.

In contrast, many in Sacramento appear to have disdain for expanding the California dream of property ownership. The states planners are creating policies that will ultimately lead to the effective socialization of the regulated housing market, as more people are unable to afford housing without subsidies. Increasingly, these efforts are being imposed with little or no public input by increasingly opaque regional agencies.

To these burdens, there are now growing calls for a single-payer health care system which, in principle, is not a terrible idea, but it will include the undocumented, essentially inviting the poor to bring their sick relatives here. The state Senate passed the bill without identifying a funding source to pay the estimated $400 billion annual cost, leading even former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to describe it as snake oil. It may be more like hemlock for Californias middle-income earners, who, even with the cost of private health care removed, would have to fork over an estimated $50 billion to $100 billion a year in new taxes to pay for it.

In the end, we are witnessing the continuation of an evolving class war, pitting the oligarchs and their political allies against the states diminished middle and working classes. It might work politically, as the California electorate itself becomes more dependent on government largesse, but its hard to see how the state makes ends meet in the longer run without confiscating the billions now held by the ruling tech oligarchs.

(Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center forOpportunity Urbanism. His newest book,The Human City: Urbanism for the rest of us, was published in April by Agate. He is also author ofThe New Class Conflict,The City: A Global History, andThe Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. He lives in Orange County, CA.Prepped for City Watch by Linda Abrams.

Originally posted here:
California's Descent to Socialism or How the 'Nerd Estate' Controls the Rest of Us - City Watch