Mediaboss Marketing

posted at 9:01 pm on January 18, 2017 by John Sexton

Venezuelan socialism has been a huge success. Theres no doubting it now. Thanks to the brillianteconomic management of President Nicolas Maduro there are probably now more millionaires in Venezuela than any country in the world. From Fox News:

Amid rampant inflation, widespread shortages of everything from toilet paper to medicine and a failing economy, the Venezuelan government recently introduced three new bank notes into the market ranging from 500 to 20,000 bolivars.

But while somebody in Caracas can now carry 1 million bolivars in his billfold, in terms of U.S. currency those 50 bank notes are only worth only about $300 on the countrys black market and one bill is valued at less than $6.

Well, hyperinflation does have its problems but lets focus on the bright side. Lots of regular people can now say they are worth a million bucks. At least they could if anyone could scrape together that much cash after two years of economic collapse and privation.Chris Sabatini, a professor at Columbia University, tells Fox News, Theres going to come a time when theyre going to run out of space on the bill for all those zeros.

Even the transition to the new bills was badly mismanaged by the incompetent Maduro. In December heannounced that Venezuelans would have 72 hours to turn in all of the 100 bolivar bills in their possession. Since the 100-bolivar bill made up about half of all the bills in circulation at the time, people had just a few days to exchange 6.1 billion of them.

Then, when the exchange deadline began, the new bills people were supposed to get in exchange for the old ones hadnt arrivedat most banks. Eventually Maduro had to extend the deadline for swapping bills several times. So on top of spending every day waiting for hours in long lines to get basic supplies like food and toilet paper, Venezuelans now had to wait in long lines at the banks to get rid of their old money.

Did I mention that President Maduro is not very bright?

Continue reading here:
Socialism works! Venezuela a nation of millionaires - Hot Air

More than being factually inaccurate, it is genuinely fucked up to chalk all of socialist thought up to white men given the indelible role that racial minorities have had in shaping the movement. We need to stop doing this.

Redit Media

Prior to the civil rights movement and the congressional resorting of democratic committee chairs in the 70s, there existed an ideological heterogeneity within the two parties. To the south, conservative democrats relied primarily on white, blue collar voters to help enact what we might view as fiscally liberal policy while maintaining what, at the time, was socially conservative policy (i.e. racist, segregationist policy). In the northeast, there existed a constituency of liberal republicanism, which was weary of unions and very prone to deregulation of the financial industry while maintaining socially liberal policy positions. After the Civil Rights movement there was what is referred to as a political realignment of the parties.

This began in congressyoung new liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives began to push out the old southern Democrats from their committee chair positions, which had been gained by seniority within the House. By the beginning of the Reagan administration, the realignment had all but been completed, save the blue-dog democrats of the south and midwestwhich were essentially moderate democrats.

The term centrism is telling from the perspective of principle-based voting. The inability for the term to carry any true political meaning reflects, in large part, the inherently arbitrary nature of the disjunct between the social and fiscal realm.

Liberal pundits made great efforts during the Sanders campaign to portray the socialist movement as fundamentally an economically-driven ideology. In doing so, the narrative implicitly relied on a disjunct between the ideology of social and fiscal realms. The notion that these two realms are necessarily separate helped bolster their ill-founded conjectures that the modern socialist movement was composed of cisgender, straight, white men who were unable to fathom the intersecting nature of oppression, due to economic oppression being the only form of oppression facing these individuals. Relying on intersectionality as a seemingly diametrically opposed mode of privilege analysis, they continually focused on the economic nature of the movement as precluding any space for the existence identity-based politics.

The nature of fiscal policy is that is intrinsically linked to the social standing of certain groups, and visa versa. Take for example, a policy of reparations. This is usually clumped into social policy although, arguably, it is fundamentally a fiscal oneit provides a means by which the federal government would redistribute material wealth. Another example is womens access to health care: although it might be viewed by unaffected parties as being a social one (particularly the ready access to birth control and abortions), it is fundamentally a fiscal policy insofar as it creates an immense financial burden on women who attempting to seek adequate health care.

On the other hand, a policy of financial deregulation or an income tax scheme may be quickly determined to be a matter of fiscal policy, but such policy nonetheless has profound social implications. In particular, we tend to view the policy decisions surrounding the regulation or deregulation of certain markets are being distinctly fiscal in nature. When the derivatives market was deregulated, we chose to view that a form of purely fiscal policy. The deregulation of the subprime housing market was also framed as being a matter of fiscal policyeven when such policy is going to have a markedly different affect on poor populations within the United States than on upper middle class or upper class populations. American rhetoric is not fractioned over whether or not those poor populations are, largely, also divided by racial lines.

The interplay between this disjunct and a perversion of so-called Marxist theory is worth noting, as well. There formed a false dichotomy between class distinction and other forms of identifying features, this false dichotomy is what, in large part, supported the bulk of the Bernie Bro narrative. The Bernie Bro was a (mostly fictional) young, white, male political actor who supported Sanders due to his misogynistic rejection of the female candidate and only adopting an overtly socialist position due to his whiteness, the latter being a presumption that socialism inherently valued class above all other distinctions.

Polls repeatedly showed that, in particular, young women actually outnumbered young men in their support of Sanders. This was true of nonwhite voters as wellwhat tended to differentiate the vote was not race nor sex, but age. In fact, polls showed that Sanders actually lead in the polls with young (aged 1829) black and hispanic voters. That is to say that more young black and hispanic voters were voting for Sanders than Clinton. If the Bernie Bro was meant to be the young, white and male there sure seemed to be a lot of nonwhite and female (and nonwhite female) voters who did not fall into this clearly ill-fitting yet relentlessly embraced mold put forth by Clinton-supporting pundits.

Deemed brocialists, this myopic description of the varied constituency of Sanders supporters also served as a misguided and malformed description of the modern socialist movement. The implicit notion that was continually put forth was, as aforementioned, the belief that socialists disregard any identifying properties other than classeffectively rejecting social change in lieu of fiscal change. To be certain, I cannot speak for all Sanders supporters nor can I fully ascertain what each self-identifying socialist believes the role of race, gender, sex, sexual identity, sexual orientation and each other potential identifying factor should be within a socialist movement. What I do know is that a large part of socialist rhetoric not only embraces movements for racial, gender and LGBT equality, but that its largely inextricably intertwined with them.

The presumption that economic grievances are somehow reserved to white men who have no other means of expressing oppression is a harmful one. Any attempt to divvy up distinctions and lay bare compartmentalization of any socio-economic strata tends to rely on false dichotomies and a failure to identify proper cause-and-effect. This is disingenuous at best and more likely just plain purposefully misleading. Some of the greatest socialist writings hail from the depths of the minority tiers of privilege. It is an affront to any social minorities to erase the profound role they played in shaping modern socialist theory.

Angela Davis wrote Women, Race and Class in 1981. Davis articulated the plight of the black woman in America and in so doing spoke of the need for socialist change:

Like their men, Black women have worked until they could work no more. Like their men, they have assumed the responsibilities of family providers. The unorthodox feminine qualities of assertiveness and self-reliancefor which Black women have been frequently praised but more often rebukedare reflections of their labour and their struggles outside the home. But like their white sisters called housewives, they have cooked and cleaned and have nurtured and reared untold numbers of children. But unlike the white housewives, who learned to lean on their husbands for economic security, Black wives and mothers, usually workers as well, have rarely been offered the time and energy to become experts at domesticity. Like their white working-class sisters, who also carry the double burden of working for a living and servicing husbands and children, Black women have needed relief from this oppressive predicament for a long, long time.

Davis ends this chapter by concluding,

The abolition of housework as the private responsibility of individual women is clearly a strategic goal of womens liberation. But the socialisation of houseworkincluding meal preparation and child carepresupposes an end to the profit-motives reign over the economy. The only significant steps toward ending domestic slavery have in fact been taken in the existing socialist countries. Working women, therefore, have a special and vital interest in the struggle for socialism. Moreover, under capitalism, campaigns for jobs on an equal basis with men, combined with movements for institutions such as subsidised public health care, contain an explosive revolutionary potential. This strategy calls into question the validity of monopoly capitalism and must ultimately point in the direction of socialism.

The contention that the formation and flourishing of capitalism was dependent on slavery is not new. Speaking of capitalism as a foundational aspect of the modern world,Greg Grandin explains:

Slavery created the modern world, and the modern worlds divisions (both abstract and concrete) are the product of slavery. Slavery is both the thing that cant be transcended but also what can never be remembered. That Catch-22cant forget, cant rememberis the motor contradiction of public discourse, from exalted discussions of American Exceptionalism to the everyday idiocy found on cable, in its coverage, for example, of Baltimore and Ferguson.

The reality being that slavery and all the trappings of racial oppression which founded and enabled and perpetuated the systemand capitalism, as a mode of economic governanceare so fundamentally entwined as to have been impossible to have existed and to continue existing without one another. Socialism is a response not just to class inequity, but to the profound social realities of marginalization.

The national oppression Chicano people and other minorities face, and the exploitation of the whole working class, can only be eliminated by making revolution and eliminating their sourcecapitalist rule.

The attempt to parse through these issues without being cognizant of the ever-present role of the capitalist in creating these social strata is doomed to fail. The reality is that there is a very real and inextricable relationship between the social groups (i.e. racial minorities, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and the economic realm of which they inhabit.

So, perhaps an early means of dispelling this sort of bullshit rhetoric would be to render pass the use of terms such as fiscally liberal/socially conservative or whatever bizarre means by which one might find their ideology most fitting. For the distinction is not only illusory but ultimately harmful.

View original post here:
Socialism, Intersectionality And The Myth Of The Social/Fiscal Disjunct - Huffington Post

Youre reading The Express, BDN Portlands evening email newsletter. To sign up,click or tap here. Or just text PORTLAND to 66866.

Then-mayoral candidate Tom MacMillan speaks at a debate in the University of Southern Maines Hannaford Hall in 2015. (File photo by Troy R. Bennett)

A high school band has driven two Portland politicians to socialism A high school bands performance at President-elect Donald Trumps inauguration has struck the wrong chord with some on Maines far left. Tom MacMillan, a 2015 candidate for Portland mayor, and Seth Baker, who lost a November bid to represent the city in the state Senate, say theyre leaving the Maine Green Independent Party because a party leader will be attending the presidential inauguration.

Instead of sticking with a party that is unwilling to keep its own leadership in line, MacMillan said he and Baker would be joining the Socialist Party, which is not currently on the ballot in Maine.

That was the last straw, said MacMillan. Its really a betrayal of values.The thing is, Green Secretary Ben Meiklejohn says he isnt going for political reasons. Hes a music teacher and director of the Madawaska school band, which was invited to perform in the Make America Great Again! Welcome Concert at the Lincoln Memorial on Jan. 19. Trump will be sworn in the following day.

The students are really excited, said Meiklejohn, who served on the Portland school board from 2001 to 2007. I think it would be an injustice to deny them the opportunity they would get because of my political views.

The idea that Meiklejohn is doing his job and providing his students with what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity didnt satisfy MacMillan. He said the performance is normalizing something that should never be normalized and pointed to other bands that have refused to play inaugural events. Jake Bleiberg

A group of Portland singers organized a street choir to perform at protests The Portland Street Choir is a breakaway mobile unit of the more established singing group The Phoenix Chorale. Conceived before the election, the ad-hoc a cappella ensemble formed to add harmonic heft to marches, vigils and human rights protests, Kathleen Pierce writes.

Cookies for a cause More than 15 chefs and bakers from greater Portland are donating baked goods on inauguration day to raise dough for Planned Parenthood. The owner of Little Giant, Briana Volk, launched Fridays cookie drive on Facebook today. The goal is to raise $6,000 by selling $40 boxes of badass treats. Cookies from Aurora Provisions, to Tandem Bakery to the brand new Congress Street eatery LB Kitchen, will be baked in the name of health care for all. All the money raised will go directly to Maines Planned Parenthood health centers. Kathleen Pierce

TOMORROW: The South Portland Police Department is holding an open meeting to discuss its plan to outfit officers with body cameras. The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at the police department, 30 Anthoine St. Heres Jake Bleibergs explanation of its policy around the new technology.

Netflix and no chill Among the many proposed tax changes in LePages budget is a 6 percent tax on digital subscription services, like Netflix, Hulu and Spotify.

Darren Fishell reports:

The governors budget proposal reaches further into the digital realm, too, requiring rental platforms such as Airbnb to collect taxes for Maine rentals booked through what the budget bill defines as a transient rental platform. The budget separately raises the lodging tax to 10 percent, from 9 percent.

[The proposal] extends a push by the state and federal government to capture revenue from online retail sales. A 2013 state law broadened the states power to collect tax from such retailers.

Future Red Sox stars will stay in Portland until at least 2020 The Portland Sea Dogs and Boston Red Sox announced the extension of their player development contract for an additional two years. With the extension, the Dogs will continue as the Soxs Double-A Eastern League affiliate through the 2020 season. Troy R. Bennett

Portland novelist says hes been gentrified off Munjoy Hill In Downeast Magazine, writer Ron Currie Jr., author of God is Dead and Everything Matters, laments how economic changes in the city forced him into exile in Libbytown. The young artists and cooks and dog walkers are being weeded out. Ever more yupsters and slick urban types prowl the brick sidewalks, and ever more hyper-modern architecture dominates sightlines, writes Currie. Troy R. Bennett

From John Hodgman:

Scientists say the northeast U.S. will warm 50 percent faster than the rest of the planet Thats based on a new study from University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which also found that the United States will reach a 2 degree Celsius warming 1020 years before the globe as a whole, according to the Guardian.

Got any interesting story ideas, suggestions or links to share? Email Dan MacLeod at dmacleod@bangordailynews.com, or tweet @dsmacleod.

If someone forwarded you this newsletter, click here to sign up. Or just text PORTLAND to 66866. As always, like BDN Portland on Facebook for more local coverage.

Go here to read the rest:
A high school band has driven two Portland politicians to socialism ... - Bangor Daily News

HUNDREDS OF thousands of people are going to be protesting Donald Trump's inauguration and marching to send a message for women's rights and other demands in the next few days. And there's every reason to believe these mobilizations won't stop anytime soon.

The Donald groping his way to power will dominate mainstream headlines, but the big news for the left is that socialism is re-emerging as a systemic alternative to capitalism. Thousands of people are asking whether it's time to join socialist organizations in order to resist Trump--and the social system that gave rise to his villainy in the first place.

Of course, there are important shades of difference in how people define socialism--ranging from Bernie Sanders' advocacy for increasing taxes on the wealthy so we can expand Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and make public college free; all the way up to Eugene V. Debs' proposal for the "utter annihilation of the capitalist system and the total abolition of class rule."

But wherever you fall on this spectrum, it's a pleasure to welcome so many new people to the socialist movement.

There's a lot to talk about, but I want to begin by urging you, if you've not already done so, to join an existing socialist organization or start one of your own. Being an "individual socialist" is like being a fish out of water. You can have the best analysis of the world as you read about what's happening on the Internet, but you have no power to do anything about it unless you're organized.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some Starting Points for Socialists

How should you choose? I would argue that any group you consider joining or initiating should agree on these common tasks and shared responsibilities for all socialists:

-- First, we must do everything we can to agitate against each one of Trump's attacks, as well as every concession to him by his not-so-erstwhile opponents among the leaders of the Democratic Party.

We are in immediate need of united fronts to defend immigrants from deportation, safeguard abortion and reproductive rights, stand up against racist police violence, protect public education, fight for our unions and save the planet. Unity in struggle doesn't have to wait for unanimity of politics--even as each component force within our broad movement retains the right to respectfully, if forcefully, advocate for its own unique beliefs.

-- Second, all socialists share a common duty to educate a new generation of activists about what those who have fought before have to teach us.

The socialist movement overflows with inspiring and ingenious lessons, and as the Russian revolutionary Lenin once put it, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." Any prejudice against study and debate will doom us in advance. How can we hope to overturn the most powerful and destructive economic system in world history if we deny the wisdom of the past?

Furthermore, we aren't alone in our individual countries. Internationally, from Brazil to Greece to South Africa to Spain, socialists are building organizations and movements. Ours must be a global movement of solidarity and sharing.

-- Third, while we organize in the short term, we must learn to sustain movements and organizations.

Donald Trump is dangerous, but it isn't 1933--that is, we aren't on the verge of a fascist dictatorship taking power, as the Nazis did in Germany. Trump will do real damage, but he will also overreach and expose his vulnerabilities. And in the crises we know are coming, there will be opportunities to turn the tide.

But we should not be so nave as to think that we will win quickly or so shortsighted as to trade away the organizations and movements we build for the promise of a simple "return to normalcy" under some status-quo Democratic administration.

We are in a decades-long fight for the future of humanity and the planet, and we must learn to act like it.

Having made these general points, I want to focus on a specific aspect of political strategy: Namely, what sort of socialist organization or party will strengthen, rather than smother, social and class struggles? This is not the only area up for debate, but I think it is a particularly relevant one today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Time to Resist Is Now

Let's begin with something all socialists should agree on: as the great abolitionist Fredrick Douglass put it, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress." If you rely on the elite of society for social justice, you'll be waiting a long time. Decades of union busting, climate catastrophe and mass incarceration should have driven this point home.

Obviously, it's easier to invoke past struggles than organize new ones, and there is a danger that politicians will manipulate our legacy for their own purposes. Remember President Obama's inspiring references to suffrage and civil rights organizers? Or his more recent call for people to "grab a clipboard" and start organizing? In the end, his presidency relied more on drone strikes than knocking on doors.

Despite this--or, really, because of the consequences of disappointment in Obama--many people are developing a healthy appreciation for the necessity of organizing movements to change the world. Writing in The Guardian, Kate Aronoff rightly sounds the alarm that only by "mustering more unity and vision than progressives in the United States ever have" will we be able to confront Trump's reactionary agenda.

At the same time, Aronoff assumes that, like it or not, social movements have no choice but to turn to the Democratic Party when it comes time for elections. While this point of view can be argued forcefully and effectively by those honestly committed to radical change, I think it deserves to be challenged--and not only on tactical grounds.

Why? Here it's useful to recall Karl Marx's insight that workers and the oppressed must develop their own movements and struggles, and they must control their own political parties and organizations, in order to liberate themselves from the profit system.

If workers struggle for their own emancipation in the social sphere, but hand over politics and elections to (at best) marginally sympathetic leaders of a party financed by business interests, they will never learn how to run society collectively.

Socialism isn't simply the end "goal." It's not just a series of worthy reforms. It is a living movement in which ordinary people learn to organize democratically. Marx made the case that "for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men [and women] on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution."

To steal a phrase from Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, for workers to create genuine socialism, the democratic means to organize and control their own movements and actions must be "baked in" to their own political party.

This, I would argue, ought to form the starting point for our discussion of how to understand the relationship between socialist organization and mass movements. It is, undoubtedly, a minority point of view today. In fact, Aronoff's view is broadly shared by many socialists in the U.S. today, even if there are important distinctions in their positions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Can the Democratic Party Be Reformed?

First and foremost, supporters of Bernie Sanders advocate a close link between building movements and the success of the Democratic Party.

The socialist movement owes Sanders a debt of thanks for--in a rare instance of courage in American politics--making the forthright defense of his brand of socialism a topic of mainstream political discussion. For millions of people, Sanders has helped connect ideas of economic, social, racial and climate justice to the concept of socialism.

At the same time, he has a particular definition of the "political revolution." He proposes that unions and social movements expend their energy on participating in and reforming the Democratic Party. In a speech endorsing Rep. Keith Ellison to be chair of the Democratic National Committee, Sanders urged his supporters to "transform the Democratic Party from a top-down party to a bottom-up party, to create a grassroots organizations of the working families of this country, the young people of this country."

Now you might think that starting at the top of the Democratic Party is an odd place to begin building a "bottom-up" movement if the aim is to create a genuinely democratic party. The solution to this riddle lies in the strict limits that Sanders sets on the sorts of changes he thinks are needed in the Democratic Party.

Ellison's subsequent remarks make this abundantly clear. By all accounts one of the most liberal members of Congress, nevertheless, his plan to "reset" the Democrats consists of little more than "listening sessions" and making it possible for immigrants rights and Black Lives Matter activists to "express themselves electorally" when it comes time to vote.

And that day isn't far off, according to Ellison: "We're off to a good start because Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton combined to create the best platform the Democratic Party has ever head."

So for Sanders, joining the socialist movement means, in a fairly straightforward fashion, participating in the Democratic Party and working within its structures in the hopes of pressing it to adopt more progressive policies.

However, as Lance Selfa, author of The Democrats: A Critical History, demonstrates, the Democratic Party isn't susceptible to easy change. Despite lots of public hand-wringing, for example, Senate Democrats continue to "curry favor with their corporate backers"--including potential 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Corey Booker, who joined Trump's most enthusiastic partisans in voting to ban the import of cheaper prescription medicines from Canada.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Time for Something New?

Unfortunately, understanding the political apparatus of the Democratic Party as a "field of struggle" for unions and social movements, as long-time organizer Bill Fletcher suggests, has a long and powerful tradition in the United States.

On the other hand, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, recently concluded, "I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformative change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

Here, Alexander is pointing to a key link in the chain for socialists--that is, the goal should be to construct a political party that strengthens our social movements and advances working-class struggle. The starting point should not be "how can we reform the Democratic Party?" Rather, it ought to be how can we give that "sustained outside movement" a political voice of its own?

Fortunately, for the first time in decades, Sanders' campaign itself--even if we disagree with his decision to run as a Democrat--along with the experience of social movements from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter to Standing Rock, and the inability of the Democratic Party to offer an inspiring alternative to Trump, have all combined to create a dynamic and multi-sided discussion about what next.

One of the most talked-about contributions to this conversation is "A Blueprint for a New Party," written by Jacobin magazine editorial board member Seth Ackerman.

His innovative and closely researched contribution begins by insisting that a "true working-class party must be democratic and member controlled. It must be independent--determining its own platform and educating around it." This is critical, as it breaks the cycle of subordinating working-class struggle and social movements to a party controlled by hostile powers.

Ackerman warns that traditional leftist notions of "working within the Democratic Party" cede "all real agency to professional politicians." In Ackerman's estimation, Sanders' Our Revolution group seems sadly poised to fall into the "trap" of "becoming a mere middleman, or broker, standing between a diffuse, unorganized progressive constituency and a series of ambitious progressive office-seekers."

As a way out of the electoral quicksand, Ackerman proposes a particular kind of "inside/outside" strategy in which he suggests we organize a working-class political party that uses the Democrats' ballot line where convenient, but remains formally independent--preserving its right to run on alternative ballot lines, for instance.

In other words, rather than the Democrats using social movements and unions for their own selfish purposes, Ackerman proposes that socialists turn the tables and use the Democrats.

Although intriguing, I would argue that Ackerman relies far too heavily on technical maneuvers, even putting a good deal of faith in a new party's ability to bend existing Federal Elections Commission regulations and Supreme Court decisions to our needs.

Yet the system doesn't just accidentally happen to be rigged. It's actively rigged. Any loopholes we might find in the short term could be quickly closed in time-honored bipartisan fashion. Defending their domination of "American democracy" is one of the few things that Democratic and Republican politicians agree on these days.

Aside from these legal questions, Ackerman himself expresses skepticism about whether or not "a significant part of the labor movement," in its current state, can be convinced to join in--a prerequisite for success in his opinion. One problem with this model, I believe, is that it puts the cart before the horse. The question is: Why isn't the labor movement, so badly mistreated by the Democrats, willing to strike out in a new direction?

Adolph Reed and Mark Dudzic, both leaders in the now defunct attempt to start a Labor Party in the U.S. in the 1990s and 2000s, suggest this is due to the "strategic defeat" of the labor movement itself over these last decades.

This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer the question of how to build a socialist alternative today--which takes us back to our question about the relationship between struggle and organization.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Working-Class Struggle Is the Key to Building a Mass Socialist Party

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor identifies a good place to start when she describes how the Black Lives Matter movement developed in response to racist police violence:

[T]he formation of organizations dedicated to fighting racism through mass mobilizations, street demonstrations and other direct actions was evidence of a newly developing Black left that could vie for leadership against more established--and more tactically and politically conservative--forces.

The Black political establishment, led by Obama, had shown over and over again that it was not capable of the most basic task: keeping Black children alive. The young people would have to do it themselves.

Taylor doesn't begin by asking how Black Lives Matter might impact existing liberal forces. Rather, she identifies how an entirely new force came into being. This is what is important in the first instance.

Applying this extraordinarily important lesson to the attacks we will face in the coming years, labor historian Kim Moody warns:

There will be resistance. Rather, there will be increased resistance. And this will offer new possibilities for organizing, even in a more hostile atmosphere. At the same time, many, including not a few on the socialist left, will run for cover in the Democratic Party's "Big Tent," arguing that now is not the time to take on the Democrats, that the great task is to elect a Democratic Congress, any Democratic Congress, in 2018 to rein in Trump just as the Republicans blocked Obama after 2010, and so on.

But such a political direction will only reinforce the Democrats' neoliberalism, digital-dependency and failed strategies. We had better bear in mind what this approach has not done for the past four decades and will not do in the coming years.

Nothing of what Taylor and Moody write should be construed to mean that elections don't matter. The point is that building socialist organization cannot begin within the confines of American electoral law and then work backwards from that. Instead, we must build up social movements and unions that eventually grow powerful enough to challenge--and break--the bipartisan duopoly's lock on "politics."

Along the way, socialists may support genuinely independent candidates and organize referendums, like those calling for a $15 an hour minimum wage, for sanctuary cities, and so on.

It goes without saying that this is no easy task, but the potential for the revival of a mass socialist movement is just as alive today as it was back when Debs one a million votes for president in 1912. Any other disagreements aside, Chris Maisano of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) hits the nail on the head when he writes that:

a revival of working class organization is sine qua non for a broader revival of the Left...Continuing to see the working class in all its occupational, racial, ethnic, and sexual variety as the leading historic agency for radical change is not metaphysics--it's a recognition of the enduring realities of life under capitalism. The Next Left would do well to keep this in mind.

We are in for a rough ride in the coming years, but the truth that Maisano points to will only become more apparent as Trump grafts his macho nationalism and xenophobia onto the neoliberal order.

Objective circumstances will tend to discredit politics as usual in the eyes of millions. However, Trump's election also shows that if we don't organize a left-wing alternative, then despair and frustration can win the day. Organizing that alternative is our common challenge.

For my money, I hope you consider joining the International Socialist Organization because I believe the ISO clearly understands that socialist organization must flow from social and working-class struggle. We are dedicated to the three common tasks outlined above, and we are capable of putting our principles into action.

Besides that, the ISO stands by Rosa Luxemburg's belief that there is an "indissoluble tie" between reform and revolution. As she put it, "The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim."

Having said that, you should make an informed decision. Comrades from other organizations--such as DSA, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, the Philly Socialists, Left Roots and the Kentucky Workers League, among others--are making real contributions to the revival of the socialist movement.

Political and tactical differences remain among the socialist movement. But that is nothing to fear. Disagreements can be debated fraternally and tested in practice on one simple condition: you join the socialist movement. We are not yet at the moment where a socialist party of tens of thousands can easily arise. However, there are indications that the necessary precursors--growing socialist organizations and rising struggle--are emerging.

Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines and hope history turns back from the abyss. Now is the time to join the fight for a socialist future.

Here is the original post:
Socialist organization in the time of Trump - Socialist Worker Online

Debbie said...

Unbelievably scary today!

How quickly people will give up their freedoms today for the illusion of security, and the false hope of prosperity through government control. Perhaps it is time for all Americans to revolt against an oppressive government, one that no longer is representative of the will of them majority, but rather the influence of bans and corporations.

I agree Fred, but we should have started standing up during the last administration and impeached our leader for his lies and scare tactics then. He feed all his cronies coffers on the backs of our hard working country and our fine military service people. He used scare tactics the like I have never seen before. We bowed down and surrendered our rights without even asking questions. Now we're jumping on the new administration for trying to find a better way, but we ignore what put us here to begin with..... It's hard to blame the farmer for the pile of horse manure, when the former leader brought the horse into the barn to begin with...

Alright, VICTOR! Great to hear a more accurate picture of where we've been and as the Nobel Peace prize committee has pointed out, there is hope of cleaning (literally) up the mess that we are in. Dianne

Heres what I noticed.

1) The cartoon presupposes a Christian America (To Mom it is church on Sunday morning), leaving out all Jews, Muslims, and all other non-Christian faiths,

2) There is a backwards-hanging American flag (in the first minute, the blue star field is ALWAYS in the upper left)

3) It is sexist (the jury whistling at the woman on the stand)

Oh, yeah, anytime a people give up their civil liberties for a small measure of security, they gain neither liberty nor security.

I am sorry for those who wrote a negative post about this carton, they missed the whole message of the carton. We live in a dark time with Peoples minds clouded with the sin of self. Our forefathers, who by the way where christians, build this nation with standards that today are according to all you liberalist have become obsolete. This country is headed for socialism or worse marxism. I wonder how all the liberalist will like our country then. GOOD LOOK WITH THAT!

Everyone blames Bush, who had to deal with Clinton's pushing the mortgage companies to give loans that they knew people couldn't pay back. Bush worked hard to keep taxes down so work would go on even after the panic of 911. Wake up. What good ever came of handouts?? Churches, of all faiths should be shouting at the rooftops for government to get out of charity work. Government is supposed to protect us from invasions and keep our laws. They are not supposed to get into our personal lives or tell us what we can and can't do.

Holy Cow!

That smooth talker reminded me of our latest Nobel prize winner... Looks good, speaks well, but buyer beware!

Terrific video and very appropriate for today. It baffles my mind that people are screaming bloody murder about government intrusision in security matters but turn around and encourage heavy government in other areas of individual rights. Bush's presidency was far from perfect but he did what he promised he would do: he kept us safe for 8 years and did his best to ensure a working economy. Only after Democrats took over Congress did things turn South, and now we are being led by a President who has not delivered on anything he promised but also willingly received an award that he did not earn nor deserve. Let's hope the next few years pass quickly and we can get a true leader in office.

Victor you had best look at the present administration instead of doing like they do and blame everything on the prior administration. They don't take responsibility for anything and obama (lower case intendedd) has put us into debt more than all the presidents before him. His agenda is to bankrupt the U.S. and then he, acorn and all the other buddies of his can remake (or as he says "transform the government). You must be a die hard democrat. Look at all the communist czars around obama and you have the audacity to talk about the previous administration. I served through two wars so don't talk about the military to me. Been there and done that. I suggest that you open your eyes. Bill

No wonder nothing gets done in Washington, it mirrors the public discourse. How can we expect our elected officials to look forward when those who elected them cannot. We always have to find someone to blame. It must have been the previous parties fault! Lets investigate all of them! No one wants to compromise anymore, it's my way or the highway. Hell, people wanted more refineries when gasoline was high, just not near their house. Some folks around the country want Green Wind Power, BUT!! Do not build big windmills near them as they are ugly. This country needs a real leader! One who will explain the problems, suggest fixes and then take it to the people. Kind of like Ronald Reagan, JFK or Harry Truman. It is time for some civility in politics in this country and one way to start is to vote against every incumbent office holder at every level of government! Just my 2 cents worth.

Actually many of our founding fathers were NOT Christians. Quite a few were agnostics, and several were Deists (who believed in God, but felt that it didn't matter how you practiced that belief).

Further, if you were to look at unvarnished view of US History you will find that there was a very strong Jewish presence during Colonial times.

I will agree that there is a load of hatred for folks who don't "believe exactly what I believe exactly the way I believe it" Have we forgotten that it is out whole "melting pot" paradigm that has made us a great nation?

To Robert who is so hung up on the religion or the Christian portrayal in the video--quite frankly, who cares? The gist of the video is about the overreaching government we have and the direction we are headed towards. As a US History teacher myself, 22 yrs, your accounting of the various religions or beliefs during the colonial period is accurate--but again, who cares? The founders were very wise in their construction and language of the Constitution--remember the Bill of Rights? Stop focusing on the mother in the church or the whistling from the bench--it's about the choice to attend the church or whistle--don't you get it?? PS and most of us normal attractive ladies don't mind a whistle or too now and then.

Absolutely amazing! I was 14 when that came out and had no clue what was being said if I then saw this "cartoon" . Here we are today pointing fingers and the message to me is there was skull drudgery way back then. A continual witling away at what makes America, America...... the freedom. A costly price to keep it clean and working. Lost two uncles and my dad ( bless his soul ) had three bullet scars in his back. The arrogance, egotistical, superior, attitude of our lawmakers, thumbing their noses at us once they're in office. There is no just and moral way anymore to get replacements into Washington that we can trust. The politicians have us scared of them and can get away with anything and if caught, the pass word is Oh, sorry, I made a mistake. and they go back in their office. "We the People" use to have the politicians scared of us. That's what gave us freedom. The politicians did for us. It wasn't we did for them.

Incredible Video!! For those who choose to pick at the details (i.e. what about the Jews, Muslims, etc., it's sexist, etc.) you must realize "It's a Cartoon!". Our country was "founded" on Christian beliefs! That doesn't mean there's no room for other faiths, only that the core belief system of our country is that of the Christian faith. Don't like it? LEAVE!

"Provide" for the common defense... that means the government will "provide" it! "Promote" the general welfare... that, on the other hand, does NOT mean "Provide"!

How this cartoon ended is how it's going to end this time, one way or another! Wake up before it's too late...

To Robert. A typical liberal who misses the big picture pointing out all the little irrelevant social issues that usually correct themselves through public pressure and the over all moral standards our country. Like a good magician who uses misdirection to make you to see only the things that he wants you to in order to mask the reality of what he is doing to you. ( Yes, the magician could have been a non-christian, gay woman from the middle-east, but I have Chosen not to make him that in my humble rant)

The point that this cartoon seems to be making, is beware of any individual, organization, or administration that attempts to escalate class, or race warfare to divide the country and make socialism appear to be the only solution. We will always have our differences, but putting the government in charge of everything, and surrendering person freedom is not the solution. - Very timely.

Mary, you are so right! And BTW you get a whistle from me for your beauty within. Friends, we who love Liberty must kick the Republicrat/Democritter habit! The petty Party battles are a ruse to keep us distracted from the REAL battle: the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Bush surely did his part in this regard, and I'll admit, I voted for him. I'm not proud of that; I saw it as the classic "lesser of two evils", but now I realize that evil is EVIL and cannot be justified.

I know now that God always provides us with a non-evil choice, if only we are strong enough to take it. In this case, the ONLY non-evil choice is to demand our leaders honor the sacred oath they took when they took office: to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire!

Those who take that oath and fail to honor it are joining the enemies of our Republic, and giving aid and comfort to those enemies. They are therefore, by Constitutional definition, Traitors. There is simply no pretty way to paint this: they are guilty of Treason! They should therefore be prosecuted for Treason to the fullest extent of the law.

And anyone who is blaming Democrats or Republicans... Obama or Bush or Clinton or anyone else... is missing the point. If you are a Patriot you should know our enemies can wear any coat they choose, wave any banner they like, and claim to be anything they think will get them elected. We must trust or distrust them purely on the basis of their actions.

I get downright sick seeing people justify Obama's un-Constitutional acts by pointing a finger at Bush, but even sicker at seeing Bush voters trying to defend the scumbag. Folks, let's try to get this straight: Obama is a weasel, but that doesn't mean Bush WASN'T. Yes, Bush WAS a weasel but he's gone now and he's done about all the damage he's likely to do, so get over it. Also, no amount of weasling on Bush's part can excuse the slightest weasling on Obama's part. Both were elected to serve our people and our free, Constitutional Republic, and both... so far at least... have failed miserably. Both took a solemn oath of fidelity to our Constitution, and both knew, as the words rolled off their tongues, they had no intention of honoring that oath.

They are both Globalists, in a long string of Globalists we have managed to elect as President. Each of them has taken, or is taking, orders from a small, clandestine group of anonymous power-brokers who can promise them a lot more than We The People can.

It would seem all is lost for those of us who love Liberty, but IT IS NOT. We must know the Enemy and call him what he is. Then we must take on the sword and armor of Almighty God, believing in Him, and unite under Him, and prepare to do battle with the Devil himself.

And if/when we do this, the Devil will stand down. He will have no choice.

I must say I'm getting sick and tired of hearing from people that voted for George W. bush and somehow now feel the need to apologise for it. I thank God for President Bush. No, he wasn't perfect, who is. But I truly believe in my heart of hearts that President Bush made decisions that he felt were in the best interests of the country and the people of the United States, whether they have a "D" or an "R" after there name, black or white, Christian, Jew or Muslim, not just because he thought it would be the best thing for his re-election coffers. I think that the Republican Congress failed him and the left wing media assassinated his character like they are doing to Sarah Palin now, another true American with the best interest of the people in her heart not political power. The kind of person the founding fathers intended to shoulder the burden of public service. How refreshing. I would trade my right arm to have "W" back right now I would even take Clinton and that is saying something.

Well, I am not exactly apologizing for voting for Bush; he really WAS the lesser of two evils. My point is, EViL IS EVIL, no matter what label you put on it. And in every instance we are given a number of choices, at least one of which will not be evil.

I believe Globalism is evil. I know for certain Obama is a Globalist, and so is Bush, and so was his daddy, and so was Clinton, and Carter, and so on. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, and anyone who doesn't has not been paying attention.

I am not apologizing for voting for Bush, or for any other votes I've cast in the past, but I have learned something and I'm trying to pass that knowledge along. And it is simply this: if you think you are voting for "the lesser of two evils", you are right... you are voting for EVIL! And God will not put you in a position such that your only choice is for evil, so you need to keep looking.

Sometimes we overlook good options because they seem impossible, or too much trouble, or unpopular or whatever. Sometimes we overlook options because they are, well, unthinkable. But none of that really matters if we know wee're doing the next right thing in front of us.

So okay, here is my problem with Bush, and Carter, and Clinton, and Obama and FDR and so many other presidents we have had: The Constitution of the United States of America

To the extent they upheld it, each of them garners my applause. But to the extent they ignored... or worse, circumvented... it, they have proved themselves Traitors. And in my opinion Traitors should be tried for Treason and when convicted, executed. EVERY ONE OF THEM, and I don't care if they claim to be republican or democrat or what, just as evil is EVIL, a traitor is a TRAITOR, and as such needs to be eliminated.

To those who would condemn Obama: you will get no arguement from me. I consider him the lowest of the low. But please consider, when you flash Bush up as an alternative, you discredit your argument. Please admit it: Bush is a damned Globalist! His administration set the stage for everything Obama is doing now. They are on the same team, driving our nation to the same end-point, and I am astounded so many seemingly intelligent people have failed to pick up on this!

What I'm trying to say here is so simple it seems absurd to even state it, but some folks aren't catching on: if you claim to be a democrat or republican, you have not been paying attention. Both parties intend to enslave you! Each has a slightly different approach but the result will be the same.

And we have but one defense: The Constitution! If we hold them to the letter and spirit of that document we may retain our liberty. We have been warned, if we forfeit the first piece of it we stand to lose it all, and many pieces have already been lost. If we want it back we must stand and take it now.

Sorry, but evil is too strong a word for any of these men. Bin Laden...EVIL, Hussein...EVIL. Our presidents no not evil. You must define globalist. Our place in the international community is vital to our very existence. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Sound familiar? Rep or Dem it is the system we have right now and isn't going to change anytime soon. If we want it to really change we need to get involved and initiate change from within. Not an easy task for sure but truly the only chance for it. Too much power has been accumulated already to stop it without all out revolution and you don't have the support for that i assure you.

All of you Obama apologists are only confirming the intellectual barreness of the liberal landscape.It also confirMs that the only reason Obama was able to even come close to winning the Oval office is because of an anti-Bush vote, race, promises to unions and gov. employees. There was not a single element of his entire format except bullshit promises which he has yet to perform on, soaring sermons of giving away ice cream and being a Pied Piper for all who wanted to share prosperity....SOME ONE ELSES PROSPERITY. You elected an empty shirt....and untalent hunk of nothing except hot air and and put and embarassing slice of humanity in leadership capacity.

A bunch of morons and a tele prompter elected a president.

Some observations:

1. This is propoganda for capitalism--which is fine, but call it what it is. This is directly after WWII, when McCarthyism was in full effect.

2. The automobile industry held up as the exemplary example in this video is often demonized because of its unions.

3. All of the people who are in blind support of this video seem to be resurrecting the ghosts of McCarthy when they start pulling out the socialism vs. capitalism card--and it's disingenuous when you consider that they simultaneously accuse Obama of socialism and fascism.

4. All of the doomsayers of today need to have faith in our country. The same worries existed in 1930 as 1948 as 1969 and today. We are always destined to be in tension between individual freedoms and the benefits of the collective society. Some eras swing one way, some another. This is inevitable, and it's healthy.

5. Everyone needs to relax and read some more history.

Well said Christopher!!

Anyone who ties this cartoon to a specific person misses the whole point of this message. One can just as easily point to G. W. Bush's actions as president and compare it with what is said in this narrative. A foundation to freedom is the ability to THINK, otherwise everyone will blindly follow the loudest voice.

William E., are you applying your comment to ALL recent presidents? It makes America a nation of idiots, including you.

Socialism, communism, Marxism, they're all bad. Russia and China tried them and went broke. Now our fearless leader is trying it and we are going broke. Now that those countries have switched to a capitalist type market, they're economy is growing like crazy. I wish they could pass a law that keeps liberals from running government. They don't do a very good job of it.

Robert,

The references to religion were very general in content. First, the Church on Sunday mornings. Big Deal. Are you saying other religions don't worship on Sundays. Second was in the classroom and this is what they said: "it's all races, creeds and religions" (more than one) doesn't sound like preaching Christianity to me and third was when they were listing our freedoms and they said "and to worship God in your own way".

I wish people would stop bringing up the Christianity issue. We really have more serious issues at hand; like the hijacking of our country, a President who is intentionally bankrupting us and trying to divide this country further than it already has been. We need to fire every single one of them and replace them with fresh new citizens who want to serve and their first agenda promise should be term limitations for all.

Just my thoughts.

I just wish this had been spread around to the majority of Americans who voted for change for the sake of change, whether good or bad, in the last election. Now we are all faced with taking the "medicine". Yuk.

Don't understand all the amazement. If everyone had been watching important events since Nov. 22, 1963 none of this should be amazing. In the words of Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nothin', yet!"

What is wrong with you people? Can't you admire the animation? Do you know how much time it takes to create a film of this length? Did you not admire the color? Who cares about the political side?

Fred, open your eyes man, and embrace the truth, we didn't "come close" to electing Obama. We actually did elect him, and we didn't need the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people to do it either.

The point is...

our system is not perfect but it allows us Freedoms of choice and opportunities that simply are not available in other countries - certainly not so easily.

Forget which President or party is in power. It barely matters.

YOU are the leader of this country. Keep it that way.

To Robert J. Sodaro, specifically, it appears you feel that "church" can only be Christian, how sad. Further, as young as you are, you may not remember that most people in the 40's were Christian. Too bad you feel this is an attack on the current President, it is really an attempt to get people like you to see that it is the current organizations, Labor, Management, Politicians, and large Farmers, pushing us toward something that removes our freedoms in exchange for a false security. But that is why we are on the verge of losing it all today. And it has been in the works for over 60 years!

The very end of the film says it all: "Whenever anyone preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives...and we know what to do about it. Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret of American prosperity."

However, even the comments here show that our own interpretation of that is different for each of us. At the time of this movie, the government was instituting the largest aid to the middle class ever seen...the GI Bill of 1944. That is why more people started owning homes and going to college. But, like I said, we all see in different ways.

When I hear religious freedom, I interpret that to mean the right to worship or not worship my own choice of God as I please. I hear class warfare and interpret that as the top 1% holding as much power as the lower 99% combined. I hear "an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values" and intrepret that as a changing wider diversity of materials and broader exchange of ideas, not simply more of the same thing.

But, evidently, we all hear and see it in our own way.

Hope and Change, anyone?

"For those choose to divide us using fear...." sounds like Karl Rovian tactics for the Homeland Security Act!

Whew....so glad those days are over....

Why does the American person living in their own country constantly have to defend their beliefs and values? If we travel to other countries, do we try to reform them? We are demanded to respect their beliefs and even wear their dress in some countries. I do not know of any other country that lets others come in and then try to change their beliefs and the way they live. I don't want the government involved in my personal life and our freedom of choice and free speech and all other things free or any aspect of it. This is my country and I enjoy my freedoms, choices, my free speech, and I am able to live that way because of our Freedom that others have died for!! I do not believe that we were even being offered a choice of this so called "Health Care Reform", at least some of the Americans started opening their eyes and standing up for themselves and that is exactly what it is going to take to keep our freedom. We are going to have to fight for it just like our fathers and fore fathers have do in the past. I think Americans, which I am one born and bred in KY, have had it so easy and are so spoiled rotten that it is just easier to say ah sign it and lets go to the next step with our next "Change"..It doesn't matter to me what color you are, who you worship or how, how you dress or what you do for a living, but when you come to my house, don't start moving my stuff around or throwing away things you don't like, it doesn't belong to you!!!!People we are going to have to work together if this country is to stand proud and strong again..Unity is the only way to keep it that way. People cry "Well what about this or what about that, you didn't name this in the cartoon, come on, its a 1948 cartoon for Gods Sake!!No one has mentioned the disabled or the handicapped trying just to survive in this world today..What happens to them when the government takes control??Are they going to be herded up and sent to a camp somewhere because we are not "Normal" I can cry discrimination too!!! We have not be mentioned at all in any of this whole thing. Quit living in the past and focus on what is happening today, give your child a hug tonight and ask who ever you pray to, to keep this nation together, strong and Free!! Look in your child's eyes tonight and tell them we are fighting for them and their futures!!

I say hooray for someone finding this cartoon. Amazing at the paralell this has to todays issues. Many of you need to watch this again, without your party views getting in the way. I think the snake oil salesman can be either party quite frankly. It is time to rethink the party system and start voting for the PERSON who best shares the ideals in which this cartoon and country were founded upon. Blame, blame, blame is all you want to do. Instead why don't you try becoming a solution to the problem instead of the obstacle of blame. It is time to remove the DEM Party and the GOP Party and put in the GOD party. I am a Christian without shame and debuke those who wish to scoff at me for being so. This does not mean I am intolerant of other beliefs, as long as they are godly in their own right as far as this country is concerned. Simply put "do the right thing by others". Then we can work on a productive CARING based diaglogue without all the personal agendas. Ron

The snake-oil Democrats say:

We can have peace through weakness

We can have success without failure

We can reward the unsuccessful while punishing the successful and still have a successful economy

We can entrust the government to take care of us without taking advantage of us.

It's the stuff of children's fairly tales. Wake up America before it's too late!

I wonder who edited the video that deleted the line before "and drive 70% of automobiles". Listen again. That static is no accident. It deletes a comment that would have originally made the point that "American's have only x percent of the resources yet drive 70 percent of the automobiles."

it probably said, america has only x amount of population/people, but drive 70% of the cars, or it could just be a very old video and the result of very old editing.

Don't forget, one of the ISM's is Capitalism. Was there a reason he said Capitalist instead? Oh, I see, all of the other ISM's are really bad. Lets see about a little history. The oil debacle, mortgage crisis, health insurance, Bernie Madoff, mercantile market, ad infinitum. Sure seems like they all pretty much regulate themselves for the benefit of all. And if you buy that, ........ I voted for change the last time...the jury is still out, but it looks to me as though it's happening. And, by the way, he doesn't look like a socialist to me. But then maybe not everyone uses Rush's definition??

The politically correct movement is obviously alive and well as the first few comments attest missing the point that our country WAS FOUNDED on Christian foundations with specific laws prohibiting discrimination against other religions and preventing the states and the federal government from establishing a state/national religion and the government is restricted FROM "PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" which has been forgotten by federal judiciary for the most part while the discrimination against Christians speaking out in the public square. We, are the only ones responsible for the loss of religious freedom for Christians by sitting on our collective behinds and expecting dishonest, deceptive politicians to protect our liberties instead of doing all they can to protect their positions of power and influence. For years the citizens voted their pocketbook over every other issue, including moral issues, and now we have the current mess that exists in our nation and the world.

I am only a little surprised that there are people in this country that are so blind as to believe that the Government is our savoir. The jury is not out on the current administration, it is full speed to a socialist society. How is it that poll after poll say the American people blame the government for all our problems but want the government to solve them. The government has been responsible for all the problems that we have seen over the last 30 years because they regulate for the result they wish with out taking into account the real results of trying to please everyone. What we are headed for is not utopia but shared misery. People wake up! Take care of your selves and quit waiting for the government to take care of you. Lazy ignorance is why we are headed to failure. Take responsibility and reject any government that seeks to take care of you cradle to grave. The grave will surely be where you are once you are no longer useful to the government.

It's amazing to me how some people see this cartoon and all they can think about is what the last administration did to us. While I don't disagree, but I do believe these are the same individuals who seem to think that what is going on now is all A-OK. This country is in real trouble and it started 20 years ago and if people don't wake up soon and stop this nonsensical idea that the government is here to help; then may God, yes I said God help us all.

Funny, why are the "christans" and right winged nut jobs are so thined skined now, but never said a word when there guy was selling us down the river,taking our rights away with the illegal wire taps,the patriot act, medicare drug handout, the illegal unjustified war were in now,corprate welfare, Haliburton, 911, etc....

Yea just keep on listing to your guru's like fox's glen beck,Bill oreally? & the $400 million dollar man rush limpdick, What a joke......

The Rich get richer by keeping the rest of us fighting amongst eachother.....

Okay, back to the cartoon. This was put out two years before the "golden age" of the 1950s. The middle class was beginning to really take the reigns of this society. The "average" American (meaning that portion of the population within one or two standard deviations of the mean in statistical terms)had a home, at least one car, food on the table and adequate clothing. Reasonable vacations could be taken and luxuries such as televisions and high fidelity players could be bought at a reasonable price. Most homes had a telephone, running hot and cold water, indoor lavatory, and electricity. Some had it better than others. Some had it worse. There were still the very poor and the very rich.

Please recall that this "utopia" did not last particularly long. The Korean "War" and then Vietnam were the catalysts for a great deal of social unrest...which could not have occured if there had not been a thriving middle class in America who had the luxury of revolting or trying to maintain the status quo or trying to walk a middle line and every other point on the spectrum between radical liberals and radical conservatives. People in countries that don't grant individual rights and freedoms don't have the luxury of holding the kinds of relatively "peaceful" debates that we do here in America.

Folks, we still live in a great country. We have forgotten, however, that it IS great and that WE are great.

So, we have a high rate of unemployment right now. Okay. We just need to come together and decide how we are going to share our resources so that everyone has at least enough to subsist. Some of the greatest stories in our history are of people helping each other in time of need.

So, some people are losing their homes. WE have. We couldn't afford it. These things happen. We are renting a nice enough space and happy to have a roof over our heads. Just because we used to have something doesn't mean we should continue to have it. Some people are living on the streets or in their cars and I am amazed at the way some of these people, children in particular, can find the smallest and simplest things with which to be happy or contented.

Go here to see the original:
National Juggernaut: This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948