Archive for August, 2017

Democracy? – Marion Mohri – Caledonian Record

Trump tweeted that the military will not accept or allow transgender people to serve in any capacity. His reasoning: transgender troops cost too much money and lower readiness.

A 2016 Rand Corporation study commissioned by the US military contradicts Trump. The study found that allowing transgender soldiers to serve in the US military would cost an additional $2.4 to $8.4 million annually and would not negatively impact readiness.

Contrasted with the $80 million the military pays annually for erectile dysfunction medication, money spent on transgender health care pales by comparison. Trumps argument is bogus.

As far as disruption in the military, the results of Rand study shows that Trump has no idea what hes talking about.

Trump said he consulted with my generals and military experts. Thats news to his generals who, along with the Sec of Defense, were totally blindsided by Trumps tweet.

The military was set to begin accepting transgender recruits beginning July 1, 2017. Sec of Defense Mattis delayed that by six months saying that the issue of providing health care and services for transgender recruits needed more study.

Whats really behind Trumps out-of-the blue tweet? Politico was told by numerous congressional and White House sources that Trumps sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat.

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with Trumps campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico. Then Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo. introduced an amendment that would forbid money being spent by the military health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition.

She portrayed her proposal as a good government plan aimed at assuring military dollars are spent only on critical national defense needs. She did not explain how $80+ million per year spent on erectile dysfunction medications are critical national defense needs! House Democrats and 24 GOP members defeated her amendment.

She and other Anti-LGBT GOP members turned to Trump. They told Trump the budget bill would not pass unless it included language forbidding the military to perform transgender surgeries. Horrified that the budget bill might not pass, in the flash of a tweet, Trump announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether. Problem solved.

A majority of Americans believe that transgender Americans should be allowed to serve their country. Anyone willing to sacrifice his/her life for their country makes a sacrifice that Trump with his five draft deferments refused to do.

This is NOT how a Democracy is supposed to work! You know, the one that says, of the people, by the people, for the people.

Follow this link:
Democracy? - Marion Mohri - Caledonian Record

One reporter’s experience of the collapse of democracy in Venezuela – Hot Air

Hannah Dreier is a reporter for the Associated Press who has been covering the situation in Venezuela since 2014. Today, Politico Magazine published an interview with her in which she describes how she started out thinking the stories of Venezuelas decline were exaggerated but gradually came to realize the country was falling apart:

I spent my first year there really trying to argue that it wasnt collapsing, because there was already this narrative that it was a dictatorship where people were starving. And thats not what I initially saw. Maduro had just won an election. It was a very polarized place, but half of the country supported him. And, people were on diets. There was a super-abundance of food

And, I think it wasnt until the people in my life started to lose weight that I really realized that things had changed. And then, people that I knew started to be robbed regularly.

Dreier experienced this change herself when she was robbed on the street in broad daylight and later when she was kidnapped by the secret police:

I mean, there was just no way to insulate yourself from the crisis when you were there. And the thing you really cant insulate yourself from is violence. So, I was robbed in broad daylight a couple of blocks from where I lived by two men on a motorcycle, and I kind of saw them coming and thought they might rob me, because that was happening to a lot of people at the time, and then they did. And when I told my friends about it, they were, like, Oh, that was a good robbery. Nobody got hurt. That was good and simple. And so your standards just start to change

The same thing happened when the secret police grabbed me one day. I was in detention for a few hours and they made all these threatslike, they said they were going to slit my throat; they said they were going to keep me for weeks and weeks; they said I had to stay there until I married one of themand when I got out, I told my friends, and they thought it was super funny. So, I also started joking about it, and we got drinks, and it was just like another thing that happened.

Dreier makes clear that while many people still love deceased President Hugo Chavez, almost no one loves President Maduro. Maduros rule has been characterized by sheer incompetence:

This is the most irresponsible thing Ive ever seenthere was a day last year where the government invalidated that bank note, the hundred bolivar, which is all people were using at that point. There was no sense using anything lower than that because it was like a fraction of a fraction of a penny, so people were only using hundred bolivar notes, and we all had hoarded supplies.

And the government said, You know what? Today you cant use that anymore. It has no value. And they didnt issue a new note. So there were three days where you couldnt pay for anything, and that day I needed to take a taxi, but I couldnt. I needed to recharge my phone; I needed to put some more minutes on itI couldnt. Nobody could go out to eat. And there were riots. There was a riot in one city that destroyed more than a hundred stores, because people couldnt buy anything, and so they just went out and started taking things.

And finally, after three days the government sent the military out to pacify the country, and said, OK, fine. You can use your hundred bolivar notes again. But, I mean, the whole country just ground to a halt for no reason.

As for what comes next, Dreier is not very optimistic about the countrys future. She tells Politico, my experience down there has, if its taught me one thing, its taught me things can always get worse, and worse, and worse. She adds, theres no rule that says that a miserable situation has to end, just because its too miserable. The clampdown on opposition figures that has happened in the past week seems to prove Dreier is right about that. In Venezuela, things just keep getting worse.

The rest is here:
One reporter's experience of the collapse of democracy in Venezuela - Hot Air

What Is Communism? – ThoughtCo

What Is Communism?

Communism is a political ideology that believes that societies can achieve full social equality by eliminating private property. The concept of communism began with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1840sbut eventually spread around the world, being adapted for use in the Soviet Union, China, East Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

After World War II, this quick spread of communism threatened capitalist countries and led to the Cold War.

By the 1970s, almost a hundred years after Marxs death, more than one-third of the worlds population lived under some form of communism. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, however, communism has been on the decline.

Generally, it is the German philosopher and theorist Karl Marx (1818-1883) who is credited with founding the modern concept of communism. Marx and his friend, German socialist philosopher Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), first laid down the framework for the idea of communism in their seminal work, The Communist Manifesto (originally published in German in 1848).

The philosophy laid out by Marx and Engels has since been termed Marxism, as it differs fundamentally from the various forms of communism that succeeded it.

Karl Marxs views came from his materialist view of history, meaning that he saw the unfolding of historical events as a product of the relationship between the differing classes of any given society.

The concept of class, in Marxs view, was determined by whether any individual or group of individuals had access to theproperty and to the wealth that such property could potentially generate.

Traditionally, this concept was defined along very basic lines. In medieval Europe, for example, society was clearly divided between those who owned land and those who worked for those who owned the land.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the class lines now fell between those who owned the factories and those who worked in the factories. Marx called these factory owners the bourgeoisie (French for middle class) and the workers, the proletariat (from a Latin word that described a person with little or no property).

Marx believed that it was these basic class divisions, dependent on the concept of property, that lead to revolutions and conflicts in societies; thus ultimately determining the direction of historical outcomes. As he stated in the opening paragraph of the first part of The Communist Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.*

Marx believed that it would be this type of opposition and tensionbetween the ruling and the working classesthat would eventually reach a boiling point and lead to a socialist revolution.

This, in turn, would lead to a system of government in which the large majority of the people, not just a small ruling elite, would dominate.

Unfortunately, Marx was vague about what type of political system would materialize after a socialist revolution. He imagined the gradual emergence of a type of egalitarian utopiacommunismthat would witness the elimination of elitism and the homogenization of the masses along economic and political lines. Indeed, Marx believed that as this communism emerged, it would gradually eliminate the very need for a state, government, or economic system altogether.

In the interim, however, Marx felt there would be the need for a type of political system before communism could emerge out of the ashes of a socialist revolutiona temporary and transitional state that would have to be administered by the people themselves.

Marx termed this interim system the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx only mentioned the idea of this interim system a few timesand did not elaborate much further on it, which left the concept open to interpretation by subsequent communist revolutionaries and leaders.

Thus, while Marx may have provided the comprehensive framework for the philosophical idea of communism, the ideology changed in subsequent years as leaders like Vladimir Lenin (Leninism), Josef Stalin (Stalinism), Mao Zedong (Maoism), and others attempted to implement communism as a practical system of governance. Each of these leaders reshaped the fundamental elements of communism to meet their personal power interests or the interests and peculiarities of their respective societies and cultures.

Russia was to become the first country to implement communism. However, it did not do so with an upsurge of the proletariat as Marx had predicted; instead, it was conducted by a small group of intellectuals led by Vladimir Lenin.

After the first Russian Revolution took place in February of 1917 and saw the overthrow of the last of Russias czars, the Provisional Government was established. However, the Provisional Government that ruled in the czars stead was unable to administer the states affairs successfully and came under strong fire from its opponents, among them a very vocal party known as the Bolsheviks (led by Lenin).

The Bolsheviks appealed to a large segment of the Russian population, most of them peasants, who had grown weary of World War I and the misery it had brought them. Lenins simple slogan of Peace, Land, Bread and the promise of an egalitarian society under the auspices of communism appealed to the population. In October of 1917with popular supportthe Bolsheviks managed to roust the Provisional Government and assume power, becoming the first communist party ever to rule.

Holding onto power, on the other hand, proved to be challenging. Between 1917 and 1921, the Bolsheviks lost considerable support amongst the peasantry and even faced heavy opposition from within their own ranks.

As a result, the new state clamped down heavily on free speech and political freedom. Opposition parties were banned from 1921 on and party members were not allowed to form opposing political factions amongst themselves.

Economically, however, the new regime turned out to be more liberal, at least for as long as Vladimir Lenin remained alive. Small-scale capitalism and private enterprise were encouraged to help the economy recover and thus offset the discontent felt by the population.

When Lenin died in January of 1924, the ensuing power vacuum further destabilized the regime. The emerging victor of this power struggle was Joseph Stalin, considered by many in the Communist Party (the new name of the Bolsheviks) to be a reconcilera conciliatory influence who could bring the opposing party factions together. Stalin managed to reignite the enthusiasm felt for the socialist revolution during its first days by appealing to the emotions and patriotism of his countrymen.

His style of governing, however, would tell a very different story. Stalin believed that the major powers of the world would try everything they could to oppose a communist regime in the Soviet Union (the new name of Russia). Indeed, the foreign investment needed to rebuild the economy was not forthcoming and Stalin believed he needed to generate the funds for the Soviet Unions industrialization from within.

Stalin turned to collecting surpluses from the peasantry and to foment a more socialist consciousness amongst them by collectivizing farms, thus forcing any individualist farmers to become more collectively oriented. In this way, Stalin believed he could further the states success on an ideological level, while also organizing the peasants in a more efficient manner so as to generate the necessary wealth for the industrialization of Russias major cities.

Farmers had other ideas, however. They had originally supported the Bolsheviks due to the promise of land, which they would be able to run individually without interference. Stalins collectivization policies now seemed like a breaking of that promise. Furthermore, the new agrarian policies and the collection of surpluses had led to a famine in the countryside. By the 1930s, many of the Soviet Unions peasants had become deeply anti-communist.

Stalin decided to respond to this opposition by using force to coerce farmers into collectives and to quell any political or ideological opposition. This unleashed years of bloodletting known as the Great Terror, during which an estimated 20 million people suffered and died.

In reality, Stalin led a totalitarian government, in which he was the dictator with absolute powers. His communist policies did not lead to the egalitarian utopia envisioned by Marx; instead, it led to the mass murder of his own people.

Mao Zedong, already proudly nationalist and anti-Western, first became interested in Marxism-Leninism around 1919-20. Then, when Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek cracked down on Communism in China in 1927, Mao went into hiding. For 20 years, Mao worked on building up a guerrilla army.

Contrary to Leninism, which believed a communist revolution needed to be instigated by a small group of intellectuals, Mao believed that Chinas huge class of peasants could rise up and start the communist revolution in China. In 1949, with the support of Chinas peasants, Mao successfully took over China and made it a communist state.

At first, Mao tried to follow Stalinism, but after Stalins death, he took his own path. From 1958 to 1960, Mao instigated the highly unsuccessful Great Leap Forward, in which he tried to force the Chinese population into communes in an attempt to jump-start industrialization through such things as backyard furnaces. Mao believed in nationalism and the peasants.

Next, worried that China was going in the wrong direction ideologically, Mao ordered the Cultural Revolution in 1966, in which Mao advocated for anti-intellectualism and a return to the revolutionary spirit. The result was terror and anarchy.

Although Maoism proved different than Stalinism in many ways, both China and the Soviet Union ended up with dictators who were willing to do anything to stay in power and who held a complete disregard for human rights.

The global proliferation of communism was thought to be inevitable by its supporters, even though prior to the World War II, Mongolia was the only other nation under communist rule besides the Soviet Union. By the end of World War II, however, much of Eastern Europe had fallen under communist rule, primarily due to Stalins imposition of puppet regimes in those nations that had lain in the wake of the Soviet armys advance towards Berlin.

Following its defeat in 1945, Germany itself was divided into four occupied zones, eventually being split into West Germany (capitalist) and East Germany (Communist). Even Germanys capital was split in half, with the Berlin Wall that divided it becoming an icon of the Cold War.

East Germany wasnt the only country that became Communist after World War II. Poland and Bulgaria became Communist in 1945 and 1946, respectively. This was followed shortly by Hungary in 1947 and Czechoslovakia in 1948.

Then North Korea became Communist in 1948, Cuba in 1961, Angola and Cambodia in 1975, Vietnam (after the Vietnam War) in 1976, and Ethiopia in 1987. There were others as well.

Despite the seeming success of communism, there were starting to be problems within many of these countries. Find out what caused the downfall of communism.

* Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. (New York, NY: Signet Classic, 1998) 50.

Visit link:
What Is Communism? - ThoughtCo

What? Amazon’s New Anti-Communist Satire Mocks Lefties – NewsBusters (press release) (blog)


NewsBusters (press release) (blog)
What? Amazon's New Anti-Communist Satire Mocks Lefties
NewsBusters (press release) (blog)
They then brought in such talent as Channing Tatum and Joseph Gordon-Levitt to dub over the original Romanian dialogue. In reality, this is a new show created to make fun of these old propaganda pieces, and mocks their love of communism and fear of the ...

Originally posted here:
What? Amazon's New Anti-Communist Satire Mocks Lefties - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

America Has a Long and Storied Socialist Tradition. DSA Is Reviving It. – The Nation.

DSA members at the Womens March in New York City on January 21, 2017. (Courtesy of Democratic Socialists of America)

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Sign up for Take Action Now and well send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

When a thousand socialists from across the United States gathered in Chicago over the weekend for the biennial convention of Democratic Socialists of America, DSA National Director Maria Svart declared, What were seeing today is historic: the largest gathering of democratic socialists in an era.

Since the 2016 election, Svart is delighted to report, tens of thousands of democratic socialists have come together to build a future for this country in which everyone has the right to a decent job, a good home, a free college education for their children, and health care for their family. For years, weve been sold hope and promised change by Wall Street politiciansnow were taking matters into our own hands.

DSA got a big boost from the surge of interest in democratic socialism that grew from the Sanders campaign. Bernie upended decades of right-wing histrionics, Democratic Party caution, and media neglect that bordered on malpractice when he showed America that a national contender could embrace the S word and survive. Do they think Im afraid of the word? Im not afraid of the word, declared Sanders as he launched his bid for the Democratic nomination. When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertisingvery ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didnt use the word socialist at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that.

Rather than getting harmed for making an effort to explain how democratic socialism works in places like Denmark, Sanders benefited from the fact that he wasnt just another apologist for the capitalist experiment that has produced market instability, cruel austerity, and scorching income inequality. In particular, young people were excited about alternatives.

DSA invited them into the foldwith a smart continuing the political revolution message that built on the slogan of the Sanders runand thousands joined. The groups membership has tripled over the past yearto 25,000and it now has 177 local groups in 49 states and the District of Columbia. DSA members are running for local offices and winning across the country.

Thats a striking development in a country wherebecause of the often irrational responses of media and political elitesmajor public-policy challenges go unaddressed because of the rejection of sound responses that are deemed too socialistic. This has happened even with proposals for smart social and industrial strategies that have been successfully deployed in countries with which the United States is closely allied.

American socialists once governed great cities, helped to define the politics of states across the country, and played a critical role in setting the national agenda.

The prospect of democratic socialism in the United States might seem radical to some, but it is important to remember that its not a new one.

American socialists once governed great cities, helped to define the politics of states across the country, and played a critical role in setting the national agenda. The Socialist Party of Eugene Victor Debs and Norman Thomas influenced presidents and Congresses, and was covered on the front pages of newspapers on a daily basis.

That party had many bases of strength, and indeed exists to this day, along with DSA, Socialist Alternative, and an array of other socialist organizations, some old and some new.

From 1910 to 1960, the hotbed of socialism in America was Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At the time it was one of the largest and most prosperous cities in Americaand it was run by Socialists. The first member of the Socialist Party to govern a major American city, Emil Seidel, took charge of Milwaukee in 1910, with the poet Carl Sandburg as his aide. Two years later, he ran for the vice presidency on a Socialist ticket headed by Debs. The Debs-Seidel ticket pulled close to 1 million votes nationally6 percent of the total cast in an election year that saw Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Bull Moose Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, and even Republican William Howard Taft borrow ideas from the Socialists. By the end of 1912, the Socialist Party had elected mayors, city councilors, school-board members, and other officials in 169 cities from Butte, Montana, to New York City. In several states, it was so successful that it was no longer seen as a third or minor party.

In Wisconsin, for instance, Republicans held the majority of state legislative seats during the 1910s and 1920s, while Socialists usually formed the major opposition caucus. Democrats were an afterthought. When those legislatures ushered in many of the reforms that would define Wisconsin as Americas laboratory of democracy, progressive Republicans associated with Robert M. La Follette worked with the Milwaukee Socialists to advance the agenda.

The Milwaukee Socialists did not just influence Madison, Wisconsin, but Washington, DC, as well. The first Socialist elected to the US Congress, Milwaukeean Victor Berger, took his seat in 1911 and held it, on and off, until 1929. Far from being marginalized, Berger worked closely with the insurgent Republican caucus that included La Follette, New York Congressman Fiorello La Guardia, and the great progressive leaders of the era.

When La Follette mounted an independent progressive campaign for the presidency in 1924, the Socialist Party endorsed his candidacy and Debs hailed his calls for supporting public ownership of utilities, strengthening labor unions, protecting the rights of women and minorities, defending civil liberties, and preventing wars and war profiteering.

La Follette carried Wisconsin, finished second in 11 Western states, and won more than 5 million votes nationwide (17 percent of the total). When some comrades questioned endorsing a lifelong Republican, the Socialist mayor of Milwaukee, Daniel Hoan, said of La Follette: He says the supreme issue is whether the wealth of the nation shall remain in the hands of the privileged few. Is not that the thing we have been ding-donging for 40 years?

The Socialist Party faded as a national force after Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal stole many of its ideas and much of its thunder. But democratic socialism never disappeared from the American landscape.

Seventy years after Emil Seidel took charge of Milwaukee with a declaration that socialists are prepared to govern, Bernie Sanders took charge of Burlington, Vermont, as a proud democratic socialist.

Sanders went on to serve as an independent socialist member of the US House and the US Senate, caucusing with Democrats but positioning himself to their left on issues ranging from health-care reform to trade to economic democracy.

His presidential candidacy demonstrated the appeal of these politics in the 21st century, which has been characterized by rampant inequality and the corrupt excesses of crony capitalism.

The growth of DSA confirms that the appeal of democratic socialism extends far beyond any one campaignas do a recent American Culture & Faith Institute poll indicated. The survey found that 37 percent of all American adults now say they prefer socialism to capitalism. A 2016 Harvard University survey revealed that 51 percent of Americans aged 18 and 29 say they reject capitalism outright.

It is this search for economic and political alternatives that has given DSA an opening, not just to build its membership but to pressure the Democratic Party to move left.

In the early 1900s, Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party rose in a grassroots movement against the forces of nationalism, oligarchy, and authoritarianism, recalls DSAs Svart. One hundred years later, todays democratic socialists stand in that same tradition, at a time no less perilous.

Continued here:
America Has a Long and Storied Socialist Tradition. DSA Is Reviving It. - The Nation.