Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic Socialists? You Bet!
Nothing like getting out the old encrusted red paintbrush.
But I hope some Democrats don't run from this label.
Running doesn't get you anywhere.
Democrats have been running from the label "liberal" since the days of Michael Dukakis, and that hasn't helped them.
And for those who, like me, are actually Democratic Socialists, it's time to come out and say so.
Democratic socialism has brought a much better quality of life to the people in Scandinavia and France and Germany and Britain, and it has not erased one iota of the political freedoms we cherish in this country.
We need to move this country in the direction of democratic socialism.
We need a much sturdier social safety net.
It's a sin that in this country, 35 million people do not have enough food to eat during at least part of the year.
It's a sin that 47 million Americans are without health insurance.
It's a sin that of the top 18 industrialized countries, the United States ranks last in the percentage of children (11.8 percent) who are not likely to live to age 60, and last in the percentage of people (17 percent) living on less than 50% of the national median income, according to the United Nations Development Program.
We need a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.
The top 1 percent of Americans hoards 34.3 percent of the nation's wealth, and the top 10 percent accounts for 71.2 percent of the wealth.
As far as income goes, the top 10% sops up 42.5 percent of the nation's income.
(These stats are from the State of Working America, 2008/2009.)
We need much more control over the economic giants that dominate not only our economy but our political system.
Hell, it was just a few days ago when Dick Durbin said, "The banks own the place," after Congress after ten Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against letting judges write down the mortgages of people in bankruptcy court.
And the people want universal health care, but the drug companies and insurance companies have been standing in the way for decades.
Right now, capitalism is eating away at our democracy.
So, thank you, Republicans, we do need democratic socialism.
98 Comments so far
Show AllAnother worshipper at the alter of European socialism. Lets see how well he likes it by next year or so. The flaws and fallacies are becoming quite clear.
Eat your heart out, sucker:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090516_as_smash-and-grab_capitalism_collapses_the_french_economy_shines/
-European socialism,...What don't you like about it Thomas More?
Yeah the quality of life in: France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain etc. is really bad.
They have super high violent crime rates, huge disparities in income and wealth, only 2 weeks average paid vacation, a vulture-like health profit system where millions are uninsured, few worker protections, very few social provisions, high rates of obesity, high rates of mental illness and half the population on seratonin uptake inhibitors.
Oh, sorry that was the USA I was describing, I was mistaken.
Sarcasm aside, these countries have elements of socialism, however they are not socialist in entirety. Capitalism in various forms is the system, alive and well.
Although they have serious problems as well, those "socialist" Europeans have left us in the dust in many ways. We have some catching up to do before we can criticize them
Good post! And don't forget.......Medicare and Social Security are "socialist" programs........I'm guessing if Thomas More has any elderly relatives, he wouldn't like to have their Medicare and SS yanked from them. And I never cease to be amazed that these neocons are so quick to want to dump ALL government in favor of the free market......what about schools, roads, bridges, fire fighters and police? I'm sure he wouldn't want to pay a big fee if hes house was on fire before they would put it out. And not everyone has the cash to send their kids to private school. A reasonable mix of socialism and the free market would be the way to go in America, but we DO need a single payer healthcare system......those insurance company vultures need to be axed in favor of something to insure everybody. It is shameful that the richest country in the world has 50 million of its citizens uninsured.
Thomas More is a neocon troll employed by some slimy organization like AIPAC or AEI to bait leftists in forums like this. Ignore him. Democratic socialism, social democracy, socialism, are all on the rise today for the right reasons. Outside the USA and its rapidly shrinking sphere, enlightenment is spreading. This is a profoundly positive development. In particular, the world is learning to deflect USan "public relations" psych-ops assaults. Developments like this are breaking the confidence of the empire's "brain trust". The empire is on its knees today and won't be standing again.
USan? Isn't that what passive aggressive America haters call us Americans?
The "Amercan" label USans apply to themselves is hyper-nationalist, proto-fascist. America is a pair of large continents on the most amazing planet probably in the entire galaxy. That any of its inhabitants could hate it is extremely unlikely. If you want to chew on someone's leg why not visit Weekly Standard and chew on Poor William's?
Thanks for the explanation.
- formerly USAn
My, what a slippery response. "The "Amercan" label USans apply to themselves is hyper-nationalist, proto-fascist." Really? Care to back that up?
Also, as our nation is called the United States of America, referring to its inhabitants as 'Americans' is linguistically accurate. Unless you also insist on calling Canadians "RCans" or Mexicans "EUans". By the way, where do you get off referring to us by abbreviating 'United States'? Mexico is 'United States' also! Estados Unidos Mexico. Oh, the jingoism!
Oh, and another thing! How dare Ecuador call itself that! There are 12 other countries on the Equator! What imperialism!
Without the socialist program of Social Security that supplies most of my monthly income, most Seniors, including me, would be up The Creek. [I cleaned up my language there.]
Democratic Socialism provides for the most vulnerable and also, as others have mentioned, provides across-the-boards health care, including prescriptions, and all kinds of other services so that NO ONE is homeless, without assistance if they need it, and on and on and on.
What is wrong, Thomas, with programs that serve the majority of human beings in a particular nation. Taxes are higher, but services of all kinds are provided.
Doesn't stop anyone who wants to be in the top 3 per cent of the population to be very rich if that is their ambition.
But over-all Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism is superior to the Capitalistic Corporatocracy we have now.
Study the statistics of who gets to eat and who doesn't; the CLASS divisions by money; the numbers of people who have no health care; the numbers of people who end up in jail because they do not have education and cannot be gainfully employed.
It's nice to think that the Horatio Alger dream is still alive and well, but what we've seen in many decades now is the unraveling of our social, cultural, familial fabric because Corporate-Everything pretty much controls us, and "rising to the top" requires such dog-eat-dog behavior that we have more Ugly Americans than a country should have, and the people who work truly hard for what they have are being screwed out of all of it RIGHT and LEFT.
What is wrong with governmental programs that the people actually pay for with their taxes and a percentage of their incomes, if they know that their basic needs will be met until the day they die?
Feeling secure is better than feeling frightened, wouldn't you say?
peace, cm
Last I checked, socialist Norway, in spite of the crash in it's dwindling North Sea oil prices, is enjoying a 4.5% economic growth rate through this entire "recession". The reason, a generous public sector keeping poeple working and able to spend their money on all that low-carbon cultural, culinary and leisure consumption that Europeans like to do.
Cradle to grave, baby! Oh, what a life!
I would love to see some democratic party socialists. All I see in recent years are democratic party fascists that are becoming ever more fascist.
Unconditionally throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars to corporations while making token laws that appear to help the working class is not socialism by any stretch of the definition. It is very clearly fascism.
Dat's da fact Jack
And why isn't this said more often? Why does the right wing narrative become the debate?
Most Socialists are pacifists or very anti-war. The Democrats love the Empire. That makes them National Socialists (fascists).
Hear, hear!
Once again, TM drops his early turd in the punch bowl.
Oh, really?
Do tell us, Thomas More, all about what you actually KNOW about social democracy in action.
Hah.
Any FOOL can figure out that in the land of my birth the criminals rule in the entire absence of anything remotely resembling....justice.
While I heartily concur with the fact that social democracy is required in order for the cesspool of despair that the US truly is for the vast majority to become something other than the location of the next violent revolution, such a transition will never be allowed by the criminals in control.
Constructive change is not given freely by criminals such as the corporate oligarch and it´s willing curs such as Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other so called "president" you care to name.
Or it´s conmen in the congress for that matter.
America is a fake and a fraud from the get-go, and as it stands today it´s willing taxpayers owe the wrongful deaths and displacement of about 7,5 million innocent Iraqi souls. Not to mention what such pathetic excuses for an informed citizenry owe to their own compatriots...
Smart Americans don´t pay taxes to or take any gifts from criminals. They hunt the wicked (it´s fun and everybody can do it!)and eliminate them by the most expedient means available at the time.
This is a war for possession of the planet.
As the situation develops we will have a social-democrat government of, by, and for the peoples of the planet after the removal of the appr. 6000 enemies to human brotherhood...or we will have a holocaust such as not yet been seen brought upon the peoples of the world by the desperate barbarians pretending to be representatives of the peoples will and the needs of the planet.
You live in the greatest country in the world, right Thomas?
Actually, European Socialism work quiet well, and certainly much better than our hyper-capitalism. This is because it benefits the nation as a whole, and not just a handful of people. Probably the primary reason that we have fallen so far behind is that in Europe, such things as higher education (essential to creating a competitive modern workforce) and legitimate job skills training are available to everyone who can do the work, not just the rich. This benefits both the individuals and the nation.
Access to medical care is also essential to the economic stability of a nation. In the US today, fewer and fewer of us can obtain health care, and are a single illness or injury away from losing everything. European Socialism isn't utopia, but it works far better than what we have in the US today, and the payoff is a much more productive working class.
sprinkling socialism into this failed, corrupt, greedy, toxic form of capitalism will be the only thing that will save our freedoms.
Amen brother. I for one am thrilled that we might return to having pride for the socialist policies which have done so much good for this country.
I will take the faulty "democratic socialism" of many European countries over the distorted, oligopoly, laissez-faire system we have here any day. Take it from me, I lived, worked and paid taxes there for over five years.
The proletarian revolution does not have to be a violent sudden revolution, it can come in the form of incremental steps. Of course that means partial abandonment of Marx's Dialectical Materialism framework.
You have a point about violence by the Capitalist classes, the modern nation-state exists only to protect their interests. If you are referring to full-blown mature socialism in the Marxian sense, you are correct. We might be nearing the point when capitalism reaches its final phase (but this was predicted by some decades ago) where no more markets can be exploited, capital is concentrated into very few hands. We'll see, I hope it can be peaceful, but like you said there is no precedent for it
Revolution has consistently failed in the past to deliver what revolutionairies have hoped for certain obvious reasons:
1. Failed political systems necessary to bring about revolution create self-defeating circumstances for would be successors.
2. Political chaos invites repressive forces into the political arena promising to stem the tide.
3. Violence is destructive of assets and persons needed to support any political improvements that might come about.
Many other issues influence the actual outcomes of particular revolutions deemed successful – French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Cuban Revolution, but these issues have affected them all.
If a revolution should break out, be ready, but don't disdain what can be achieved because it's not "revolutionary," and don't suppose a revolution will break out just because it ought to. Always remember that the Nazis are just as ready to present themselves as revolutionaries, but the Nazi narrative is easier to understand and therefore more likely to win.
Is the far-right fascist-elite narrative really easier to understand?
The fascist/fauxist narrative is a massively confusing/contradicting right-wing doctrine and/or pseudo-left triangulating collusion, all fueled by mind-crippling negative emotions of greed, hate, and envy.
In contrast, the far left people's narrative is easy for a grasshopper to understand. It's driven by wisdom, reason and love for the benefits/outcomes of our public/private policies. First we re-define left/right to make sorting things easy. Left is moral, right is amoral. Second, we support policies in proportion to their leftness. Damn simple. There's no debate. Everyone agrees.
I'm a little wary of such black and white dichotomies, however, I do see your point.
The way I see the difference: Left - the better off we all are, the better off we all are. Right - the better off I am, the better off I am.
So, in a way, I agree with your first proposal. Actually, I agree with your second proposal, save the fact that we're all really not going to be at the same place at the same time. While you may be ready to support policies because of their leftness, others on the left may not be at that place. It's a tough call, because that's where the left historically falls into bitter internecine warfare, eating their own as the left is wont to do.
So, yeah, let's support leftness, but let's also realize that some are ahead of us and some behind us.
Condition 1 is not political as such, it is infrastructural. When the French peasants rioted for bread, it was because the system for providing bread had already broken down. When Russia was in a shambles, the system had already broken down. A revolution might succeed, but immediately it has the real problem of accomplishing the miraculous restoration of a production system that has failed.
As for condition 2, building a "true revolutionary" party as the leader implies a single party will take charge after the revolution. Inflamed hysteria about the unity of the nation and the charge of partisan treason was characteristic of the formation of parties in the US, France, and Russia after their revolutionary events. What is "truly revolutionary" the day after the revolutionary party takes power?
Condition 3 speaks to why we should achieve what can be achieved today. The demands of the public do not become more progressive under conditions of retrenchment, like today, but when conditions are more "liberal." The optimism awakened under JFK was the end product of long years of rising standards of living. In order to become "revolutionary," society must first become "liberal." The alternate condition dims the hope for revolution which is perceived and presented as a bad example that failed. People will become desperate under repression, but desperation offers poor prospects for revolutionary achievement.
This was an extremely thoughtful and historically informed comment, points 1 & 2 especially (3 only applies under certain circumstances). Thanks for posting it.
The classic Marxist notion of a "world revolution", *in practice*, needs to be almost simultaneous in every advanced capitalist country. Otherwise the revolution will fall prey to the things you mention, and will take several generations to deliver on its promises, assuming it is ever able to. The somewhat revised Leninist notion of revolution on the other hand definitely falls prey to the list of things you mentioned.
This is true even of revolutions which are not truly socialist, but merely implement some fairly radical reforms. The Paris Commune is an example. Guatemala under Arbenz and Chile under Allende are two more. All overthrown in very bloody episodes of reaction.
I think that Yugoslavia might furnish an example that defies your list of circumstances. However, as the NATO bombing of that country under Clinton demonstrates, it was probably only the semi-protection of the USSR that ever prevented a Western attack on the extremely successful market socialist society created there.
As a final note, I would like to point out that people seldom appreciate how greatly Lenin revised Marxist thought regarding "revolution". Marx and Engels were very open to gradual "revolution" (I'll leave it to you to decide exactly what this seemingly contradictory idea really means), as demonstrated by several quotes:
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, *by degree*, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class.."--Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto, emphasis added
"And lastly, the possessing class rules directly through the medium of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class, in our case, therefore, the proletariat, is not yet ripe to emancipate itself, it will in its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one possible and, politically, will form the tail of the capitalist class, its extreme Left wing. To the extent, however, that this class matures for its self-emancipation, it constitutes itself as its own party and elects its own representatives, and not those of the capitalists. Thus, universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more, in the present-day state; but that is sufficient. On the day the thermometer of universal suffrage registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do."--Engels, Origins of the Family
"Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."--Engels, Principles of Communism
"Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."--Engels, Principles of Communism
I don't think that Marx and Engels were as reformist as those quotes make them seem at first glance (bear in mind that Marx somewhat contemptuously said that "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"), but I also think that this side of M & E has been more or less completely forgotten over the decades.
I don't mean to imply that M & E did not appreciate the importance of political revolution. But economics--or social revolution--was of the foremost importance for them.
So I have little doubt that they would have preferred a country which takes an electoral route to attacking private property--in other words, a social revolution without a political revolution--over a political revolution by a "Communist" party that ends up preserving private property and taking anti-working class measures like banning strikes (as the young Maoist government in Nepal has done). That said, they probably would have criticized the shortcomings of both. Political revolution as the be-all, end-all, even over social revolution, is a Leninist notion and nowhere to be found in Marx.
Watch out Repubs you are making the idea of "socialism" respectable.
One big problem. The Republicans are thoroughly corrupt. The Democrats are corrupt. In Britain the Labour Party is corrupt. How do you have a party that isn't corrupt?
All Democratic Socialism really means is that the top 10% steal and hoard just a little bit less. Is that so much to ask? We're not saying stop exercising your, er, right to be pathologically greedy - we're saying just be a tiny bit less pathologically greedy. Why is that so f@#king difficult...?
Frank..I guess we could say that the top 10% steal 10% less..lol
It would require a lot of typing to comment on this particular article...Many, many paragraphs..lol..Interesting, thought provoking...But.....lets just say it would certainly make for some interesting comments....
"Democrat Socialist Party."
Interesting...But...it wouldn't sell... The word socialist is not American.[expressed with humor] Americans have been taught to love everything American and distrust anything that is not...(not in our experience)..In that regard Americans are pretty conservative....(Our values...Our way of Life..etc...etc)
As with GOP propaganda of late, it is off-chord and denotes a peculiar myopia that is at once arrogant and ignorant. The proper name, as is applied in most of Western Europe (minor adjustments for American English writing style included), is Social Democratic Party.
Perhaps this whole muddled misnaming exercise by the GOP is a sign of their membership knowing deep down (and resisting like crazy) that they need to become a European style center-right party, or face a long, slow, & painful decline to obscurity a la their predecessors, the Whigs.
Nate is correct, the Social Democratic Party (or in some countries just plain Socialist Party) is the proper nomenclature. Although the center right parties (like the CDA of NL, The CDU of Germany) are well to the left of the Republicans, they are loosely called "Christian Democrats" that would be a fitting name for a moderate Repbulican, center-right party.
I TOTALLY AGREE!!
Repukicans should be ashamed to be called Republicans. I'm proud to be a Democratic Socialist Progressive Liberal!
In the USA especially, the technical term 'socialism' has become so misused and distorted, usually for scare purposes by the political Right, that it has come to colloquially mean: ANY policy, economic or social, which is disliked by the wealthy class and the political Right.
But in western political theory (absent Scientific Socialism), the terms 'socialism' and 'capitalism' refer only to a polity's official/dominant economic system, wherein 'socialism' means: dominant PUBLIC ownership of the means of production and 'capitalism" means: dominant PRIVATE ownership of same.
With perhaps the single exception of Cuba, no western polity practices or officially advocates 'dominant public ownership of the means of production,' including those episodically-governing political parties in Europe and Latin America that call themselves socialist.
And no major nation on earth, with the quasi-exception of the PRC, any longer practices or advocates 'Scientific Socialism' (wherein a single political party, acting allegedly in the name of a People's Revolution, "owns" and controls both the political and economic institutions.)
Democratic modifications to the rules governing private capital economies yield what political theorists sometimes call 'mixed economies,' and such rules are clearly necessary to prevent private capital from becoming economically and politically tyrannical.
For the US Right to equate a 'mixed economic system' such as all western democracies now have in varying degrees, with 'socialism' (i.e., with dominant public ownership of the means of production), is a purposeful lie, clearly designed to evoke comparisons with the earlier horrors of Soviet or Chinese Marxism/Leninism --- thus to thwart any popular challenge to [what otherwise becomes] the Total Rule of society by private capital and its moneyed elite.
What the author of the above article calls 'democratic socialism,' is unfortunately itself a misnomer.
He, like all others who see the need for a workable balance between public and private power, is simply advocating for more public power to be balanced against the now-dominant and ruinous power of private wealth and greed.
So, what the author advocates is by no stretch socialism: it is at best a modest approach to re-balancing a badly imbalanced 'mixed system.'
But even this suggestion is too much for the hysterical, elitist
Right.
Just like Leninists did in the former USSR, Rightist/capitalists in the USA want absolute control of both the economy and the political structure.
Lunatics Left and Right ---and all cut from the same twisted psychological cloth.
Can we say "Republican Oligarchy" or "Republican Plutocracy" ?
Sioux Rose
PANDA: Provocative post.
Rule by a political party in the name of the working class is not what "scientific socialism" means. It's not even close. The term was coined when Lenin was yet 10 years old:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
I agree with much of the rest of your post.
Democratic Socialism ??? I don't get it. Why is everyone so afraid to just come out of the closet and join the REAL Socialist Party - that's the one that has NO affiliation with the Democrats. You, too, can get one of those red cards to carry in your wallet.
Just think about it, if more had voted for the Socialists on the ballot we would now be on our way to having a Single Payer Health care system, Gitmo would no longer exist, and we would be shutting down the 700+ bases on foreign soil.
Good point, but with the two-party stanglehold of our political process, it will be very difficult to elect an aleternative party of any sort. Anyone who does not toe the corporate line is shut out, squelched, ignored and smeared by the MSM. Without media coverage and tens of millions of dollars to buy the election, how can anyone win in our largely un-regulated system win a major election? Besides, we don't have Proportionate Representation, we have regressive winner-takes-all (or as the British call it: first past the post). We need to demand electoral reform as well. The corrupt system is rigged to favor those with 100s of millions in corporate backing and the support of the MSM. Remember what happened to Dennis K., Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader etc.?
-but with the two-party stanglehold of our political process, it will be very difficult
What is your point socialist? It will be difficult? What is the alternative to voting out the Rs and Ds? sitting in your armchair until Martians land and whisk them away? Of course they are going to fight back. Why wouldn't they? They have everything to lose, and the majority of Americans, everything to gain.
Of course they will squelch, shut out and ignore you. All you have is your vote. The corporate party can buy all the advertisements in the world, but they can't take your vote. It is for you to give.
There are serious connections to election systems and party outcomes. As I mentioned above, we don't have PR here. A PR system makes it possible for multiple parties to gain seats in the legislature, with WTA/FPP systems this is very rare.
We also have no regulation on air time, and very little regulation on money spent. In almost all cases, the candidate with the most money wins. Don't blame me, that's just reality. If the system produces piss poor results, why keep the system? Why expect our system to produce meaningful choice? Since when has it in the last 60 years? If the car is only running on 3 out of 8 cylinders, why not get a new one?
We can argue in circles here: if no one knows who you are, how can you get elected? Then there are the psychological/strategic voting methods with WTA/FPP systems, if you don't vote for the winner, your vote is wasted, it does not count. Think about this just for a moment.
In short my point is we have to abolish the corrupt elections system as that is the core of democratic process. Without that, this is only a sham PR stunt democracy.
-In short my point is we have to abolish the corrupt elections system as that is the core of democratic process. Without that, this is only a sham PR stunt democracy.
I agree, socialist but someone reading your post might come to the conclusion that there is some way to "abolish" the system without getting politicians, who want to do that, elected.
Yes it is a difficult vicious circle, but that is the situation Americans have placed themselves. Difficult, but it is possible.
You didn't "magically" abolish slavery for Africans and then elect politicians who were against slavery, right? You elected politicians who were against slavery and they abolished it.
But bigger numbers of third party voting is a key part of how we will build momentum to "abolish the corrupt elections system". Conservatives (I use this term broadly, to refer to people who resist change) will always be able to argue that we have a two-party system because the two parties together represent the American people perfectly. The only way to deny them this argument is to lay down an irrefutable number--say one million--that shows just how many people are actually discontented with the two evil twins.
Think of how much the Democratic partisans have attacked those who voted for Nader in 2000. But they can't erase that number.
Eugene Debs got a million votes--twice (1912 and 1920). Populist candidates have also done very well historically speaking.
Ron Paul's campaign (and I hate Ron Paul...) proves the potential power of grassroots fund raising. So the incredible success of Ross Perot cannot be written off as entirely impossible when not funded by personal wealth.
If we want to change the electoral system, we have to demonstrate American voter discontent with it. How better than getting a large bloc of third party votes? The fact that in the current system these were votes which represented a conscious throwing away of one's vote, can only strengthen the perception of discontent.
Democratic Socialism or a Social Democracy doesn't have to do with a particular party.
It means that the form of decision-making is still a democratic one, but the government, with revenue from taxpayers' incomes, creates the programs for the citizenry that ensures their well-being from cradle to grave.
Social Security is a socialistic program. Hurrah for it! Thank you, FDR.
Maybe the Democrats* would have to rename themselves to something like NOODLES [cooked ones], and the Republicans could call themselves UNCOOKED NOODLES.
-----------
*Briefly an Independent, then a Democrat for a long time, I'm going back to Independent.
-----------
At this time still, using the name Socialist Party shoots one in the foot. For the old-time bozos in Congress, and for a good percentage of the population Socialism was/and still is equated with Communism. And any Socialist gaining power in the polls will be crucified as all the old stuff, including Joseph McCarthy time, will be brought up and whipped into hysteria. That's real.
Decades from now, maybe.
We need more Progressive Democrats, but they still are called Democrats.
Regardless, until we get the enormous Corporate Money contributions out of the political arena to elect their person of choice, the system remains broken.
Maybe it will only be out of really Hard Times that a new animal will emerge, hopefully a sturdy, but benign one.
peace, cm
Obama is turning out to be just another paid for flunky of the top 2%. It's obvious NOBODY prepared to bring about REAL CHANGE gets anywhere near a Presidential election , anymore. If it happens it's a mistake.