EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Progressives Must Push Back From Below
Obama's wooing of “economic royalists” is recipe for disaster and represents indefensible status quo
What a different Democratic president we have today.
For two years -- from putting Wall Street operatives at the top of his economic team to signaling that he'll go along with extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- Barack Obama has increasingly made a mockery of hopes for a green New Deal.
The news from the White House keeps getting grimmer. Since the midterm election, we're told, Obama has concluded that he must be more conciliatory toward the ascendant Republican leadership in Congress -- and must do more to appease big business.
Fifteen days after the election, the Washington Post reported that Obama -- seeking a replacement for departing top economic adviser Lawrence Summers -- "is eager to recruit someone from the business community for the job to help repair the president's frayed relationship with corporate America."
The last thing we need is further acquiescence to the economic royalists. What we need is exactly the opposite: leadership to push back against the Republican Party's right-wing ideologues and the forces they represent.
We need principled backbones in high places -- and much stronger progressive activism at the grassroots.
In moral and electoral terms, the status quo is indefensible. Economic realities include high unemployment, routine home foreclosures, huge tax breaks for large corporations, and widening gaps between the wealthy and the rest of us -- in tandem with endless war and runaway military spending.
Escalation of warfare in Afghanistan is running parallel to escalation of class war -- waged from the top down -- in Washington. The presidentially appointed co-chairs of the deficit commission, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, are pushing scenarios that would undermine Social Security.
Let's get a grip on matters of principle.
More and more warfare in Afghanistan? Extending massive tax cuts for the wealthy? Promoting plans to slash Social Security and Medicare? Pretending that "clean coal" is not an oxymoron? Failing to uphold habeas corpus and other precious civil liberties? . . .
The best way to fight the Republican Party is to stop giving ground to it.
The best way to defeat right-wing xenophobic "populism" is to build genuine progressive populism. In the process, we can draw on the spirit of the New Deal.
Back in the 1930s, millions of progressive activists -- under all sorts of names -- fought for economic equity, while FDR became willing to make common cause with them. Today, our scope of understanding has grown to include more dimensions of social justice and ecological imperatives.
These days, progressives have plenty of reasons to feel discouraged. But we have a lot more good reasons to rededicate ourselves to the vital tasks ahead.
A much better world is possible.
Si se puede!
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
154 Comments so far
Show AllThe word 'progressive' means absolutely nothing. That's why this article is so vapid. The are no statistics about how many 'progressives' exist in this country. I would argue that a better measure of who 'gets it' would be to simply count up the number of people who are registered Green, Peace & Freedom, etc. It is a tiny number, but those are the people who did NOT get fooled by Obama. Norm cannot, of course, count himself among my definition of 'progressive.' He is one of the dupes.
It means much more than I have time at the moment to discuss. But most that I've met have been committed to positive, practical change that seeks to lift all boats regardless of ideology.
I too, have been confounded by the usage of the word progressive and I am certainly disinclined to determine just how many might be in the voting population. I do find it funny that Beck labels it as pathogenic...and gets away with it with nary a peep of a counter-narrative. It is probably just a marketing term.
That's because it is a tactic of divide and conquer to take words you can rally behind (socialism, communism) and turn them into words without meaning, new words with new letter and everything.
Thucydides wrote about that happening to Greek society during the Peloponnesean War, and how it was used to eventually cover for naked murder and theft.
Words are meaningless.
Truth is a trust between friends and loved ones.
Otherwise, believe none of what you hear (or read). Let actions speak the truth.
How's this for a litmus test: If you voted for Obama (or Hillary), you're a dupe, not a progressive.
If you go around calling people dupes, that's a great way to assure that your movement will never grow.
Sorry, not really trying to grow any movements. Just call it as I see it. If you still think Democrats can be "pushed" to the left, you're a dupe. Personally, I'm hoping this nation will pull a USSR by collapsing and splitting up. That's a movement I'd join.
downtownwalker,
I voted for Obama and wasn't thrilled about it either. If you look at the actual election results, it wasn't all that much of a runaway for Obama. Out of roughly just under 130 million votes cast, the difference between Obama and McCain was less than 10 million.
There were a host of reasons why people voted for Obama and not all without reason. For older folks, they still have memories of what the Democrats used to be. For others, they were in states that went narrowly to McCain. For still others Nader wasn't even on the ballot.
One of the big drawbacks facing any of these third party presidential candidates is that you really need to build a political party (or movement) from the ground up - and that means getting people on city councils, in state legislatures, governorships, and in Congress. Without this broad backing an outside presidential candidate will never stand a chance in this country - not with winner take all.
Heard it all before. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, don't be surprised when your government becomes evil. Americans are stupid and lazy and get what they deserve, and until that changes, which it won't in my lifetime, it will just be more of the same. When the people demand change, change cannot be stopped.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you didn't elect the evil. The parties presenting the candidates did.
Blaming anyone from the disenfranchised left for what's been happening in US politics in the last 20 years is simply blaming the victim. Its not the electorate's fault that our options have been dwindling and getting more and more deplorable: Our system is fixed, and one of -the worst- in the world when it comes to getting the most qualified candidates -to even run- for office, let alone get elected. And the one way to fix this 'fixed' system, is IRV.
Blaming each other is a waste of time. Fighting for IRV, and against computer tallied vote counting are the only fights we on the left should be picking on this issue.
http://www.fairvote.org
"Fighting for IRV, and against computer tallied vote counting are the only fights we on the left should be picking on this issue."
I'm with you on IRV but on computers, make the Operating System a UNIX based platform instead of Microsoft and computer tallied should improve I think.
Voting doesn't require complicated computation. Computers are not required, and are not helpful or reliable for tallying votes. There are far more elegant, less costly, and more democratically sound options available, and I think the average voter should have a right to a election process that utilizes technology whose internal workings they can clearly understand and trust.
However, computerized voter-interfaces themselves are not my larger concern. A device that is accessible to the disabled, or the elderly etc, is not a problem, so long as the results of one's vote are easily and clearly verifiable by the voter themselves, and that the tallying of the votes are clearly traceable and again verifiable by physical, non digital means.
However, being an incrementalist and a daily computer user and ex-pc owner, and I'll vouch that any move away from MS systems is generally a good idea, so your idea has my endorsement.
Those in power and the corporate media pundits who propagate the dominating narratives surely have rendered the word, progressive, to be meaningless. This isn't the first time they have manipulated and debased the English language to disguise their rapacious way of being.
Orwell wrote a wonderful essay on the manipulation of language called, "Politics and the English Language."
I think it is safe to add the word progressive to the first sentence of this Orwell quote...
"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
Surely, those who control the dominating narrative in America are using their 'own private definition' in a 'consciously dishonest way' to fool the American populace into believing it is 'progressive' to support the Democratic party and the current president who are nothing short of... 'literally, legally, formally, undeniably – packs of war criminals, pledged to the continuation of a rapacious empire of military domination that is killing innocent people, fomenting hatred and extremism, and destabilizing the world.' (1)
(1) Quoted from Chris Floyd's essay, 'Dissatisfied Mind: Flickers of Hope in a Deadly Political Cycle'
Excellent quotes, and point.
Thanks for posting!
I would contend that modern progressives broadly identify with the Social Democrat platform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Progressives generally seek, as I stated above, practical and positive solutions to our worlds problems, respecting peoples differences, and expecting incremental changes to be more effective and long-lasting than fast, radical change.
Therefore, much of progressivism is processional. The solutions we are seeking are often better ways doing things, and not far-flung final solutions, or specific ideologies. We'll know we're on the road to progress not just by traveling in one direction defined a priori in advance.
The above is likely the main reason for such difficulty defining the word.
I also think that much of what defines progressivism is internally nuanced, and on the surface contradictory. This is because I think modern progressivism embraces (in general) a more syncretic approach to politics, and philosophy. We are willing to take the time and effort to understand and support nuanced positions.
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)
I know I've been hammering away on this stuff, but I feel its incredibly important people start familiarizing themselves with the above.
In 2008, when I voted for Obama, I had hoped we would be getting another FDR, but instead, in Obama, we have a beached whale.
Obama has proven himself like nearly all other Democrats in recent years, a gutless wonder.
Which is why I voted straight Green Party ticket in this year's midterms.
I did not leave the Democratic Party, it left me.
If Obama were simply gutless we would be in much better shape...gridlock is always preferrable to selling out.
Pick any issue and Obama has zealously fought to enhance corporate power and fortunes at our expense.
Obama has not only proven not to be the new FDR, he has proven to be the new Herbert Hoover.
He's the new GW Bush. We can't even call him Bush Lite any more. He's Bush. Right down to the war crimes.
Got it in one, direct and to the point, just another crony capitalist whore to the insurance companies, banks, and MIC.
"The best way to fight the Republican Party is to stop giving ground to it."
Don't tell us. Tell that to the Democrats in Congress and to President Obama.
"A much better world is possible."
Yep, and it all starts by joining the Green Party for a Green New Deal.
Yes, lets replace Obama's New Steal with the Green New Deal.
Norman, As long as you continue being a "good Democrat," you will be part of the "faux progressive" movement, which isn't going anywhere to fast.
You know better, but it takes personal courage and true conviction of one's values to break from a corrupt system and "stand alone" in that same room of conventional status quo people.
Better to be unpopular, standing up for the right things, than to "get along" with those who are misleading the public with false promises.
We hear and read almost every day the excuses and apologies from the Obamabots on CD and elsewhere.
I have written to Dennis Kucinich, that if he wanted to be taken seriously, and build the rank and file with voting power, he needs to leave the Democratic Party. I asked him to join us Greens. Will you?
yes - I did. I voted Green all the way ( as much as I could) and am done with the game players. And I am tired of people asking concerned folks who understand what is going on to" Push back from below". I have done that to no effect. Were I to try and do that in the streets, the police which is now equipped like an army, would stop me in no time.
shipleye: Good for you! I even voted for a few Democrats who share our values and have worked for these principles over the years. You're right about not trying to "push back from below." It hasn't worked, and is just a stalling tactic.
PEACEMAN: I will. SALUSA came up with a petition aimed in that direction. I think GRAYSON is another 'candidate' for the NEW CAUSE. Maybe it should be called The Honest Party! The Greens stand for all the things I believe in; but in a sense, they've been hurt by the right wing smear machine. Would it dare go after The Honest (or Honesty?) Party? What would that say about them?
Siouxrose: Thank you! Let the right wing smear us all they want...hey, the Democrats smear us too! Even if there was a party called The Honest (or Honesty?) Party, they would smear it as well.
It's a shame about Grayson. Hmmm? How are the votes counted in his Congressional District? By optical scanners or touch screen machines fed into a computer?
Hello Siouxrose,
If you organize person to person in communities and workplaces you don't have to worry so much about media smears, because people KNOW who you are.
We are never going to win the media wars. We don't have the money. Isn't it time we turned to our neighbors?
Re:"Isn't it time we turned to our neighbors?"
Amen brother.
LaurenceofBerk & Shawn Berry,
This is where it is at. You hit the nail on the head. We don't need analysis. Plenty of intelligent folks on this site have clearly stated the problems over and over and over again. Enough of that now. Further, we don't need to alienate each other by calling names or suggesting that someone's intentions are foolhardy or suspect or worse. We don't need to analyze each other either. Lastly we don't need to worry about third parties, Green or otherwise. We have worked this question to death as well.
What to do? Just get out and talk to neighbors. A third party or whatever is going to happen and will happen when people just get together to talk about the problem in good faith. Others will recognize the good faith. We all understand the principle: By their works will you know them. Trust the masses. They are not so stupid as those of us who are frustrated want to believe. If we even think of them as "sheeple", we turn them off. Why be condescending? What makes us so high and mighty? It is easy to find fault. There are plenty of folks who have found all kinds of failings in Jesus of Nazareth.
Look. We have problems. Big, big problems. The vast majority of us have big, big problems. We all know that. So just get together to talk. It is time to be ONE again. One with one another. Just listen and speak when you have a turn. Your neighbors, your fellow writers here on CD, even Republicans, Tea Partiers, folks from Kansas & Utah, folks in small town USA, Joe Sixpacks, long hairs, socialists,Libertarians, K-Mart and Walmart shoppers, high school dropouts, nerds, engineers, immigrants, gays, public school teachers, coal miners, hot rod enthusiasts, motorcyclists, hikers and backpackers, runners, gardeners, dancers and musicians, mathematicians, Luddites, and survivalists are our allies and friends. Friends. Think about it. We will get by with a little help from our FRIENDS.
Time to talk. Talk in the quads, talk in the malls, talk in the grandstands and the ball parks, talk at dinner parties, talk over back fences, talk at Starbucks, talk on hiking trails, talk at PTA meetings, union meetings, church meetings, on the commuter buses, at farmers' markets, at the symphony, at intermissions in the theaters, in elevators, in office lunchrooms and break rooms, at waiting rooms in hospitals or doctors' offices or auto lube shops.
Talk. Talk. Talk.
Talk FACE to FACE. Not Facebook and Twitter. Talk FACE to FACE. Not by cellphone or instant messaging. Talk FACE to FACE.
And then go get more people to join in the conversation.
It will work. It is probably the only thing that will work.
Talk now and every day. Encourage friends to do the same. Invite others whom you would never even imagine talking to, to do the same.
And then talk some more.
Discover once again the mystery and wonder of life. The "Beyond in the midst of us". The "I and Thou". "Where two or three are gathered together in his name." Be the butterfly wing on the other side of the planet.
This will not stop in America. You will save the world.
Talk.
For all of you who have contributed so much to this site over a long period of time, I thank you. I have greatly appreciated having this place to come to read and sort through issues for myself with your help. You have helped so much. Thank you.
And thank you to Norm Solomon as well.
Now, please, I am asking you to talk more beyond CD and face to face.
Please.
All the best
NOA 5:23 excellente!
Ignoring the fact that the duopoly has the means of information dissemination in its hands is not going to solve the problem. Face-to-face communication, while ideal for much of the day-to-day organizing that still must take place on a wide-scale level (so I'm not disputing this fact) is only the beginning of effecting the changes needed. Eventually, if you're face-to-face communication has any success, an apparatus must be created to coordinate the cause to higher and higher levels of effectiveness and prominence, and to help it become the new infrastructure that replaces the outmoded, old infrastructure.
RE: "Lastly we don't need to worry about third parties, Green or otherwise. We have worked this question to death as well."
We certainly do. The Democratic Party is dead set against the reform and progressive solutions the people have already expressed they would be willing to support. Just as in the case of health care reform... the popular support was there, progressives spoke face-to-face, and it didn't matter.
Without progressive and left-wing consolidation, and without a central, leftist platform, and apparatus from which to operate and coordinate, all the ground level organizing you are talking about will amount to basically nothing. You do mention that a 3rd party will arise of its own, contradicting somewhat the idea that this question has been worked to death. It may have been worked to death, I grant that. What it needs is to be worked to life. Without central organizing, a basis for left and Liberal solidarity, and our own information dissemination network, this idea will just get worked to death again.
We need a banner to organize under. I have proposed the revival of the American Progressive Party, not as a seamless continuation of the previous party of Teddy Roosevelt, but a modern party designed to be a lean mean fighting machine, representing the spirit of the New Deal, and using only the latest and best theories, science and minds at our disposal.
Other party banners that might draw wide support for our side:
"The Clean Party" A broad based party focused on getting all Americans to clean up – all metal, waste and industrial junk across the nation would need to be recycled before new resources taken from the Earth. Our penal system shifting from inmates serving time, to serving the people. All politicians to be videoed, and mic'd at all times while serving the public. No security secrets, except for in regard to immediate and 'live' threats. Pure transparency, pure cleanliness. A push for zero ecological impact by 2100.
"The Imagine Party" A broad based party focused on culture, media and the arts, meant to attract a wide variety of high-profile progressive luminaries who also are gifted at messaging (i.e. actors, comedians, musicians etc). Propelled by music concerts, benefit rallies and numerous other highly publicized events, the idea here is to organize wide masses of people by presenting politics outside the normal political idiom, and inside a natural crowd gathering idiom. The three faces of the Imagine Party Int'l: John Lennon, Bob Marley, and Mahatma Gandhi. The three faces of the Imagine Party USA: ... taking suggestions.
The notion here is that a populist face, and populist message, but backed by serious, forward thinking and sustainable goals will be the most effective way to organize a jaded and discouraged electorate.
Finally (to all):
There is only one reason why 3rd Parties are not a viable option in modern America: No wide support for IRV!
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting
Fight for IRV to be allowed in 2012 TODAY! (and yes, just get the word out by lots of face-to-face conversation!
If you two "civil activists" want to enter the Bible belt and do the door to door, good luck to you. You'll probably end up shot.
I am now reading, "American Fascists," by Chris Hedges. You fellows need to do some REAL reading IF you really want to understand the mindset that is NOT interested in facts at all. You like to criticize the lofty aspirations of New Age types; well, a few in this forum throw out rosy sentiments about reaching across the political aisle. This is HOSTILE turf. Sure, on a very primal level we DO have common interests and what should be a common political cause. However, until you pierce the mindset of these true believers, you are CLUELESS as to what it means to "organize your neighbors." I honestly don't think it's possible in many regions. And I don't recall which poster pointed it out recently, referring to a relative who resides in Europe... but they offered an observation that I have also related in this forum: that we are IN a Civil War in everything but officially stated endorsement.
Since the pen is mightier than the sword, and all the money that just went into media campaigns to create specific outcomes shows the power of that vehicle... I will stick with writing. That's what I do. If YOU want to go door to door, bravo to you both. There IS no common cause possible with those who want to turn this nation into a 17th century Christian Theocracy. It's INSANE how far they've managed to snake in that objective.
"If you two "civil activists" want to enter the Bible belt and do the door to door, good luck to you. You'll probably end up shot."
I have friends and relatives who live in the bible belt and they don't get shot for going door to door on discussing issues. I've seen your posts in the past and I'm sorry that you're coming from an area that is redneck conservative but maybe you made some mistakes somewhere. Giving up and closing the doors is unhelpful.
"I am now reading, "American Fascists," by Chris Hedges. You fellows need to do some REAL reading IF you really want to understand the mindset that is NOT interested in facts at all."
Reading books like from Hedges is good to inform but we're all open to different interpretations and Chris Hedges knows that not everyone will necessarily clone your thinking after his reading his books. It's like imitating a silly kids' cereal commercial as if one spoonful of Frosted Flakes will make you a strong athlete instantly.
"You like to criticize the lofty aspirations of New Age types"
I'm open to New Age thinking. Just keep those doors open all the way and see who learns.
"This is HOSTILE turf. Sure, on a very primal level we DO have common interests and what should be a common political cause. However, until you pierce the mindset of these true believers, you are CLUELESS as to what it means to "organize your neighbors." I honestly don't think it's possible in many regions."
Negative thinking. You can't push people to think your way or no way. You have to tolerate some disagreements and forge some compromises. We already know what the believers are thinking. Organizing is all about being open-minded, friendly, and preparing to form alliances starting with common interests and political causes. You're never going to get your perfect wish but why throw allies under the bus like that? It's negative and it's self-defeating.
"Since the pen is mightier than the sword, and all the money that just went into media campaigns to create specific outcomes shows the power of that vehicle... I will stick with writing. That's what I do."
Writing is also a good idea and I commend you for it but not everyone can be writers. But everyone can go door to door.
"There IS no common cause possible with those who want to turn this nation into a 17th century Christian Theocracy."
You can't possibly know that all of them want to do that until you find out first and then try all ideas before throwing in the towel.
Soiuxrose,
I don't know if you saw my exchange with our ever entertaining Horace the other day, but I closed my reply with "Just following in the footsteps of the greatest liberal in recorded history - Jesus of Nazareth."
We need to take back our words and their meanings and fight them with their own beliefs - 'cause they certainly can't honestly sell what they're peddling.
LIBERAL AND PROUD OF IT!
KRAZY: Do you recall which thread the comment was on? I haven't had a chance to review previous ones as I am working on a book, and glad to say it's coming along quite well.
Horace is a plant. He may or may not go by other names. And his backers are part of the same group. I find it endlessly tiring to refute their false claims, strawmen arguments, and general intention to deflect CD threads away from the things that matter.
The general meme up until recently was about giving Obama more time. Now it's about us organizing to work together. AS IF this is not the Titanic... as IF things are not already in stages of coming apart. As if the country is not bankrupt, and guilty of such grotesque karmic trespasses as to require decades, if not centuries, of remedial action to turn the crap around. In fact, more and more, I believe Haiti represents precisely that opportunity. For there, on a neighboring island are people suffering a hell upon earth.... but instead of sending our well-armed, muscular forces into that sector to rebuild, our nation's treasure is spilled on spilling the blood of yet more innocents.
I feel so nauseous with what passes for policy in this DISTURBED nation, that I wonder if I should go on a hunger strike... but would it make a damned bit of difference in the land of the depraved?
"Horace is a plant."
He may say offensive things as a confessed right winger but a plant? How can you be sure? The "I know he's a plant" would only be a personal assumption unless you can prove that he's actually a plant.
"And his backers are part of the same group."
You don't really know who's really who on the internet. You're just making personal guesses. The other day you made an incorrect assumption that I was part of Horace's group when at no time none of my posts could come anywhere close to backing up that allegation.
"Now it's about us organizing to work together."
No, that has always been a progressive idea. To go against that idea is to follow the rugged individualist ideology which I don't think you want.
"I feel so nauseous with what passes for policy in this DISTURBED nation, that I wonder if I should go on a hunger strike... but would it make a damned bit of difference in the land of the depraved?"
You're not the only one disappointed or outraged but what are we supposed to do? Get emotional and not get together to fix the problem? Never let emotions damage good thinking.
Horace is not a plant. He is a dime-a-dozen run-of-the-mill spouter of right wing talking points.
Here is how to deal with them:
1. Refute their so-called arguments. That should be child's play. If it isn't, then you need to get your own political thinking in order. Many liberals have difficultly refuting right wing talking points and get frustrated because they actually share most of the premises and assumptions of the right wingers, and so are their own worse enemies.
2. Ignore them. All of the right wing talking points are designed to get frantic had wringing reactions from liberals. If no one reacted, they would lose all power. Reacting to them gives them power and legitimacy. Nothing lost bu ignoring them. This idea that they MUST be refuted and beaten sends us on a fool's errand. You cannot defeat ideas that do not exist, that are merely parroted talking points designed to be confusing and illogical and to prevent or sabotage any intelligent discussion.
3. Talk about them, about the role they play in politics and how and why what they are doing works, as I am doing here.
If liberals and progressives were not so confused - denying class struggle, refusing to take a stand on one side or the other - they could effortlessly crush the right wing arguments, and eventually - although this would be a struggle and require sacrifice, and liberals and progressives are always looking for a safe and easy "middle" road, a way out of the dilemma - they could defeat the people the right wingers are shilling for in the real world.
Push back from below, indeed:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/
606/petition-to-initiate-a-progressive-coalition-representing-the-marginalized-left-and-restoring-the/
I've been busy the last couple days. No, I don't blog professionally. Progressives need to gather much more momentum than we have been if we're going to turn our constant disappointments into some real change -we- can believe in.
Salusa, we already have a progressive party, it's called the Green Party. Why try to create another one? If anything, progressives ought to work on coalition building, bringing together the Greens, Peace & Freedom, environmental, minority and consumer groups into one cohesive coalition that could run candidates nationwide and challenge the duopoly.
That's true and then there's the Socialist Party. The Green Party is one of the main third parties and the others are minor I think. It would be great to bring them all together under the Green Party.
The Green party platform and positions are at best a subset of Socialist political thinking, not the other way around.
The Socialist Party USA is now a non-player, a dangling residue. In Oregon, most of its leadership joined the Pacific Green Party 10 years ago when the Socialists lost their ballot line.
That's the practicum.
In principle, the Green Party was set up in contrast to the Socialists in Europe, mainly from the peace and environmental movements. Socialist theory grossly overlooked environmental issues. So the Greens are a new thing, in traditional political terms an odd hybrid.
More practicum: in Europe, where they sometimes actually govern, the Socialists have become as sold out as the Democrats here. Remember Tony Blair? Right now, a "Socialist" government in Greece is enforcing neoliberal, reactionary economic policies.
Two Americas and rvwalker, I thought that the Socialist Party (socialistparty-usa.org) was all about labor and wages while the Green Party (gp.org) is that and more.
Ah, yes. Thanks. I see what you mean. That illustrates the danger of thinking within the context of partisan electoral politics.
Socialism is about class struggle. The destruction of the environment by and for the ruling class is but one manifestation of that. The Green party is a grab bag of issues and cause, borrowed from Socialist thinking, that are not woven together in any cohesive or powerful way. The destruction of the environment, and the exploitation of workers are two features of Capitalism and the fight against both are aspects of the class struggle. The Green party is also directed primarily to electoral politics and working within the system. Socialism sees the system as the problem, and while there are Socialist parties and they do run candidates, that is but one small part of the whole.
Organized Labor is about working conditions and wages.
As you might have seen from my earlier posts, socialism looks good and yet a little scary on the drastic change part.
"The Green party is a grab bag of issues and cause, borrowed from Socialist thinking, that are not woven together in any cohesive or powerful way. ... The Green party is also directed primarily to electoral politics and working within the system. "
Whoa ! Really? I don't think Aquifer will be happy to read that. But the Green Party doesn't look like that at all. They look very bright and ready. My fiancee likes the Green Party too because she thinks that me and her could be proud hippie couples. She likes to see what being a hippie girl was like in the 60s.
I think the Green Party is trying to be broad but even that's not working out. The Socialist Party is almost non-existent and I found a couple of other parties with the word "socialist" on them. Can we unite all of those socialist party factions or what?
Break out of the trap of thinking only in terms of parties. That is a dead end.
You remind me of that young lady saying something like that but I don't think she's the only one who'd say something like that on this forum. She would go so far as to say that ideological labels are useless. No party affiliation? No ideological association? She would call herself an independent, lonely but proud. I think she's a lost girl to say stuff like that. I feel sorry for such people. I mean how do you know where to go to for support without a party or ideology to hold onto?
Not clinging to a party or an ideology vastly expands the range of people to whom you can go for support. Almost everyone will be desperately trying to avoid you or run the other way when you are selling or preaching a party or an ideology.
Adhering to parties and ideologies (such as they are) is more prevalent among the relatively well-off. It is a part of being a "winner," a successful upwardly mobile person - a fashion accessory. My goal is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Since progressive and liberal circles are dominated by the comfortable, sparks fly. The comfortable are the least tolerant of any criticism at all - it is not really "affliction" - and make a lot of noise should their opinions be challenged, because that is a challenge to their social status.
The task liberals and progressives assign to themselves is to on the one hand protect and defend (or restore or fix) the existing system, the power structure as it is, while at the same time acknowledging to at least some extent the horrific consequences of the system and "caring" about that. In this way they can both be "winners" and also try to salvage their soul, escape utter moral depravity - at least in their own minds. It is an almost impossible job, and requires a lot of deception and illusion. This leads to a wide range of self-contradictory ideas and activities. Should you challenge any of those ideas, that means then that you are either calling them uncaring, or calling them losers. "Caring winners" is the foundation of their self-identity, so they will perceive having their ideas attacked as an attack on their person, a threat to their core identity. It is not, of course. It is an attack on the chains that bind them. Comfortable chains, but chains nonetheless. They are bound spiritually, intellectually, and creatively to the exact degree that the less fortunate are bound materially. We are all slaves to this one way or another.
Thank you, TA! It is heartening to find somebody here who understands that there will be no great positive changes within their rotten electoral system. One can quickly evaluate the humanitarian quality of a party by asking a simple question: Does their program clearly and coherently lead to universal peace, equality, affluence, and sustainability? The answer is a big, fat NO for all of the parties so far mentioned. There does not exist, even in theory, a capitalist dominated society that can achieve even one of those demands. There is only a communist solution, requiring revolution by organized labour, under the leadership of a Leninist party. The singular task for this moment is to create/build/join/lead that party.