RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Can Bernie and Jeremy Rekindle the Socialist Flame? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2015 11:49

Weissman writes: "Who'd a thunk it? In the good old USA, Senator Bernie Sanders makes a surprisingly credible run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination despite calling himself 'a democratic socialist.' But in supposedly sensible Britain, the Labour Party - which you may remember as socialist - now tears itself apart because someone who really is, a long-time but little-known backbench MP named Jeremy Corbyn, is looking in the latest polls like he's heading for a landslide victory in the race to become party leader."

Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: unknown)
Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: unknown)


Can Bernie and Jeremy Rekindle the Socialist Flame?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

18 August 15

 

ho’d a thunk it? In the good old USA, Senator Bernie Sanders makes a surprisingly credible run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination despite calling himself “a democratic socialist.” But in supposedly sensible Britain, the Labour Party – which you may remember as socialist – now tears itself apart because someone who really is, a long-time but little-known backbench MP named Jeremy Corbyn, is looking in the latest polls like he’s heading for a landslide victory in the race to become party leader.

The Guardian, whose politics you may also have misread from its courageous coverage of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, called anti-socialist Labourites to action on Thursday, running a must-read opinion piece by no less than former prime minister Tony Blair. “Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge,” read the headline. “If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader, the party won’t just face defeat but annihilation. Stop him before it’s too late.”

“The Labour party is in danger more mortal today than at any point in the over 100 years of its existence,” wrote Blair. “The leadership election has turned into something far more significant than who is the next leader. It is now about whether Labour remains a party of government” rather than just a party of protest.

What is Corbyn’s sin? That he refuses to accept any part of the Tory-imposed austerity that destroys growth, kills jobs, runs down public services, slashes the welfare state, sells off public assets, and gives tax cuts to the wealthiest.

Even worse, he has a solid plan to end the entire nightmare. Like former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis in Greece, Corbyn offers the mainstream anti-austerity thinking of John Maynard Keynes – and of Swedish socialists around Gunnar Myrdal, from whom a younger Bernie Sanders learned. When times are bad, borrow or even print money to grow the economy and create good jobs on which working people can live. When good times return, pay back what you borrowed, taking a good chunk of what you need from the people with income and wealth to spare.

This is the beginning – but only the beginning – of what modern socialism should look like, and Corbyn spells it out in an 8-page pamphlet you can read for yourself. Hundreds of thousands of Brits are now joining the Labour Party to support this kind of thinking. Many are young and engaging in politics for the first time, and they prefer his straight-talk to the polished sound-bites of the robotic politicians running against him. “He talks like a human being, about things that are real,” the Guardian itself admitted. Or, as humorist Andy Borowitz said of Bernie Sanders, Corbyn “is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth.”

Blair and his camp-followers cannot deny the enthusiasm. But they blithely dismiss Corbyn as yesterday’s man wrapped “in a left-wing comfort blanket” singing “We’ll keep the red flag flying here.” They grossly misrepresent his policies as some know-nothing return to old-fashioned state socialism. And, like vintage red-baiters, they dismiss many of his supporters as part of some grand conspiracy, fueled in part by “the big unions” who he sees “in the grip of the hard left.”

Clearly, some of the new members need vetting, since even the Daily Telegraph urged conservatives to join Labour just to vote in someone they think out-of-touch and unelectable. But, from most reports, the bulk of Corbyn’s support seems real and enthusiastic. Is it enough to win a general election five years from now? No one knows, and it isn’t even clear that the 66-year-old Corbyn wants to run. His interest is policy, and his policy can both work and win elections, which is something that was not true of Ed Miliband’s less than full-hearted opposition to austerity.

If Blair and his supporters don’t get their way, the danger is that they will split the Labour Party, as an earlier right-wing faction did in 1981, creating the Social Democratic Party (SDP), most of which later merged with the Liberals. That’s clearly not a threat that will stop Corbyn, who fought Blair every step of the way on Iraq. Nor will it stop Corbyn’s supporters, who have come to see Blair and his New Labour for what they were and are.

Buying into the neo-liberal economics embraced by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and Bill Clinton, Blair & Co. went into business with business, the banks, and the hedge funds. They privatized much of the National Health Service, wrecking what had been Labour’s stellar achievement and demoralizing doctors, nurses, and even administrators around the country. New Labour similarly went along with charter-type “academies,” privatizing a large chunk of public education and demoralizing educators. They went along with the disastrous denationalization of the British railways that John Major had pushed through. And they rebranded Labour as Tory Lite. We do what they do, but we do it better and with more heart.

With Blair or without, it won’t work this time.

One final note: In my next column, I will look at one of the many misrepresentations of Corbyn’s thinking, that he has vowed to bring back the British coal industry. Stay tuned.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trumped-Up Myths and Downright Lies About Immigration Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2015 10:27

Reich writes: "Donald Trump has opened the floodgates to lies about immigration. Here are some trumped-up myths along with the facts."

Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)


Trumped-Up Myths and Downright Lies About Immigration

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

18 August 15

 

onald Trump has opened the floodgates to lies about immigration. Here are some trumped-up myths along with the facts.

  1. MYTH: Immigrants commit lots of crime. FACT: Immigrants don’t commit much crime. Incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population, according to the Justice Department.

  2. MYTH: The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is soaring. FACT: The number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. has declined from 12.2 million in 2007 to 11.3 million now, according to Pew Research Center. Which means the net rate of illegal immigration into the U.S. is less than zero.

  3. MYTH: Most new immigrants are from Mexico. FACT: More people now immigrate into the U.S. from China and India than from Mexico, according to the Bureau of Immigration. The Latin American immigration boom is ending, and the Asian immigration boom is just beginning.

  4. MYTH: The U.S. can’t afford more immigrants. FACT: We can’t afford not to have more immigrants because the U.S. population is aging. Twenty-five years ago, each retiree in America was matched by 5 workers. Now for each retiree there are only 3 workers. Without more immigration, in 15 years the ratio will fall to 2 workers for every retiree, not nearly enough to sustain our retiree population.

Demagogues grow on lies. Spread the truth.

Donald Trump has opened the floodgates to lies about immigration. Here are some trumped-up myths along with the facts....

Posted by Robert Reich on Tuesday, August 18, 2015


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Even One of the Koch Brothers Thinks We Need to End Corporate Welfare Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28610"><span class="small">David Sirota, In These Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2015 08:32

Sirota writes: "Earlier this month, billionaire Charles Koch had a surprising message: In a speech to his fellow conservatives, he said politicians must end taxpayer-funded subsidies and preferential treatment for corporations."

The Koch brothers. (illustration: DonkeyHotey/Flickr)
The Koch brothers. (illustration: DonkeyHotey/Flickr)


Even One of the Koch Brothers Thinks We Need to End Corporate Welfare

By David Sirota, In These Times

18 August 15

 

Charles Koch argued for an end to preferential treatment for corporations—but did he mean it?

arlier this month, billionaire Charles Koch had a surprising message: In a speech to his fellow conservatives, he said politicians must end taxpayer-funded subsidies and preferential treatment for corporations.

Why is this surprising? Because the demand came from an industrialist whose company and corporate subsidiaries have raked in tens of millions of dollars worth of such subsidies.

The Koch-organized conference at a luxury resort in Southern California reportedly attracted roughly 450 conservative donors who have committed to spending nearly $900 million on the 2016 presidential election. The event included appearances by Republican presidential candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

“Where I believe we need to start in reforming welfare is eliminating welfare for the wealthy,” said Koch, who, along with his brother David, is among the biggest financiers of conservative political causes. “This means stopping the subsidies, mandates and preferences for business that enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots.”

Yet, in the last 15 years, Koch's firm Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have secured government subsidies worth more than $166 million, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Good Jobs First. The group says since 1990, Koch-owned properties have received 191 separate subsidies worth a total of $195 million.

Koch Industries and its subsidiaries, which are a privately held, are involved in everything from oil refining to manufacturing to high finance. In 2012, Charles Koch issued a similar jeremiad against government-sponsored subsidies for corporations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he said, “We are on dangerous terrain when government picks winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing favored products and industries.” In his essay, he specifically derided tax credits—yet even after the op-ed, Koch-owned properties accepted more than $77 million worth of such taxpayer-funded preferences from governments, according to Good Jobs First.

Among the biggest subsidies received by Koch-owned companies was a $62 million Louisiana property tax abatement for Georgia Pacific—a paper and chemical conglomerate that was acquired by Koch Industries in 2005. Georgia Pacific also received a separate $11 million tax credit from Louisiana in 2014 to upgrade its facilities.

Since 2007, Good Jobs First says Koch Industries itself has received more than $20 million in subsidies through an Oklahoma program designed to incentivize investment and job creation. Oklahoma’s government website lists more than $28 million in such tax credits to the firm and its subsidiaries.

Koch, it should be noted, is not like other top executives of major corporations. His company is not publicly traded—it is privately held, with most of the company owned by him and his brother, David. That means the Kochs could reject subsidies and not have to justify the move to hordes of shareholders. Instead, though, they have accepted the government support, even as they fund conservative campaigns that deride the influence of government on the economy.

Of course, Koch’s speech certainly did identify a growing trend in America. As Big Business has used campaign cash to secure more control over politics, elected officials have been approving more and more taxpayer subsidies for corporations. Conservative opposition to those expenditures will no doubt be key to reining them in.

However, it is difficult to believe that the head of a company that has benefited from so much taxpayer support is really going to use his political power to end the largesse. In other words: The message may be compelling, but the messenger is not particularly credible.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Amazon Chief Says Employees Lacking Empathy Will Be Instantly Purged Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 17 August 2015 12:55

Borowitz writes: "Saying that he was 'horrified' by a New York Times article recounting callous behavior on the part of Amazon executives, company founder Jeff Bezos warned today that any employees found lacking in empathy would be instantly purged."

Jeff Bezos. (photo: Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Jeff Bezos. (photo: Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Amazon Chief Says Employees Lacking Empathy Will Be Instantly Purged

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

17 August 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


aying that he was “horrified” by a New York Times article recounting callous behavior on the part of Amazon executives, company founder Jeff Bezos warned today that any employees found lacking in empathy would be instantly purged.

In an e-mail to all Amazon employees issued late Sunday evening, Bezos said that the company would begin grading its workers on empathy, and that the ten per cent found to be least empathic would be “immediately culled from the herd.”

To achieve this goal, Amazon said that it would introduce a new internal reporting system called EmpathyTrack, which will enable employees to secretly report on their colleagues’ lack of humanity.

The system will allow Amazon employees to grade their co-workers on a scale from a hundred (nicest) to zero (pure evil), resulting in empathy-based data that will be transmitted directly to Bezos.

Then, through a new program called Next Day Purging, any employee found lacking in empathy will be removed from the company within twenty-four hours of Bezos’s termination order.

“We can’t be the greatest retailer in the world unless we are also the kindest,” Bezos wrote in his e-mail. “So my message to all Amazonians is loud and clear: be kind or taste my wrath. Love, Jeff.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Did the FBI Spy on James Baldwin? Print
Monday, 17 August 2015 12:46

Gold writes: "James Baldwin's FBI file contains 1,884 pages of documents, collected from 1960 until the early 1970s."

James Baldwin. (photo: Ted Thai/Getty Images)
James Baldwin. (photo: Ted Thai/Getty Images)


Why Did the FBI Spy on James Baldwin?

By Hannah K. Gold, The Intercept

17 August 15

 

ames Baldwin’s FBI file contains 1,884 pages of documents, collected from 1960 until the early 1970s. During that era of illegal surveillance of American writers, the FBI accumulated 276 pages on Richard Wright, 110 pages on Truman Capote, and just nine pages on Henry Miller. Baldwin’s file was closer in size to activists and radicals of the day — for example, it’s nearly half as thick as Malcolm X’s.

In his new biography, All Those Strangers, Douglas Field decodes these files with great literary and historical finesse. Baldwin often said that his relation to politics was that of a “witness,” but he was vehemently stalked, harassed and even censored by the FBI. Field asserts that after looking through Baldwin’s FBI file, it’s clear his phone was tapped and that government agents, posing as publishers or car salesmen, followed him as he traveled to France, Britain and Italy.

The biography has landed at a particularly sharp moment in our awareness of government surveillance. We now have not only the National Security Agency and its global spying, but the FBI and local law enforcement agencies targeting political activists, such as supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. And the NYPD, for instance, has its own counterterrorism unit that has surveilled entire communities.

Why did the FBI spy on Baldwin? He was a novelist, essayist and critic, one of the most distinguished writers and thinkers of his time. His skin was black, his sexuality fluid, and his politics tended toward the left, a combination that was enough to turn him into a target for the FBI.

Yet looking at his FBI file, even the most basic facts of his life are riddled with inaccuracies. There is, for instance, a description of Baldwin as “white, early 20s, 6', neat.” In another file, Baldwin is listed as the author of “Go Tell It to the Mountains” and “Another World.” His first and third novels are in fact titled Go Tell It On The Mountain and Another Country. Such baffling errors read like a precursor to the ways in which bulk collection of metadata today often results in wellsprings of misinformation.

The FBI is not alone in trying, albeit comically at times, to identify Baldwin’s fingerprint. His critics and detractors were almost always obsessed with categorizing him too neatly, labeling him a black writer, a gay writer, a religious or a secular writer, an American or an expat. Field’s book as a whole poses the argument that Baldwin’s irreverent humanism evades simple literary detection, and the formerly classified documents fit soundly, even crudely, into this line of thought.

Baldwin is one of those few literary figures who incites commentary in whatever age he’s read, by whomever reads him. Over the course of the last few years, for example, his essays on police brutality (“the police are simply the hired enemies of this population,” he wrote) have been analyzed and instrumentalized for their prescience; they fit into Baldwin’s time as well as ours. The FBI documents have a modern cadence because the injustices of the past have only undergone light revisions.

The FBI’s interest in Baldwin began in 1960 when he was “connected with several Communist Party front groups.” In the following decade, Baldwin was targeted additionally for his ties to civil rights and black power movements. A note from a 1968 document concludes that Baldwin “had joined a growing movement of prominent individuals supporting the struggle of Oakland’s Black Panther Party.” Baldwin befriended some of the most famous black intellectuals and activists of the day, such as Harry Belafonte, Lorraine Hansberry and Nina Simone. He was writing at a time when the FBI, under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover, opened files on some 250 artists, and also at the height of the FBI’s struggle against the Panthers and other black nationalists, through what would be later revealed as its Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO).

Baldwin was incredibly open about his stance on state surveillance. He once called Hoover “history’s most highly paid (and most utterly useless) voyeur.” He also wrote about his experience of being accosted by two agents: In his essay The Devil Finds Work, he wrote that in 1945 the agents walked him out of a diner, stood him against a wall and showered verbal abuse on him, under the pretense of trying to track down a deserter from the Marine Corps. In 1963, he contributed to the satirical collection A Quarter-Century of Un-Americana: A Tragi-comical Memorabilia of HUAC, in which he referred to the House Un-American Activities Committee as “one of the most sinister facts of the national life.” That same year, Baldwin told the New York Times, “I blame J. Edgar Hoover in part for events in Alabama. Negroes have no cause to have faith in the FBI.”

What is perhaps most interesting about the Baldwin dossier is that it reads like a long, poorly written novel itself — it is, in every sense, fiction produced by the state. Field notes that Baldwin’s FBI files, with their rampant inaccuracies, whited-out passages, and oddball observations “resemble difficult modernist texts.” This is generous of Field and points to the intellectual isolation of these documents. To me, the FBI texts are so stilted and boring that they read more like a blathering source code, the chaotic backend of an intelligence that tries to project ideological coherence at all times. There is perhaps a kind of logic to them, though recognizable only to those in the agency.

In contrast, Baldwin’s language — rife with the contradictions of an artist pushing at his limits — will always contain parts unknown, and remain a difficult, rewarding subject of criticism. It’s a sort of literary encryption, but with the tantalizing promise of revelation.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 Next > End >>

Page 2369 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN