Russia Today: Amiri Baraka- 'I Wish The U.S. Was a Communist Country'

Source:Russia Today- Amiri Baraka talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, about communism and socialism.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"Amiri Baraka, a poet and political activist, spoke with RT about communism as a perfect system, as well as about detainee torture in the US and reasons behind America not preventing the 9/11 tragedy." 

From Russia Today 

"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] As such, communism is a specific form of socialism.

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought which broadly include Marxism and anarcho-communism as well as the political ideologies grouped around both, all of which share the analysis that the current order of society stems from capitalism, its economic system and mode of production, namely that in this system there are two major social classes, the relationship between these two classes is exploitative, and that this situation can only ultimately be resolved through a social revolution.[7] The two classes are the proletariat (the working class), who make up the majority of the population within society and must work to survive; and the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), a small minority who derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production. According to this analysis, revolution would put the working class in power and in turn establish social ownership of the means of production which is the primary element in the transformation of society towards communism.[7]

After 1917, a number of states were identified as communist: these states espoused Marxism–Leninism or a variation of it.[8] Along with social democracy, communism became the dominant political tendency within the international socialist movement by the 1920s.[9] The emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally communist state led to communism's widespread association with Marxism–Leninism and the Soviet economic model.[1][a][10] While the term "communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to countries ruled by communist parties, these states themselves did not describe themselves as communist or claim to have achieved communism: they referred to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[11][12][13][14] Terms used by communist states include national-democratic, people's democratic, socialist-oriented and workers and peasants' states.[15] Some economists and intellectuals argue that, in practice, the model under which these nominally communist states operated was in fact a form of state capitalism[16][17][18] or a non-planned administrative or command economy[19][20] and not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of “communism” as an economic theory." 

From Wikipedia 

"Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, there is currently no single definitive Marxist theory.[1]

Some Marxist schools of thought place greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical Marxism while rejecting or modifying other aspects. Some schools have sought to combine Marxian concepts and non-Marxian concepts which has then led to contradictory conclusions.[2] It has been argued that there is a movement toward the recognition of historical and dialectical materialism as the fundamental conceptions of all Marxist schools of thought.[3] This view is rejected by some post-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, who claim that history is not only determined by the mode of production, but also by consciousness and will.[4]

Marxism has had a profound impact on global academia, having influenced many fields, including anthropology,[5][6] archaeology, art theory, criminology, cultural studies, economics, education, ethics, film theory, geography, historiography, literary criticism, media studies,[7][8] philosophy, political science, psychology, science studies,[9] sociology, urban planning and theater." 

From Wikipedia 

"Leninism is a political ideology developed by Russian Marxist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin that proposes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by a revolutionary vanguard party, as the political prelude to the establishment of communism. The function of the Leninist vanguard party is to provide the working classes with the political consciousness (education and organisation) and revolutionary leadership necessary to depose capitalism in the Russian Empire (1721–1917).[1] Leninist revolutionary leadership is based upon The Communist Manifesto (1848) identifying the communist party as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country; that section which pushes forward all others." As the vanguard party, the Bolsheviks viewed history through the theoretical framework of dialectical materialism, which sanctioned political commitment to the successful overthrow of capitalism, and then to instituting socialism; and, as the revolutionary national government, to realize the socio-economic transition by all means.[2]

In the aftermath of the October Revolution (1917), Leninism was the dominant version of Marxism in Russia and the basis of Soviet Democracy, the rule of directly elected soviets. In establishing the socialist mode of production in Bolshevik Russia—with the Decree on Land (1917), war communism (1918–1921), and the New Economic Policy (1921–1928)—the revolutionary régime suppressed most political opposition, including Marxists who opposed Lenin's actions, the anarchists and the Mensheviks, factions of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.[3] The Russian Civil War (1917–1922), which included the seventeen-army Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1917–1925), and left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks (1918–1924) were the external and internal wars which transformed Bolshevik Russia into the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), the core republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).[4]

As revolutionary praxis, Leninism originally was neither a proper philosophy nor a discrete political theory. Leninism comprises politico-economic developments of orthodox Marxism and Lenin's interpretations of Marxism, which function as a pragmatic synthesis for practical application to the actual conditions (political, social, economic) of the post-emancipation agrarian society of Imperial Russia in the early 20th century.[1] As a political-science term, Lenin's theory of proletarian revolution entered common usage at the fifth congress of the Communist International (1924), when Grigory Zinoviev applied the term Leninism to denote "vanguard-party revolution."[1] The term Leninism was accepted as part of CPSU's vocabulary and doctrine around 1922, and in January 1923, despite objections from Lenin, it entered the public vocabulary." 

From Wikipedia 

Amiri Baraka makes the classic leftist-socialist argument that Communist states really aren't Communist states and what's practiced in those countries really isn't communism. That the Soviet Union of Russia really wasn't a Communist State and I guess the People's Republic of China really isn't a Communist State today either. Well, there' partially right about the PRC because a lot of the Chinese economy is now in private hands and the Chinese are somewhat free to move about their own country and even travel to other countries and oversees. 

But if you look at how communism is practiced in the 20th Century and is still practiced today like in the Communist Republic of Korea and in the Castro Republic of Cuba, at the very least the Leninist (named after Russian Communist leader Vladimir Lenin) version of communism is the Communist philosophy that was practiced in the 20th Century and in some cases still practiced today, where the state (meaning the national government) owns and operates the entire country. And the people are really just there to serve the national government. And the more valuable they are the state, the better lives that they'll have in that country.

What Amiri Baraka was talking about in this Russia Today interview was democratic socialism. Which is socialist state and economy, but where the leaders are democratically elected and where the people are free to live their own lives. Which isn't much different from the social democracies of Canada and Europe, but at least according to this interview Mr. Barack seems even to left of those social democracies and talking about nationalization of current American private industries. 

ABC News: 'John Stossel vs Michael Moore- Socialized Medicine'

Source:ABC News- from John Stossel's documentary.

"John Stossel vs Michael Moore - Socialized Medicine. Vid is posted for educational purposes only... 

From Truindep 

I don't accept John Stossel's work as the gold standard. He does his reporting a documentaries from a strong conservative-libertarian slant that suggests that everything that government does is either incompetent or unconstitutional and that everything that the private sector does (especially Corporate America) is either perfect or damn near close to perfection and it would only work better, if government got the hell out-of-the-way. 

But just from looking at left-wing Michael Moore's short clip about Cuban health care (or Castro Communist health car) it looks like a propaganda film from the Castro Regime design to suggest that the Cuban health care system is something that Americans could only dream of having. And the American health care system is a corporate hell hole. 

Moore suggests that the Cuban system isn't perfect in this clip where he said that of course the Cuban system isn't perfect and this shouldn't be the real debate anyway. That we should be talking about the health care that the Canadians, British, and Scandinavians get, compared with Americans. 

Thom Hartmann: 'Health Care Should Be A Right To Life in America!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- arguing that health care is a right in America.

"Thom talks about healthcare and how it should be a right for every American in order to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Rep. Zack Wamp's office number: (202) 225-3271

Rep. John Conyer's office number: (202) 225-5126

White House comment line: (202) 456-1111

Contact your member of Congress: (202) 224-3121" 

From Thom Hartmann

We already have health care as a legal right not constitutional, but as a legal right, at least for emergencies. If you get sick or hurt and you end up at an emergency room and end up in a hospital for at least a period of time, the doctors have to by law give you the health care that you need in order for you to survive. At least in the short-term and if you want to go farther then that, we need Congress to pass a new law. 

You could also argue that the Right to Self-Defense (the 2nd Amendment) protects our right to health and life in America, because it gives Americans the constitutional right to defend themselves and prevent predators from hurting us. 

But this real discussion and debate is really about whether we have a right to health insurance in America and under the U.S. Constitution and current U.S. Law, we don't have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to health insurance. But we also don't have a right to food or water (at least under the Constitution and law) to food, water, housing, a good job, education, banking, everything else that human beings need to live well in America. 

If Socialists in America want the Federal Government to guarantee every American a right to health insurance, then they need to tell Americans how they (meaning the taxpayers) are going to have to pay for it. And if they're going guarantee every American the right to health insurance, then perhaps there other services that they want to guarantee as well, like housing, food, water, etc. And if that's the case as well, then they need to tell every taxpayer in America how the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. Because as the great Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman brilliantly said, there's no free lunch in America, at least that comes from government. But who would want free government food anyway? 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Paul Weeks: 'A Deeper Crisis is Coming, We Must Control the Banks'

Source:The Real News- New York City: the Capital of Corporate America. I guess NYC isn't as left-wing as it gets blamed for.

"John Weeks: Obama gave the banks time to rally opposition to severe regulations; another banking collapse is on the way." 

From The Real News 

We'll never nationalize the banking system in America. Thats a socialist pipe dream that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) will never accomplish. Nor should we because the Federal Government doesn't do a very good job of what it's runs now. Besides, the banking system represents too much of the American economy, so that would never happen. 

Give the Feds the banking system one day, then they can get the auto industry the next day, airline industry the next day and so on, making the United States look like the Soviet Union which never had a very strong economy, despite its population, land, and educated class, but we can have a much better banking system in America. 

It's not illegal in America to be a Socialist or even a Marxist, it's just very unpopular. (Regardless of whatever Millennial polling suggests) If nationalizing huge chunks of the American economy whether you're talking about health care, banking, autos, pensions, whatever it might be, if you believe nationalization is what's needed to get the American economy back to strong health, then how come you just won't come out of your political closet and admit that you're a Socialist, or even a Marxist-Socialist, because nationalization is what Marxist-Socialists have always believed in and still do.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, talking about President Barack H. Obama.

"Radio show host Thom Hartmann on the critique of Obama. More at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

As Thom Hartmann says in this interview, Barack Obama is not what the left-wing (to be kind) in America calls a Movement Progressive. Which is someone that not only believe in progress and that government can play a constructive role in American life and even in the economy, but someone who wants to radically change the face of American government and even change our form of government. 

What American leftists call Movement Progressives, the rest of the developed world calls Social Democrats or even Socialists. But because of the negative stereotypes that come from Socialist and socialism in America, because of the Cold War, as well as Communists and communism, American leftists live by Progressive or Liberal, because they're generally terrified of being known as Socialists in America. 

Barack Obama wasn't a so-called Movement Progressive when he ran for President in 2007-08, or when he was in the Senate. Mr. Obama comes from the Bill Clinton-Robert F. Kennedy faction of the party, people who are the real Progressive Democrats of the party. Which is different from the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, that Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders essentially leads today. That Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader (if he was still a Democrat) the so-called Progressive Caucus and others in the party, that want to make America like Europe.

Move On: Robert Reich- 'Puts An Offer on The Table For President Obama'

Source:Move On- left-wing political economist Robert Reich, on President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In less than three minutes, our favorite economist spells out what it's going to take to get our support."

From Move On

What so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) need to understand is what President Obama is doing, this whole campaign about class warfare, is exactly that. The class warfare campaign to get the Far-Left in the Democratic Party behind him for 2012. The exact same play or very close to it that he ran in 2007-08 to get this base behind him to win the Democratic nomination for President that he played masterfully. But then in the general election he became a Center-Left Progressive Democrat. Because he knew he needed the Democratic Party behind him, but he also needed Independent voters behind him as well.

Thats how Senator Barack Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, as well and Colorado. States that the Republican nominee has to win in order to get elected President. The President is not running this campaign because he believes in the so-called progressive agenda. If thats what so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, really) want, then they should vote for the so-called Progressive Party nominee or the Socialist Party nominee. Neither Nominee of course would win but at least they would be ideologically in sync. President Obama believes in the Democratic agenda which is why he's a Progressive Democrat.

Center-Left Democrats have similar goals of Democratic Socialists, but different policy's to accomplish those goals. You're not going to see the President offer a single payer Medicare For All plan, or a plan to nationalize big banks. Or a plan to let all of the tax cuts expire including for the middle class. Or I'm sure a lot of other things that so-called Progressive Economist Bob Reich wants to do.

So before Democratic Socialists throw all of their support behind President Obama and unless they want a President Gingrich or Romney, they have to get behind the President and Democratic Party. And then perhaps try to recruit more of their members in the Democratic Party. Or recruit their own members to the so-called Progressive Party for 2014-16, they have to get behind the President. And not cost Democrats another election in Congress or cost them the White House. Because they didn't bother to vote or voted for people who lost overwhelmingly.

President Obama wants to pass his own agenda to restore American capitalism and make it work for the whole country. The other 90-99%, not tear down American capitalism and move to democratic socialism thats common in Europe. And he knows he needs the entire Democratic Party behind him to accomplish this. He knows he needs to get reelected obviously and that Senate Democrats need to hold on. And he needs more House Democrats if not a Democratic majority with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. But he can't accomplish this with just Progressives, Liberals and Centrists. He already has those people. He needs Democratic Socialists as well and thats what this latest campaign is all about.

So for Democratic Socialists to get behind the President for 2012, as a Progressive Democrat, I believe thats great. Because that means President Obama's approval rating will go up and get near 50%. If he gets there and holds it, he's basically a lock to get reelected. But Socialists should know why he's doing this campaign, to get reelected because it's about politics. 

Wendy McElroy: 'A Feminist Defense of Pornography'

Source:Free Inquiry- from an article that Canadian author Wendy McElroy wrote about pornography.

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A

Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most

feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex

workers." 

From Wendy McElroy

I take issues like pornography, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prostitution, gambling, video games, music, movies, abortion (go down the line) as personal choice issues in how I decide whether they should be legal or not. And if they are legal or illegal and under what conditions. 

When it comes to personal choice issue where there aren't multiple victims involved, I ask this basic simple question: would society be better off if we were freer or less freer and how we decide these issues? Or should government step in and decide for the people themselves whether they can do these things or not? That would be the less freer approach. And once they are given that power, they'll probably say no. Or should we allow free people to make these decisions for themselves? That would be the free approach and if we go in that direction. 

Wendy McElroy takes it a step further and says that pornography should not only be legal, but endorses it and perhaps recommends that women (at least) should not only be viewing pornography, but perhaps personally involved in it. I don't take that approach, but instead say that free adults should make these decisions for themselves and then be personally accountable for their own personal choices. 

People who are called radical feminists or militant feminists, if there's one thing that they have in common with the Christian-Right is the belief in big government even as it relates to personal freedom and say that pornography is not only bad, but it should be illegal, because they believe that it degrades women. And in a free society like America, we all get to make these decisions for ourselves and believe what we believe. 

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger'

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

"Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger" 

From Anon Saint 

Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann talking about Occupy Wall Street. Keep in ,mind: Mr. Moore is s multi-millionaire who is very successful in America because he got himself a good education and has real talent as a filmmaker and then applied his skills and talents in the private market, capitalist system in America and then became very successful. And yet now he’s bashing the very economic system in America that allowed for him to be so successful. 

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I’m not sure Mr. Moore has much credibility on this issue, bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog) 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Ed Schultz on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Ed Schulz, speaking to Paul Jay about President Barack Obama, in 2009.

"Schultz: If the President waivers on public health care and jobs, he could be a 'one term wonder'

From The Real News 

Ed Schultz sounding very practical and pragmatic about his analysis about President Barack Obama (the pragmatic Progressive: if you will) and arguing that President Obama inherited a huge mess in 2009 and he's doing the best with the hand that was dealt to him and that he's made real progress so far. Talking about the Recover Act and SCHIP. (State Children's Health Insurance Program) Which is what you generally don't get from left-wing political commentators in America, especially about President Barack Obama. 

What you got from Paul Jay in this interview was the usual Far-Left talking points that President Obama is simply not doing enough, that he's not progressive enough (which is code for not socialist enough) and arguing that Democrats have The White House and Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate and that Democrats should be doing a lot more. That they're not left-wing enough. 

Generally when you get a discussion like this between two leftists when they're talking about mainstream Democrats, is they are both talking like Democrats are selling them out or screwing them over and they're really just moderate Republicans. (To paraphrase Noam Chomsky) What you get here is one of the leftists (Paul Jay) essentially arguing that the Democrats aren't left enough, with Ed Schultz showing some real patience and practicality. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann On Leftist Democrats (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, on the left-wing in America, in and outside of the Democratic Party.

"Radio show host Thom Hartman on progressives and the Democratic Party." 

From The Real News 

To put it simply and to risk sounding insulting to leftists (Socialists and Communists) but to pick up on what Thom Hartmann was talking about the difference between leftist-Democrats and rightist-Democrats: is that Republicans regardless of political ideology believe in wealth, individual success, and money. When the right-wing (or Far-Right) of the Republican Party wants something, they organize, they raise a hell of a lot money, because they know how to get it and where to get and then recruit candidates and people who are already in office to deliver on whatever their platform at the time says and wants.  

Leftists tend to be hipsters and hippies from the 1960s who are so antiestablishment, that they believe getting involved with the establishment (meaning government and politics) only feeds the beast and the man (as they would put it) and they believe they have better things to do. 

And again we're talking about Socialists by enlarge, who don't know where to go to get the money that it would take to put together a political movement or organization, that's even big enough to take on the mainstream establishment in the Democratic Party, or form a leftist party that could at some point compete with the Democratic Party. 

Plus, again we're talking about leftists (meaning Socialists) and they just don't access to the big donors that they would need to back their movement to take over an organization as large as the Democratic Party in America, because wealthy people, especially Democrats don't believe in what the Far-Left wants to do and is trying to accomplish. 

Rich Democrats love their freedom, wealth, and lifestyles, and don't want big government taking that away from them. Especially the so-called Hollywood Leftists who talk like Socialists, but live like liberal-democratic, capitalists. 

Prepare To Survive: 'Having More Than 7 Days Of Food Makes You A Suspected Terrorist'

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

"It's all in the numerous FBI fliers called ' communities against terrorism '. 

S 1867, hr 1540, indefinite detention, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, judge napolitano, freedom watch, john mccain, carl levin, lindsey graham, rand paul,  military, arbitrary arrest, us citizen, battlefield, prepper, food storage, weatherproof ammo, suspected terrorist, National Defense Authorization Act."

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

From Prepare To Survive  

"Obama Signs NDAA into Law - Happy New Year?"  

Prepare To Survive

"In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law - including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge... 

Source:ABC News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From ABC News  

At some point the Far-Left (in and outside the Republican Party) is going to have to decide for themselves how they view President Barack Obama. He's been accused by them of being a Socialist and yet he keeps signing all of these laws that like indefinite detention that empower our national security state and Federal law enforcement. And hasn't done a damn thing to expand the safety net or create a welfare state, nationalize and of the American industries. 

If Barack Obama is a illegal immigrant from Kenya (as the Far-Right claims) who is also a Muslim-Socialist-Atheist-Communist (all charges that the Far-Right) have made about Barack Obama, he's got a hell of a weird way of showing that: like his Hawaii birth certificate, or his middle class tax cuts (not tax increases) or his policies and laws that have made the national security state in America even stronger. 

I disagree with indefinite detention and a lot of what's in the so-called Patriot Act, but if President Obama was the radical Far--Leftist or illegal immigrant that the Far-Right claims about him, he wouldn't have signed or renewed any of those laws.