Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Source: Laura Flanders-

Source:The New Democrat

Is a socialist future possible? Well I guess anything is possible at least in the future. I don't think this is the right question, because it's sort of like asking will we one day see cars that fly for people who don't want to sit in traffic on the way to work. I guess that is possible, but who is expecting that. We need to separate the possible and the reasonable and realistic, because they're different things. The next President of the United States, won't be a Socialist or Social Democrat. (Sorry Jill Stein supporters) The next President will either a moderate pragmatic Progressive (which is what Progressives are) in Hillary Clinton, or a right-wing authoritarian fascist in Donald Trump. Whoever controls the next Congress, the Speaker of the House won't be a Socialist, even if it is Nancy Pelosi and the Speaker's members won't be social-democratic, at least the majority. Once you get past the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus. The next Leader of the Senate, won't be a Socialist or Social-Democrat, even if it is Chuck Schumer. And his members won't be social-democratic by nature. Once you get beyond Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin. So Socialists and Social-Democrats, won't control the next Congress in either chamber.

People point to the Millennial Generation as reason to believe we're moving in a socialist or social-democratic direction as a country as far as ideology. But go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s and yes George McGovern did win the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. But most of his support came from young Baby Boomers in their twenties. And look at the Baby Boom Generation today and you see a generation (with all due respect) that grew up. They got jobs (once they started showering and got hair cuts) and started paying taxes. They go involved romantically outside of their radical political movement and got married and had kids. They got comfortable in American society and became very successful in life and perhaps also learned about the limits of socialism and what government can do for people with their taxes. And didn't become Conservatives necessarily, but certainly moderated and became what Hillary Clinton is today. And took more of a pragmatic center-left approach to what government should and can do for the people.

Again to go back to my original point about what is possible, twenties years from now can we see an America that is a social-democratic country that looks like Canada or Scandinavia when it comes to economic and foreign policy, again what isn't possible until it's proven impossible. But I'm more interested in what's reasonable and realistic. I guess I'm just not very romantic and if the Millennial's are anything like the Boomers or even Gen-Xers and a lot of Millennial's are the sons and daughters of Boomers and Gen-Xers, they'll moderate as well. Some might even move to the Center-Right. We don't know where we'll be as a country even four years from now politically. A lot of that will depend on how the first term of the next president goes. But to say that a large percentage of the young adult generation (Millennial's) like socialism and  based on that America is moving in a socialist direction, I would ask you 5-10 years from now if you still believe that. If the Baby Boomers were Socialists, than Ronald Reagan probably never becomes President. So just I believe it's way to early to decide what direction America is moving in politically until we actually get there.
Source:Laura Flanders

Grit-TV: Richard Wolff: Bernie Sanders & Socialism

Source:GritTV talking to Socialist Professor Richard Wolff.

Source:The New Democrat

I guess I look at socialism like I look at conservatism. Not that they are similar, but that both have two competing factions in them. With conservatism, you have Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians and you have Libertarians. And lets leave the Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives out of this for the purpose of this piece. And with socialism, you have the Marxists, who are way out in left field. And is an ideology that has almost no power in the world now. And then you have the Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who not just believe in socialism and a democratic form of it, but believe that for socialism to be as effective as possible, you must have a sufficient private sector and private enterprise. To generate the revenue needed for the socialist state to thrive.

And Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters and before him lets say George McGovern in the 1970s, Norman Thomas in the 1960s, Henry Wallace in the 1950s and 1940s, all of these men are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who are very democratic in nature and even believe in a level of both personal and economic freedom, but who believed that you needed a welfare state-run by government to see to it that no one was left behind. That everyone was taken care, that there was a social insurance system for people who go through tough times in the private enterprise economy. And to take care of people who are disabled and who simply can’t work at all.

In a democratic socialist system, you would have some industries that are nationalized as well. In the areas that Socialists believe everyone needs to have and be able to use at an affordable rate. Things like health care, education, health insurance, pension, energy, banking to use as examples. But by in the large the economy would be in private hands. People would not just own their own personal property, but could start their own business and run their business. You would even see large private business’s. Including automakers, telecommunications, media, manufacturing, all small and local business’s. But they would all be subjected to high taxes and regulations to see that no one has to go without. These being the differences between socialism and statism.

Grit-TV: Russ Feingold: 'Politics For The People'

Source:Grit-TV- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) & Laura Flanders.

Source:The New Democrat

This interview was taped in late 2010, when then Senator Russ Feingold, was literally battling for his Senate career and perhaps political career as well. So that is a little disappointing for me, because I would’ve liked of seen Laura Flanders interview Senator Feingold today. Now that he’s been out of Congress for over four years now and looking at other career options for the future, like running for president. Where I think he would make a hell of a Progressive, or Liberal presidential candidate. That could raise a lot of money online simply by communicating to younger Americans. And along with Martin O’Malley, I would definitely look at a Feingold for president campaign. As liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a little profile of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Who you can definitely tell he’s from Wisconsin from how he speaks. Today’s so-called Conservatives love to talk about how fiscally conservative they are. And yet its Liberal Democrat Russ Feingold who consistently didn’t bring pork back to Wisconsin when he was in the Senate. Because he didn’t think those projects had real economic value to his state and saw them as fiscally irresponsible. Who was a true budget hawk on the Senate Budget Committee. Who consistently voted to have more sunlight in the Federal budget. And not just defense, but the budget as a whole. And part of that was voting against pork-barrel projects in Congress, even if they went to Wisconsin.

So-called Conservatives today, like to talk about how much they believe in individual freedom. And yet its just the last five years, or so that they started speaking out against the Patriot Act and government spying, thanks to the Tea Party. Senator Feingold, voted against the 2001 Patriot Act, that gave big government those powers over individuals lives. He also voted against the 2003 Iraq War. He’s a Democrat who is about as anti-establishment as they come. He’s someone who won’t go along to get along. That if there is a debate and even fight worth having and that should be had, he’ll do it and worry about the consequences of his own career later on. Unlike today’s establishment career politicians, that seem to be more interested in getting reelected and their next career move, more than anything else.

And because Senator Feingold was so anti-establishment, he wasn’t very popular in the Senate, at least in the Democratic Caucus. Because he wouldn’t vote for things, or against simply because the Democratic Leader needed his vote. And is someone who will vote against big government policies that violate our civil liberties, even if that means he may look soft on terror. And vote against endless war authorizations, even if that means he looks soft on defense. If they give the President a blank check when it comes to war-making and leaving Congress in the dark and not knowing what the executive is doing when it comes to national security.

Not saying that Russ Feingold will be our next President, but Hillary Clinton needs to know that she’s running for President in the Democratic Party. And if she wants to run as a mushy-middle centrist independent, who never takes any tough stances on key issues that come with political risks, then maybe the Democratic Party is not the right party for her and she should run as an Independent. Russ Feingold, would force Hillary to take real positions on the key issues that the country faces and that Democrats care about. Like civil liberties, war authorization, economic and job growth, expanding the middle class, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, War on Drugs and I could go down the line. And would make a great presidential candidate.
Source:Grit-TV

Laura Flanders: Richard Woolf’s Cure For Capitalism

Source:Laura Flanders talking to proud Democratic Socialist Richard Woolf.

Source:FreeState MD

“Employment’s up, wealth’s up, but the benefits of both are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Welcome to capitalism, says GRITtv regular, Richard Wolff who suggests some alternatives, including “worker self-directed enterprises” if we want to democratize the economy, and US society.

GRITtv regular, Richard Wolff is the author of Capitalism Hits the Fan (Olive Branch Press, 2009) and, most recently, Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism (Haymarket Books, 2012). Watch the entire conversation, about the state of capitalism, WSDEs (worker self directed enterprises) and democratizing the US economy at GRITtv.orgDistributed by OneLoad.com.”

From Laura Flanders

I think when most Americans (perhaps not most Europeans) when they think of a Socialist, they think of someone whose against private enterprise and wants the national government to be in complete control of the economy. But the fact is today in 2013, most Socialists, including Socialists in China and Cuba, believe in at least a certain amount of private enterprise, individual freedom and choice, as well as private ownership.

Richard Woolf has an excellent definition of a Socialist: “Someone who believe in socializing, believes in the community when it comes to the economy and economics.”

This basically means a Socialist believes that everyone in society has a right to live and be treated well and not to have to go without the basic necessities of life. And that it’s the job of the national government to see that everyone has what they need to live well in society.

Grit-TV: Jane McAlevey- 'Building the Labor Movement in President Obama's Second Term'

Source:Grit-TV- Jane McAlevey, talking to Laura Flanders about American labor.

"With a Democrat again in the White House for the next four years, the labor movement has won some much-needed breathing room, says organizer and author Jane McAlevey. Now's the time, McAlevey says, to get the best activists back in the field and push hard for expanded labor rights.

From Grit-TV

Professor Noam Chomsky who is an admitted Libertarian-Socialist, once said that America doesn't have a Labor Party, that we have two parties that are essentially business parties. Actually, he used stronger language than that when interviewed by Bill Moyers like twenty years ago.

Noam Chomsky- "America doesn't even have two parties, that we have one party, with two different factions, one of them called Democrats the other called Republicans". I as a Liberal Democrat actually I obviously disagree with that, we have two business friendly parties. As far as the leadership in both parties, but we also have a labor friendly party. A major party that believes in the right to organize, thats pro-union in the Democratic Party. But what we don't have is a major party thats not only pro-union and labor, but thats also anti-business, anti-big business, anti-corporate. Not necessarily anti-capitalist, just not in favor of large corporations.

We don't have a major social democratic or democratic socialist party, even. (However you want to phrase it) That every other major democracy has in the rest of the developed world at least. What America does have in the Democratic Party, a party thats made up of Social Democrats. But who for the most part except for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is more interested in governing and advancing the ball. Which includes compromise and doing things she normally wouldn't do, rather than never compromising and always standing up for the movement. And keep fighting partisan battles that never seem to end.

Which is what Social Democrats would prefer the Democratic Leadership to do rather than dealing with Republicans. Same thing with the GOP as it relates to the Tea Party. So what Social Democrats have as far as major party, is a party that may share a lot if not most of its goals.

Like affordable health insurance for everyone but doesn't share the same policies as far as how to achieve those goals. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 being a perfect example of that, where Social Democrats wanted single payer Medicare For All. The Democratic Leadership instead expanded the private health insurance system for people who currently can't afford it. Going forward Social Democrats need to understand this and figure this out and know that the Democratic Leadership doesn't always have it's back when it comes to passing policies and legislation to achieve the goals that both factions may share. And figure out what's the best path for them moving forward. Keep settling for a party that at best gives them half of what they want or developing a party that will fight for everything that they want instead.

Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

Source:The Laura Flanders Show- interviewing Pam Brown.

"We as a society view our monetary debts as a moral issue: We took out the money, we should have to pay it back. The problem with this logic is that the money we are giving the banks, financial institutions and our government never existed before the interest we incurred piled up. 

Pam Brown of the Occupy Student Debt Campaign and Strike Debt says there's another way out of our predicament: If our numbers are large enough, we can collectively refuse to pay back the trillions that are being extorted from us. Watch the full conversation with Laura Flanders and visit GRITtv.org to learn more."

Source:Laura Flanders

At risk of stating the obvious and perhaps introducing some people to common sense: if you don't want to be buried in debt (like mobsters who bury unfriendly witnesses) then don't borrow too much money. 

You should be spending your 20s and 30s building your career. Not looking for the cheapest, most dangerous place to live, in the most dangerous place and perhaps sharing that place with 2-3 other people (who are also buried in debt, or perhaps don't even have college degrees and work multiple jobs just to survive) because you are buried in debt and can't afford to live anywhere else, even if you actually have a good income.

Another risk at stating the obvious: college is  not free. Regardless of what any left-wing politician might tell you about having some plan to make college free for everyone, it never will be. Even if you have a scholarship, you have to go to that particular school and play sports there or be in some other program that the school values and complete it successfully, to keep that scholarship. 

I'm all in favor of making college affordable for everyone. But you don't do that by promising the world to everyone (which is what a 4 year college degree can get you) and telling them it's not going to cost them anything. You do that by making college more affordable upfront and empowering more parents to put money away for their kids college education, as well as telling students that if you serve your country one way or another, for a certain period of time, the government will wipe away your college financially. But you can't make something free that comes with a cost for everyone.