Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'The Great Depression With Amity Shlaes'

Source:Hoover Institution- right-wing presidential historian Amity Shlaes on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.

"Amity Shlaes challenges the received wisdom that the Great Depression occurred because capitalism broke and that it ended because FDR, and government in general, came to the rescue. According to Shlaes, it was the government that made the Great Depression worse. And was FDRs progressivism, as evident in the New Deal, really all that new, or was it a step along a progressive continuum that already had been established?" 

From the Hoover Institution

Anyone whose familiar with this blog, knows I'm not a big fan of the New Deal and knows I don't think it was a perfect economic agenda. It obviously didn't get us out of the Great Depression. Unemployment was still around 20% by the time we entered World War II in 1941-42. But to argue that the Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal made the Great Depression even worst, my question would be: compared with what? 

To understand the Great Depression, you have to know about the New Deal, but also what the alternatives to the New Deal. The real Socialists (not the FDR Progressives) were talking about nationalizing private industries to prevent a future Great Depression. 

The Conservatives of the time were talking about doing nothing. They were literally talking about doing nothing in response to the Great Depression and let the so-called free market (as if there's such a thing as a free market) would automatically fix the problems of the New Deal. They were literally arguing a negative, since we have no evidence and history of doing nothing to respond to economic crisis's, actually works.  If you look at the New Deal objectively, (which might might be hard to do) it was actually the middle approach to what the Conservatives wanted to do and what the Socialists and Communists wanted to do to deal with the Great Depression.

Again, the New Deal was obviously not perfect, but to argue that it made the Great Depression worst, I mean we were back to economic growth by 1934-35 and people did go back to work. Millions of Americans were getting economic assistance to help them get through the Great Depression, like Unemployment Insurance. "The New Deal made the Great Depression worst" sounds like good right-wing talking points, but that's about it.

Hardball With Chris Matthews: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner: Health Care (2009)

Source:MSNBC- U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (Democrat, New York) in 2009.

"You Tube the name " Wendell Potter " and see what you are supporting if you are opposed to reform.

Health Care For Patients, NOT For Profit because Health Care For Profit is Health Care DENIED.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an insurance middleman come between a patient and his/her doctor - particularly, if the insurance middleman stands to gain from it.

To put it simply, IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Insurance has no business being in Health Care. They contribute nothing towards it. NOTHING!" 

From Robb 1031 

Back in 2009/10, there was a block of left-wing House Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for any health care reform bill, that didn't have a public option in it. Representative Anthony Weiner (Democrat, New York) was part of that left-wing block in the House. They're argument was that they wanted single payer and government-run, health insurance (if not health care reform) was their position and the public option and allowing non-seniors to pay into Medicare and use that as their own health insurance. The fact is the Affordable Care Act was passed in March, 2010 and it didn't have a public option in it. It had subsides for lower middle class workers, as well as a Patient Bill of Rights for everyone. 

I've never been a fan of Anthony Weiner to begin with, but this is probably the main reason. Forget the fact that he's a left-wing, closeted Democratic Socialist, I could live with that, if I didn't have to vote for him and he didn't officially represent me. It's the: "Do it might way, or we don't it at all." approach to American politics, especially in a Democratic Party that's so diverse and large, that has both a Far-Left and Center-Right, as well as Center-Left, where you have to be able to work with members of your own party, just to get anything done in this country. 

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.