Black Rose Books: Dimities Roussopoulos- The New Left: Legacy & Continuity

Source:Black Rose Books-

Source:The New Democrat

I think I agree with Dimitrios Roussopoulos on just about everything here. Pre-1960 or so, the Left in America, as least the Center-Left, was made up for Liberals and Progressives, who believed in things like civil liberties, personal freedom and economic freedom and that government should help people in need help themselves so they can live in freedom, as well as help the middle class be able to move up. But they also believed in a strong defense and if anything perhaps more anti-communist than the Right in America. Especially if you look at Liberal Democrats like John Kennedy. And believed in being strong at home both economically and militarily, so other countries like Russia, wouldn’t want to attack you.

But then in the 1960s, you have the Baby Boomers coming of age. Who were much more radical and revolutionary with their own politics. And didn’t think that status-quo or establishment America was good enough for them. And you have the Vietnam War and all of these new leftist radical kids in school, who didn’t like the establishment. If anything hated the establishment and wanted to see it overthrown. And you have all of these movements on campus trying to overthrow the establishment and protest the issues of the day. The Vietnam War, poverty in America, the wealth gap, gays coming out of the closet and starting to want their freedom as Americans.

The New Left, then was a radical Left and even Far-Left and still is today. And I don’t mean that as a criticism, but when you’re talking about Democratic Socialists and even Communists in a country like America, you’re talking about people who are pretty radical. And that is what the New-Left was made up of back then and are still represented by the Tom Hayden’s, Bill Ayers’s, Chris Hedges’s, Thom Hartmann’s and others. And publications like Salon, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthDig, TruthOut and many others today on the New-Left in America. That might be Center-Left and Sweden and perhaps a few other countries, but Far-Left in America.
Source:Black Rose Books

WUSA-TV: Rick Snider- Will United Stadium Deal Lure Redskins to RFK?

Source:WUSA-TV-

Source:The New Democrat

The Redskins, are coming back home, so to speak. Back to Washington and back downtown in the nation’s capital where they belong. Getting United out of RFK Stadium with the new United stadium deal, is one of the keys to doing that. So they can either renovate RFK, or knock it down and build a new one. The City, wants the Redskins back, even if they are still called the Redskins, or not. The name, is simply about Far-Left political correctness politics, more than anything else. The Redskins, want to come home. Dan Snyder, wants the Redskins home. The City Government, wants the Redskins home. Now, it’s just a matter in how that happens. New RFK, or renovate the old one.

Me personally, I would like to see the Redskins come back to RFK. And knock the two upper decks, but leave in the lower bowl. And build the new stadium with the skyboxes and everything else the stadium needs, on top of the lower bowl. So you keep in the fan atmosphere un the stadium as far as the noise, with seats moving up and down. And the fans being on top of the action. But with the skyboxes and seating capacity and every other modern feature that NFL stadiums need to be profitable. And even add a retractable roof, to make it a very attractive spot for the Super Bowl and other events at the stadium.

The Redskins are coming home. The City of Washington, had finally figured out economic development and what you need to be a financially prosperous city. And has even become a fairly safe big city of six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or so and still growing. I think the only questions are about when and how. New RFK, or renovate the old one and when. 2020, or after that, because the Redskins want to come home. Their fans, certainly want them back in the city. And I think Washington wants their NFL team back in the city as well. And negotiating the final stadium deal in the city is the last hurdle to get over to make it happen.

Gresham College: Professor Vernon Bogdanor- Aneurin Bevan & The Socialist Ideal

Source:Gresham College- Professor Anuerin Bevan. 

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not that familiar with Aneurin Bevan, but as a Socialist, he seems to differ from Karl Marx, at least in the sense that Bevan’s brand of socialism was democratic. That you got elected to power and to govern and brought your policies with you and your form of government with you. Whereas Karl Marx was more of a revolutionary. And was always talking about revolution, similar to Fidel Castro. That the people should rise up and take over the government and keep power once they get in. Along with bringing their socialist policies about.

The Democratic Socialist and the Marxist are different. The Democratic Socialist sees private enterprise and even capitalism as perhaps a necessary evil in order to have a functioning economy where as many people as possible can do well. As well as the financing mechanism to fund the welfare state, that will take care of everyone’s basic necessities in life. Like health care and health insurance. And Bevan was one of the designers of the British government-run and owned health care system. Health care, obviously being a basic necessity that we all need to live well.

What all Socialists have in common and perhaps what would be the so-called Socialist Ideal, is that they all see a world where there wouldn’t be any poor, or rich people. There goal is not so much freedom, but equality. That everyone is the same economically with no more, or less than anyone else. Which is why Socialists get labeled as Utopians, because they see that Utopia, or paradise where everyone thrives and doesn’t have to go without, or has too much. At least according to everyone else in society.
Source:Gresham College

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

Salon Magazine: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Crackpot

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

It depends on what you mean by progressive, to sort of paraphrase what Bill Moyers said about, “it depends on what you mean by left-wing.” If you mean left-wing is somehow out of the political mainstream in America, well again how left are you talking about? Center-Left, Far-Left, somewhere in between? If you mean by Progressive, that the job of government is not to manage the lives of everyone and take care of everyone. But instead have a healthy social insurance system that people can use when they need it and have enough money when they retire and guaranteed health insurance, properly regulate the private sector, but not try to run and tax it to the point, that government essentially owns it, then yeah, that’s pretty progressive and very mainstream. Center-Left American politics.

But, Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, is exactly that. And yes, Socialists are considered mainstream in anywhere in Scandinavia and Britain and France as well. But those countries are very different from America ideologically and even Canada and Germany as well. Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were all supporters of the American economic system. They didn’t put it down, or say America should be more like this country, or that country.

TR, FDR, Truman and LBJ, liked the American private enterprise capitalist model. But also understood that in an economy with a very large private sector, you’re going to have winners and losers. As well as predators who make money from hurting the innocent. And that you needed a government to help people who fall down in the private enterprise system. As well as a regulator to punish and prevent predatory behavior. This right here is the American progressive economic model. Doesn’t sound like Scandinavia, where you have an unitarian national government essentially responsible for the well-being and economic welfare of the entire country.

Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for, simply for his candor and honesty and even a few issues we agree on, like infrastructure investment, says America should look at Sweden and we should become more like them. If ever Senator Sanders became President Sanders, would move America last the social insurance safety net model, in a private enterprise system. And create a superstate, where the Federal Government would assume the responsibility and take over for the states and individuals when it comes to our well-being. He wouldn’t nationalize the economy, but nationalize certain functions of the economy that he doesn’t believe should be left for private companies and individuals. And tax and regulate other companies to the point that would become essentially public utilities and have to have the country’s best interest at heart.

The Progressive Democrat, the Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as Franklin and Harry Truman’s and LBJ’s, aren’t extreme. Center-Left and on the Left, but not extreme. When you move further Left, you get to the Socialists. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and move further left and you’re looking at the Marxists and other statists on the Left. And they represent the Far-Left in America, even if they are as mainstream in Scandinavia, as Liberals and Conservatives are in America. Bill Moyers, is right in the sense that progressivism isn’t extreme in America. But democratic socialism, when you’re talking about a superstate there to take care of everyone and meet everyone’s basic necessities in life, is pretty Far-Left, at least in America.

Salon Magazine: Joan Walsh: 'White Progressives Racial Myopia: Why Their Colorblindness Fails Minorities and The Left'

Source:Salon- the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Green Party in 2016? Actually, the Green Party wouldn't support and all Caucasian ticket. I just thought I would throw it out there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.

But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech." 

From Salon 

"U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Thom Hartmann why he decided to run for President of the United States in 2016.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Thom Hartmann

Joan Walsh mentioned in her piece, that Bernie Sanders attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 I Have a Dream speech. Sanders, was a college student at this point. And she also suggests that Senator Sanders not making race and so-called racial and class issues not a part of his presidential campaign is some how a mistake. 

But, what is Dr. King’s Dream? A society where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He wanted a race-blind and color-blind society. Dr. King, is a hero of Senator Sanders and their politics, especially on economic policy are very similar. Dr. King, would be called a Democratic Socialist today as well. And perhaps would even embrace the label like Senator Sanders.

This is going to sound strange, given that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and all, but he’s the voice of reason, or Moderate on the New-Left in America. Senator Sanders, presidential campaign won’t be about racial and class issues. But building a society where all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, however else they were born, can succeed in America. 

You don’t get to a racial and color-blind society if you’re always race conscience and judging people by race and color. And automatically assuming they look at the world in a way, because of their complexion and how they were raised. You get to a color-blind America by not judging people by their race and not always focusing on it. But instead judge people, as well, people, as individuals. Which I know is a radical notion for the Far-Left in America.

Bernie Sanders, similar to Barack Obama in 2008, who was criticized for the same thing by the Far-Left in America, is running for President of the United States. Not to be the President of this leftist group, or these group of Americans, or this section of America, or that one. And you only accomplish that by bringing, especially Democrats in the primaries behind you and to your campaign. Not by playing class warfare and having this group on your side, while you kiss off other Americans. Barack Obama, doesn’t win Indiana and North Carolina, or Virginia in 2008, by running as the African-American President. And telling Americans: “Its our time! Time we elect an African-American president and I’m that candidate!”

As much as the Far-Left in America says they love Martin King, they simply don’t understand him, or agree with his dream. They’re not looking for a colorblind and race blind America. But to continue that, but do it differently and instead of having African-Americans be judged by their race from redneck and preppy Caucasians, have minorities and so-called Progressive Caucasians, judge Caucasians they disagree with by their race. And blame all of America’s troubles on so-called White bigots and White bigotry. 

But again Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. And wants to create America where all Americans can succeed and do well. And not fail or succeed, because of how and where they were born.

Chris Hedges: 'Karl Marx Was Right'

Source:Truth Dig- Karl Marx is for Socialists, what Anglo-Saxon-Protestants think Jesus Christ is for them.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m really tired of this old debate between capitalism and socialism, as if they are two competing ideologies. That they are complete opposites of each other, when they’re not. The opposite of a capitalist, would be a Marxist, or a statist. Someone who is completely against private property and private rights, other than maybe when it comes to personal property and one’s homes and transportation. But that the central state is in control and owns and runs the rest of the economy. And there are very few countries left with economic systems like that. North Korea, a country that can’t even feed itself, is one of the very few countries left with a state-owned command and control economic system.

Socialism and capitalism, are not complete opposites of each other. You can be both. Senator Bernie Sanders, everybody’s favorite Democratic Socialist now, is a Socialist. But he’s also in favor of capitalism and believes in property rights. But what makes him different from, gee I don’t know a Conservative, or a Liberal even, is how much of a role he would give the Federal Government. Senator Sanders, would still leave most of the American economy in private hands. But have government take over what Socialists like to call the basic necessities of life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement and perhaps a few others. With the private sector still producing all the transportation, technology, housing, food, agriculture, entertainment, to use as examples.

Chris Hedges, is a Democratic Socialist, but he’s also a capitalist. He’s an editor at the private democratic socialist publication TruthDig. He doesn’t work for the government, or work for some state-owned enterprise and I don’t think he ever has. He’s worked in private sector journalism in one form or the other his whole career. And is also an author and has made a very good living and built a very good career for himself in the American private enterprise capitalist system. Same thing with private filmmaker Michael Moore, who also likes to put down American capitalism. But Moore has used the same system that he says he doesn’t like to become a millionaire from the films he’s made.

It’s not a matter of whether you have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not. At least for most of the world and all the developed world now. But role for government do you have in that private enterprise system. Especially the central state and how big of a central state do you have and what exactly do you have it doing. What services does it provide for the people and at what cost to the people. Which is called taxation and also how big of a regulatory state do you have to oversee the private sector in the economy. But it is no longer a debate between the capitalist and the Socialist, because the Socialist will also most likely be a capitalist as well. But socialistic in nature. The real debate is what type of capitalist private enterprise system that you have.