• About
  • Farmers

vedika

~ your forum for critical and constructive writings

vedika

Category Archives: USA

ప్రజాస్వామ్యం కోసం చికాగో టీచర్ల సమ్మె !

03 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chicago Teachers, Chicago Teachers Union, Chicago Teachers Union strike, The CTU’s Strike

ఎం కోటేశ్వరరావు

    అమెరికాలోని చికాగో నగర టీచర్లు మరోసారి ఈనెల ఒకటిన సమ్మె చేశారు.ఈ ఆందోళన ప్రత్యేకత ఏమంటే కెనడా, అమెరికాలోని అనేక దూర ప్రాంతాల నుంచి కూడా వచ్చిన కొంత మందితో సహా పాతికవేల మంది టీచర్లు తరగతులు బహిష్కరించి ఇల్లినాయిస్‌ విశ్వవిద్యాలయం వద్ద జరిగిన ధర్నాలో పాల్గొన్నారు. విద్యార్ధులు, టీచర్ల ప్రయోజనాలను దెబ్బతీస్తూ విద్యారంగానికి బడ్జెట్‌ కేటాయింపులను తగ్గించిన చర్యకు నిరసన ఇది. వుదయం ఆరున్నరకే ప్రతి స్కూలు వద్ద గుమికూడిన టీచర్లు చికాగో మేయర్‌ ఇమ్మాన్యుయేల్‌కు వ్యతిరేకంగా నినాదాలు చేశారు. స్కూలు టీచర్లకు సంఘీభావంగా చికాగోలోని అనేక విశ్వవిద్యాలయాల సిబ్బంది రోజంతా ప్రదర్శనలు నిర్వహించారు. రాష్ట్ర గవర్నర్‌(మన ముఖ్యమంత్రి మాదిరి) విశ్వవిద్యాలయాలకు 30శాతం కోత విధించారని వారు విమర్శించారు. సమాజంలోని ఒక శాతం మందిపై పన్నులు ఎక్కువగా విధించి ప్రభుత్వ పాఠశాల విద్యను కాపాడాలన్నది టీచర్ల ప్రధాన నినాదం.చికాగో టీచర్ల సమ్మె స్కూళ్లకు, తమ పెన్షన్లకు నిధులు పెంచాలని మాత్రమే కాదు లేదా కార్పొరేట్‌ సంస్ధలపై పన్ను పెంచాలని జరపలేదు, వాటన్నింటికోసం జరిగింది. సామాజిక వనరులను ఎవరు స్వంతం చేసుకోవాలి, వాటికి సంబంధించిన నిర్ణయాలు ఎవరు చేయాలనే ప్రజాస్వామిక అంశంపై కూడా జరిగింది అని జాకోబిన్‌ పత్రిక వ్యాఖ్యానించింది.

     సమ్మె ప్రజాస్వామ్యం కోసమే కాదు, ప్రజాస్వామ్య బద్దంగా కూడా జరిగింది. నిజమైన ప్రజాస్వామ్యం ఎలా వుంటుందో టీచర్స్‌ యూనియన్‌ చూపింది. ఇల్లినాయిస్‌ రాష్ట్ర చట్ట ప్రకారం సమ్మె చేయాలంటే యూనియన్‌ సభ్యులలో 75శాతం మంది ఆమోదం తెలపాలి.ఆ మేరకు డిసెంబరులో జరిగిన ఓటింగ్‌లో 96శాతం మంది టీచర్లు పాల్గొన్నారు, వారిలో 92శాతం అనుకూలంగా ఓటు చేశారు. మార్చి 23న జరిగిన యూనియన్‌ కార్యవర్గంలో 486-124 తేడాతో సమ్మె నిర్ణయానికి ఆమోదం తెలిపారు.

    నిధులను తగ్గించి వచ్చే ఏడాది అనేక స్కూళ్లను మూసివేయాలన్న ప్రభుత్వ ఆలోచనను తలిదండ్రులు కూడా వ్యతిరేకిస్తున్నారు.ఈ సమ్మెను విచ్చిన్నం చేసేందుకు అధికార యంత్రాంగం తీవ్రంగా ప్రయత్నించింది. సమ్మె చట్ట విరుద్ధమని ప్రకటించి చర్యలు తీసుకుంటామని టీచర్లను బెదిరించటమే గాక కోర్టు ద్వారా నిలిపివేతకు సైతం ప్రయత్నించింది.మరోవైపున ఈ సమ్మె కేవలం టీచర్ల వుద్యోగాలకు సంబంధించిన అంశం గాక ఒక ప్రజా సమస్యగా మారింది. ఈ కారణంగానే ఎనిమిది ఇతర యూనియన్లు, అనేక సామాజిక బృందాలు టీచర్లకు బాసటగా నిలిచాయి.

    చికాగో కార్మికోద్యమ చరిత్రలో టీచర్స్‌ యూనియన్‌కు ఒక ప్రాధాన్యత వుంది. ప్రభుత్వ విధానాలపై పోరాడటం ద్వారా ప్రత్యేకతను సంతరించుకుంది. తాజా సమ్మె ఒక శాతం ధనికులు, 99శాతం కార్మికులకు సంబంధించిన సమస్యపై జరిగింది. అమెరికన్‌ పాలకవర్గం అందరికీ సామాజిక భద్రత కల్పించాల్సింది పోయి అలాంటి భద్రత కొంత మందికే ఎందుకు, అంటూ లేనివారిని రెచ్చగొడుతున్నది. చికాగో టీచర్లు, బస్‌ డ్రైవర్ల ఆరోగ్య పధకాలకు, పెన్షన్ల కోసం అందరూ పన్నులు చెల్లించాలా అంటూ ప్రచారం చేస్తున్నారు.యూనియన్లకు వ్యతిరేకంగా జనాన్ని రెచ్చగొట్టే యత్నమిది.టీచర్లు సమ్మె చేస్తే ఆ రోజుల్లో మీ పిల్లల్ని ఎవరు చూస్తారంటూ గతంలో సమ్మె సందర్భంగా తలిదండ్రులను రెచ్చగొట్టారు. ఈ సారి ఒక్క రోజు సమ్మెకే పిలుపు ఇచ్చినప్పటికీ నాలుగు లక్షల మంది విద్యార్ధులకు తరగతులు పోయాయని కొంత మంది మొసలి కన్నీరు కార్చారు. నిజానికి దీని కంటే ప్రభుత్వ నిధులు తగ్గింపు వలన తమ బిడ్డలు ఎక్కువ ఇబ్బందులు పడతారని తలిదండ్రులు గ్రహించారు కాబట్టే ఈ సారి వారిని రెచ్చగొట్టే ప్రచారం పెద్దగా ఫలితాన్ని ఇవ్వలేదు, ప్రభావం చూపలేదు.

     ఇప్పుడు ఎన్నికల ప్రచారంలో కూడా ఇలాంటి రెచ్చగొట్టుడు అంశాలు చోటు చేసుకుంటున్నాయి.వలసవచ్చిన వారు అమెరికన్లకు వుపాధి లేకుండా చేస్తున్నారని, మెక్సికో, చైనాలనుంచి దిగుమతులు కారణంగా వుద్యోగాలు అక్కడి వారికి కల్పిస్తున్నారన్న ప్రచారం ముఖ్యంగా రిపబ్లికన్లు చేస్తున్నారు.ప్రభుత్వ రంగ సంస్ధల వుద్యోగుల యూనియన్లకు వ్యతిరేకంగా కోర్టులలో కేసులు ఇటీవలి కాలంలో బాగా పెరుగుతున్నాయి. బేరసారాలాడే హక్కును దెబ్బతీసేందుకు ప్రయత్నం జరుగుతోంది. తద్వారా కార్మికులను యూనియన్లకు దూరం చేసే ఎత్తుగడలో భాగమది. చికాగోలోని టీచర్లు, ఇతర కార్మిక సంఘాలు పోరాటాల నుంచి అనేక అనుభవాలు నేర్చుకున్నాయి. కార్పొరేట్‌ సంస్ధలు ప్రజా సేవల నుంచి పెద్ద మొత్తంలో ఎలా స్వాహా చేస్తున్నాయో ఎప్పటి కపుడు పౌరులకు తెలియ చేస్తున్నాయి. ధనికులపై పన్నులు ఎక్కువగా వసూలు చేయాల్సిన అవసరాన్ని పేర్కొంటున్నాయి.ఈ క్రమంలో పౌర సామాజిక బృందాలను కలుపుకోవటం ప్రత్యేకించి గమనించాల్సిన అంశం. దీనిలో భాగంగానే సేవారంగం, ఆరోగ్యరంగం, టీచర్ల యూనియన్లు తమకు మద్దతు కూడ గట్టేందుకు యునైటెడ్‌ వర్కింగ్‌ ఫ్యామిలీస్‌ పేరుతో ఒక రాజకీయ వేదికను ఏర్పాటు చేశాయి. రిపబ్లికన్లు, డెమోక్రాట్లు ఎన్నికల సమయంలో కార్మికవరగ్గాన్ని వుపయోగించుకోవటం తప్ప అధికారానికి వచ్చిన దాడులు జరపటంలో ఎవరికెరూ తీసిపోవటం లేదని, అందువలన తమకు అనుకూలమైన రాజకీయ వేదికలను ఏర్పాటు చేసుకోవాలని చికాగో కార్మికవర్గం నిర్ణయించుకుంది. 2012 నాటి టీచర్ల సమ్మె విజయం తరువాత చికాగో నగర పాలక సంస్ధ అనేక స్కూళ్లను మూసివేసి పెద్ద సంఖ్యలో టీచర్లను ఇంటికి పంపింది. దాంతో ఎన్నికలలో యునైటెడ్‌ వర్కింగ్‌ ఫ్యామిలీస్‌ సంస్ధ తన అభ్యర్ధులను నిలిపింది. తొమ్మిది కౌన్సిల్‌ స్ధానాలకు గాను మూడింటిలో విజయం సాధించింది. అయినప్పటికీ చికాగో కార్మికవర్గం నిరుత్సాహపడలేదు.

     ఈనెల ఒకటిన జరిగిన సమ్మెకు ముందు టీచర్స్‌ యూనియన్‌ సమ్మె బ్యాలట్‌ నిర్వహించగా 88శాతం మంది సమ్మెకు అనుకూలంగా ఓటు వేశారు. యూనియన్‌ను పటిష్ట పరచటం, ప్రతి చోటా స్ధానిక నాయకత్వాన్ని గుర్తించటం, సమస్యలపై వెంటనే స్పందించటం, ఇతర రంగ కార్మికులకు మద్దతు ప్రకటించటం వంటి చర్యలతో టీచర్స్‌యూనియన్‌ టీచర్ల విశ్వాసాన్ని చూరగొన్నది. ప్రతి ఒక్కరికీ నిర్ణయం, అమలులో పమేయం కల్పించటం ద్వారా గతంలో అనేక ఎదురు దెబ్బలు తగిలినప్పటికీ ఏప్రిల్‌ ఒకటవ తేదీ సమ్మె జయప్రదంగా ముగియటం వారిలో పోరాట పటిమ తగ్గలేదనటానికి నిదర్శనంగా చెప్పవచ్చు. చికాగో టీచర్స్‌ యూనియన్‌ చూపుతున్న మార్గం అన్ని దేశాలలోని కార్మిక, వుద్యోగ సంఘాలకు మార్గదర్శనం చేస్తున్నదని చెప్పవచ్చు. ఆ యూనియన్‌ ఇతర యూనియన్లతో పాటు సామాజిక న్యాయ తరగతులు అంటే తక్కువ వేతనాలకు పనిచేసే ఫాస్ట్‌ ఫుడ్‌ సెంటర్ల కార్మికుల నుంచి నల్లజాతీయుల జీవిత సమస్యల వరకు(మన దేశంలో షెడ్యూలు కులాలు, తరగతులు, ఇతర బలహీన వర్గాలు) వరకు వారు సంబంధాలు కలిగి వున్నారు.అమెరికా సమాజంలో పురోగామి మార్పునకు ఒక శక్తిగా వున్నారని జాకోబిన్‌ అనే పత్రిక వ్యాఖ్యానించింది.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

socialism­ on­ campus

01 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, History, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics, RUSSIA, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, Cold War, democratic socialist, Harvard Students, John Reed, presidential campaign, Russian Revolution, Socialist

 

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2016/03/

The Harvard Crimson has published, as a “special report,” an admiring profile of Soviet dupe John Reed. The article concludes with a discussion of how the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders has made socialism fashionable on campus: One of the long­lasting impacts of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is the way that… he’s been able to change the conversation around “the s­word,” Tyrik LaCruise ’17, an avid Sanders supporter, said. “Running as a democratic socialist, people are like ‘Whoa, wait a second. It’s not as dirty as I thought. The post office is socialism. Public schools? Socialism. We have roads. That’s socialism.'” Paul Adler, a lecturer in Harvard’s History and Literature concentration, is intrigued by that reclamation. “The Sanders phenomenon is blowing my mind…. He calls himself a socialist. According to the polls of Democratic party voters, a lot of people are OK calling themselves socialists,” he said. “Maybe it’s been enough time since the Cold War that there can be a renewed attempt at all this.” If these Harvard folks think socialism is so nifty, why they don’t all decamp to U. Mass., Amherst, or some other government­run institution? The whole situation seems pretty grim, at least to judge by this particular special report.
You Say You Want a Revolution
Before Reed was a fearless revolutionary, he was a lonely Harvard student.
BY LAURA E. HATT, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER MARCH 31, 2016
John S. Reed, class of 1910, was in it for the money.

“I recall his telling me that he had two ambitions when he came to college,” a classmate of Reed’s said in the Academy Award-winning 1981 biopic “Reds.” “One was to be elected president of his class. He didn’t know anyone in his class. No one knew him. The other was to make a million dollars by the time he was 25.”

That would change. By Reed’s senior year of college, he would reject the narrow-minded Harvard aristocracy. He would take over club meetings and ruin dinner parties, overflowing with passionate rants about equality and the worker. Consumed with radicalism, he would dedicate his college career to sparking “an influx of discontent, of revolutionary ideas, of criticism and revolt.”

Less than 10 years after that, Reed would become one of the most prominent American communist leaders and writers of the early 20th century. In fact, he spent the decade after college in a propaganda-writing, labor-organizing, revolution-inciting frenzy. In 1913, he rode with Pancho Villa’s army, reporting on the Mexican Revolution. In 1917 he travelled to the USSR as an independent journalist, joining Lenin in the October Revolution. In 1919 he helped form the Communist Labor Party of America, serving as its international delegate.

By that time, John Reed had become a household name. His account of the Russian Revolution, “Ten Days that Shook the World”, was being taught in schools across the USSR. Those who had known him praised him as “the pulse of the young lion,” mourned him as “a Soviet Russian hero,” and pitied him as a victim of “the damned Bolsheviki.” When he died of typhus on Oct. 17, 1920, his body was buried in the Kremlin.

Reed wasn’t born a socialist, though. In fact, he was born into a typical upper middle-class family in Portland, Oregon on Oct. 22, 1887. Though he would eventually grow into a tall, broad-shouldered athlete—hazel eyes intense even in laughter—as a child he was sickly and bullied by his peers.

Childhood images of John Reed

Childhood images of John Reed
John Reed posing as a child. John Reed Additional Papers, 1887-1976 (MS Am 1091.3). Houghton Library, Harvard University. COURTESY OF JOHN REED ADDITIONAL PAPERS, 1887-1976 (MS AM 1091.3). HOUGHTON LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

“I wasn’t much good at the things other boys were, and their codes of honor and conduct didn’t hold me. They felt it too, and had a sort of good-natured contempt,” Reed recalled in his memoir, “Almost Thirty.” “One time, when I was on the editorial board of the school paper, a boy I was afraid of warned me not to publish a joking paragraph I had written about him—and I didn’t…” From a young age, Reed wanted nothing more than acceptance.

Before Reed was a fearless revolutionary, he was a lonely Harvard student. Before he wrote satire for “The Masses,” he wrote plays for the Hasty Pudding. Before he aspired to the Executive Committee of the Comintern, he tried to get punched by the Porcellian.

Before Reed denounced the aristocracy, he desperately wanted to join it.

Rich Men’s Sons
John Reed was not born into the proletariat. He spent his earliest years mixing with Portland high society in his wealthy grandmother’s home, which he later described as “… a lordly grey mansion modelled on a French chateau, with its immense park, its formal gardens, lawns, stables, green-houses and glass grape-arbor, the tame deer among the trees…” His grandfather, Henry D. Green, had founded the Portland Gas-light Company, and purchased the estate in 1873 for $28,000 (equivalent to about half a million dollars today).

That prosperity was short-lived: Reed’s grandmother had expensive taste and a love of travel, and after her husband’s death she quickly spent the majority of the family fortune. Reed’s financial situation became even more precarious after a severe economic depression shook the United States in 1893. When Reed was only nine years old, his parents moved from the Green mansion to an apartment downtown. A few years later, Reed’s father became embroiled in a political scandal that provoked the ire of the Portland aristocracy—the final nail in the Reed family’s social coffin.
Still, Reed attended some of the most expensive schools on the East Coast. At 16, he left Portland for a New Jersey boarding school, and in the fall of 1906 he enrolled at Harvard College. A few years later, his brother, Harry, followed. This prestigious education came at both a financial and an emotional cost: as Reed reminisced a decade later, “We never knew until later how much our mother and father denied themselves that we might go, and how [my father] poured out his life that we might live like rich men’s sons.”

Reed might have been able to afford the cost of tuition, but he could not hide his Western, middle-class roots: Harvard had an excellent nose for those masquerading as “rich men’s sons.”

William James described students like Reed in his 1903 essay “The True Harvard.” Those who arrived “from the remotest outskirts of our country, without introductions, without school affiliations,” had no place in Harvard’s social spaces, he said. “They seldom or never darken the doors of the Pudding or the Porcellian.”

As John M. Brown ’23 wrote in the Harvard Alumni Bulletin, the Harvard of 1906 was a place of “poor boys and rich boys; those favored because they were Brahmin-born and others penalized because they were not.” Most of Reed’s new peers had attended elite East Coast prep schools, and considered “new money”—or, worse, no money—beneath them. A boisterous nobody from Portland hardly stood a chance.

This never deterred Reed. A childhood on the (relative) social margins had conditioned him to value popularity, and a natural competitive instinct drove him to compete for it. He developed a fascination with Harvard’s aristocracy, and when he arrived on campus in the fall of 1906 he sought to join it.

“A furious energy drove me to all kinds of bodily and mental exercise, without any particular direction,” he wrote in his memoir. “I was increasingly active and restless, more ambitious of place and power, less exalted, scattering myself in a hundred different directions…” He wanted to be a poet. He wanted to be a novelist. He wanted to be a lover, and a fighter, and a rebel. More than anything else, he wanted to be accepted.

“During my freshman year I used to pray to be liked, to have friends, to be popular with the crowd,” Reed wrote.

The Waiting Game
To a lonely Harvard freshman at the turn of the twentieth century, popularity meant joining a Final Club.

The punch process began with admission to the Institute of 1770, an exclusive social organization which selected 100 men from the sophomore class each year and named them “the socially elect.” Becoming a member of the Institute meant prestige; it meant status; most of all, it meant eligibility for the next tier of exclusive social organizations, the Waiting Clubs. After election to a Waiting Club, juniors and seniors were eligible for an invitation to a Final Club—the apex of the whole system, and the playground of Harvard’s elite.

“To the ordinary freshman before whose eyes the plum of the Institute is dangled,” Reed wrote, “a Final Club seems the end of earthly ambitions.”

Childhood images of John Reed
John Reed poses as a teenager. COURTESY OF JOHN REED ADDITIONAL PAPERS, 1887-1976 (MS AM 1091.3). HOUGHTON LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
It all hinged on the Institute. For Reed, though, getting in was easier said than done. When the Class of 1910 entered Harvard, it had nearly 700 members. The Institute would select only 100. Reed’s odds were bad from the start.

In search of a niche, Reed tried to join the freshman crew team. He committed a significant portion of his freshman year to the task, even staying on campus during holidays to row by himself, but he was the last rower eliminated before the end-of-year Harvard-Yale crew regatta and never technically made the team.

Reed’s initial forays into the arts community ended similarly fruitlessly. Though he’d later write books and articles hailed by nations, by the end of his freshman year he hadn’t been granted entry to a single campus publication.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I got to know many fellows to nod to, and a very few intimately; but most of my friends were whirled off and up into prominence, and came to see me no more,” he reminisced in “Almost Thirty,” “Athletes and musicians and writers and statesmen were emerging from the ranks of the class. The Freshman clubs were forming. And I was out of it all.”

Reed was never invited to join the Institute of 1770. He never joined a Waiting Club, he never joined a Final Club, and he never really reached the upper echelons he’d aspired to as a freshman.

This exclusion was partially the product of class. Reed hadn’t been born into the eastern elite, and the eastern elite knew it.

Reed knew it, too. When he was rejected sophomore year for two posts for which he felt he “qualified easily”—an editorial position at The Harvard Crimson and the assistant managership of the Varsity Crew team—he chalked it up to snobbery and walked away bitter.

It wasn’t only Reed’s class, though: When Reed’s brother arrived to Harvard two years later, he was invited to join the same organizations that had overlooked his older sibling. The snub was also personal.

“There is a clue to his lack of acceptance, his lack of the quality the British call ‘clubable,’” wrote his classmate, Edward E. Hunt, class of 1910. “Through everything he did there ran a strand of the grotesque which turned the most serious event into laughter.”

Regardless of its cause, Reed took rejection hard. “The thought that he could be considered inferior, unworthy of their attention no matter what he did, came as a numbing shock to him,” wrote Richard O’Connor in his biography of Reed, “The Lost Revolutionary.”

The Athlete, the Scholar, and the Activities Man
By sophomore year, Reed recalibrated. Rejected by the elites and no longer willing to measure personal success by class or wealth, he found a new strategy for social acceptance: joining as many extracurricular activities as possible. As he saw it, the class was divided into three neat groups: the athlete, the scholar, and the “activities man.” Reed knew which he wanted to join.
In Reed’s model, athletes represented the pinnacle of the social hierarchy. “The average undergraduate would rather win his “H” than get Phi Beta Kappa,” he wrote in an essay. He wasn’t wrong: by 1907-08, Reed’s sophomore year, campus athletics had become such a dominant social force that President Eliot became concerned that sports were exhausting players, keeping fans from their studies, and encouraging “the betting evil.”

Despite his initial setbacks on the river, Reed enjoyed moderate athletic success on the field and in the pool. He was a member of the swimming team, captain of the water polo team, and song-leader of the cheerleading squad.

A former classmate, the Pulitzer prize-winning left-wing journalist Walter Lippmann, class of 1910, remembered Reed as the star of the cheerleading squad. “He would stand up alone before a few thousand undergraduates and demonstrate without a quiver of self-consciousness just how a cheer should be given,” Lippmann wrote in the New Republic in 1914. “If he didn’t like the way his instructions were followed he cursed at the crowd, bullied it, sneered at it. It was a sensational triumph for [John] Reed but wasn’t altogether good form at college.”

In the Russian Revolution, the ability to rouse a crowd would serve him well.

Still, Reed saw the athlete’s position in the campus hierarchy as that of an empty figurehead with no real power. He thought that the student that embodied Harvard’s most traditional values was really “the scholar:” “He is studying what the great Harvard men of the past have studied—he is really seeking what Harvard has stood for for three hundred years—Veritas.”

Reed himself barely scraped past Harvard’s entrance exams, and he left an undergraduate record dotted with C’s, D’s, and E’s (modern F’s). A self-confessed “indifferent student,” he found the classroom dry and lifeless. “Why should I have been interested in the stupid education of our time?” he asked. “We take young soaring imaginations, consumed with curiosity about the life they see all around, and feed them with dead technique.” He wrote a number of his essays on club or scrap stationary, perhaps as a deliberate snub.

Though Reed respected Harvard’s undergraduate scholars, he never wanted to befriend or become one. “Long lack of comradeship with any but those of his kind have made him intolerant of frivolity, have dried in him the natural desires and exaltations of youth, and therefore he is misunderstood and despised,” he wrote.

That left the “activities man.” Students active in extracurriculars had the social clout lacked by athletes and the social graces lacked by scholars. They embodied all the virtues a turn-of-the-20th-century ‘Harvard Man.’ “They are a community of enthusiasts, men of all trades,” he wrote. “They are dreamers and often poets. Their grades are often very poor mediocre and they subordinate college work to their “activities”…. They talk a great deal among themselves, exchanging ideas and thoughts, strengthening friendships and learning what real standards there are by which to judge a man.” The activities man was busy, plugged in, a member of all the clubs, an insider.

By the time of his graduation, Reed had joined so many extracurriculars that his class bio was longer than his (nonexistent) senior thesis. He managed the Glee Club; he joined the Debating Club; he was a member of such mysteriously named organizations as the Memorial Society, the Round Table, the Symposium, and the Oracle. At various points, Reed was a member of some 16 organizations and teams—an impressive number even by Harvard’s contemporary standard.
Reed was the activities man.

A Seat at the Table
Amongst these many organizations were a few campus publications. Despite his failed start at the Crimson, Reed became an editor at the Harvard Monthly, a literary magazine where his poems and stories, “juvenile and imitative though they were, won respect and praise and inspired enthusiastic prophecies,” according to Granville Hicks ’23. He was also a writer and “Ibis”—second-in-command—at the Lampoon.
Reed was a leader as well as a writer. He had a gift for organizing people and executing visions—and he had no shortage of ideas.

Still struggling to reconcile his Portland upbringing with his Cambridge education, he became president of the Western Club. A casual eating club created to defy Harvard’s puritanical social norms, the organization became known for mischief and outrageous practical jokes. As President, Reed sat at the head of every table and introduced diners in increasingly ludicrous ways.

“Gentlemen, the future President of the United States!” he cried when Lippmann joined him one evening.

“Where have you bean?” he shouted at another friend, throwing a handful of beans.

Reed didn’t confine his antics to the Western Club. As Hicks reported, over the spring break of his junior year, a debacle involving a series of bars, “a resort of dubious reputation,” and a spontaneous trip to Bermuda resulted in Reed’s “rustication”—an archaic punishment based on exile to Concord, Mass. Reed spent the rest of the semester in time-out.

When not in Concord, Reed served as President of the Cosmopolitan Club. Founded by Reed on Feb. 12, 1908, the club united Harvard’s international students, entertained foreign dignitaries, and discussed world affairs. It was wildly successful: 53 students joined at its inception, and by Reed’s graduation in the spring of 1910 that number had grown to roughly 200.

Reed called it “one of the most important organizations ever formed among the students at Harvard.”

Then again, Reed had a taste for hyperbole. It showed up in his rhetoric, marked his prose, and, in the fall of his junior year, inspired the creation of the Dramatic Club.

The club provided Harvard’s budding playwrights with a stage. The school offered few opportunities to produce original student theater, and students taking playwriting courses—including Reed and his two co-founders, Edward Sheldon and Hans V. Kaltenborn—chafed at the limitation. Rather than trying to convince an existing troupe to produce student work, they decided to make their own.

The Dramatic Club was novel for another reason: it became the first theater group on campus to admit women to its ranks. The decision provoked controversy. Members felt that “if we expected to achieve any social distinction at Harvard with our newly organized club, we simply could not permit the participation of Radcliffe girls,” Kaltenborn recalled in his memoir, “Fifty Fabulous Years.” Eventually, these protests were eventually overlooked “in the interest of better drama,” and the Dramatic Club (antecedent of the contemporary Harvard-Radcliffe Dramatic Club) went co-ed.

It’s easy to see traces of Reed’s later persona in his early college activities. By junior year, Reed was already an iconoclast, defying social mores and laughing at Harvard authority. He was an idealist, uniting his peers and planning to bring labor justice to the world. He was a leader, screaming at crowds in stadiums and theaters and pitting himself against the status quo.

But while he’d turned his eyes from the elites and become the “activities man” he’d always wanted to be, he was still searching for his cause. “John Reed was not a fiery left-winger in those days,” wrote Kaltenborn. “He was a nonconformist.”

Senior year, that changed.

Infiltrating the Ranks
In his final year of college, Reed discovered the Harvard Socialist Club. Founded by two freshmen in 1908, the club’s stated goal was to use the study and spread of socialism to correct the “fundamentally imperfect” state of society. At inception, it had nine members.
Despite its modest size, the Club pledged to permeate the college. As Reed put it, “They sat not in lofty contempt above the ignorant student body, but mingled with it, learning its sympathies and weakness, used its machinery…” While club members held frequent discussions of their own, often continuing hours after midnight, they attempted to recruit and effect change by infiltrating other campus organizations.

This turned out to be an effective strategy. After less than five years, the Socialist Club had between 30 and 50 members. Two years after Reed’s graduation, a senior named Gerard C. Henderson, class of 1912, told the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine that the club’s “…fringes merge imperceptibly into a half-dozen political clubs, some adherents of such leaders as Wilson and La Follette, and others more vaguely representative of insurgency and progressivism.”

Reed was never officially a member, but the club still radicalized him. “It made me, and many others, realize that there was something going on in the dull outside world more thrilling than college activities,” he wrote.

Reed’s newfound politics were first evident in his writing. Reed had been writing for the Lampoon for a few years already, but during his senior year his sketches gained a biting political edge they’d lacked before.

In one Lampoon editorial, Reed mocked Harvard’s old money and gave advice to young men seeking to boost their pedigrees. “Hyphens are of immense value—remember that anyone will always be glad to lend money to an Endicott-Sears-Cabot, a Wendell-Wendell, or a Trumbull-Peabody,” he wrote. “If a child is too late to corral a Back Bay Brahman for a progenitor, let him seize upon a self-made man who has made a good job of it. Money will finally land anyone among the Captains of Society.”

Though Reed mocked them, the elite were beginning to notice him.

In the spring of Reed’s senior year, he was offered membership in the Hasty Pudding. The Pudding was one of the most exclusive social organizations on campus, made up almost entirely of members of Waiting and Final Clubs, and to Reed the invitation must have seemed like a baffling reversal on the part of the aristocracy. Certainly, he had distinguished himself in the years since he’d first been overlooked, but he was still the same brash Westerner he’d always been.

In truth, the Hasty Pudding didn’t have much of an option. It was nearly time for the club’s annual musical, and none of its existing members—who had been selected on the basis of social status—felt capable of writing lyrics. Reed was a necessary outside hire, and he knew it.

The Hasty Pudding put on an uncharacteristically subversive show that year.

“Just insist that your aunt was a Cabot,

And your grandmother’s real name was Weld.

Try hard to make rudeness a habit,

And be careful with whom you’re beheld.”

Revolution in the Yard
Suddenly, Reed was a “club man.” A critical one, certainly, but a club man all the same. And as much as he tried to suppress it, he found satisfaction in the title. That satisfaction became evident at the end of his senior year.
In 1910, Harvard’s rich lived in glamorous private apartments on Mt. Auburn Street; the poor lived in dorms in Harvard Yard. This dichotomy influenced more than sleeping arrangements: Residents of the Street controlled most aspects of undergraduate life, and overwhelmingly filled class offices at graduation. That year, Reed was their nominee for Ivy Orator.

Then, the Yard revolted. In an explosion of resentment that had been brewing since freshman fall, the Yard refused to accept the Street’s nominations for class office. Residents of the Yard circulated petitions and submitted their own nominees instead.

Reed was stuck. He already considered himself a man of the people, but aligning himself with the Yard would undo all of his recent social progress. So he ran on behalf of the Street, and like almost every other Street candidate, he lost.

There had been a revolution, and he was on the wrong side.

Reed realized his mistake once it was already too late. Shortly after his graduation, he wrote a sweeping 73-page tract called “The Harvard Renaissance,” in which he describes the rise of socialism at the college. In that text, he calls the victory of the Yard “a vote of the unrepresented majority against its traditional leaders.” It is the story of the Marxist struggle in all but name.

College was Reed’s first introduction to the vapid nature of the privileged class. “The more I met the college aristocrats, the more their cold cruel stupidity repelled me,” he wrote in his memoir. “I began to pity them for their lack of imagination, and the narrowness of their glittering lives—clubs, athletics, society.

“College is like the world; outside there is the same class of people, dull and sated and blind.”

Three years later, Reed spoke on behalf of silk workers in Paterson, N.J., earning himself his first jail term and a reputation as a radical communist. Frustrated but not deterred, he allied himself with the trade union International Workers of the World and organized thousands of workers into a strike benefit in Madison Square Garden. By the late 1910s, the American government feared him. The USSR hailed him as a genius and taught his name in schools.

Richard M. Nixon didn’t call Harvard “the Kremlin on the Charles” for nothing. John Reed might have practiced socialism in New York City and St. Petersburg, but he learned it in the Yard.

Club Man at Last
Reed’s life was prime martyr material, and Harvard’s later left-wingers ate it up—“John Reed Clubs” began popping up across the United States only shortly after the man’s death.

Harvard had a branch, too. Calling itself a Marxist study and action group, the Harvard John Reed Society was founded in 1932 by “a group of undergraduates attracted by the personality of John Reed and interested in studying sciettific [sic] socialism, the cause for which he gave his life.” Though it was never widely popular, the club lingered for years. In 1943, it even published several issues of a magazine, The Harvard Vanguard.

Reed’s mother did not approve. Charlotte J. Reed was always upset by John Reed Clubs—she found them exploitative.

Reed might have felt the same way. “In view of what has happened in Russia since the Revolution, I am certain that he would not have tolerated the use of his name as a means of ensnaring idealistic American youth into the Communist party,” Reed’s old friend and Dramatic Club co-founder Hans V. Kaltenborn, class of 1909, reflected in “Fifty Fabulous Years.” “That is what is being done at Harvard today. The John Reed Society has been little more than a cover for Communist party activities at Harvard since its inception.”

It wasn’t safe to join a club with such a reputation in McCarthy-era America. In 1950, the John Reed Society went underground.

According to The Boston Herald, the club had applied for a meeting room in the spring of 1950, and the administration had accepted. But when Dean Robert A. Watson reached out the following fall, he got crickets. No one would come forward to take the key.

“Last year’s president, Donald M. Long of New York, is no longer at Harvard, for academic reasons,” wrote the Herald. “Last year’s vice-president, Philip H. Ennis, said he is no longer associated with the club. Nobody else admits association.”

Harvard assured the public that it had not shut down the club, but students were suspicious. Arthur J. Sockol ’51, a senior who “identified himself as spokesman for the group,” wrote to The Boston Traveler. Though the university had allowed the club to continue functioning, he said, students feared retaliation.

The club was dead. And despite a smattering of radical left-leaning organizations that popped up throughout the ’60s and later—the Young Socialist Alliance, the Young People’s Socialist League, the Democratic Socialists of America—it stayed dead.

Signs of Life
In 2016, the radical left has re-entered the conversation. Bernie Sanders, a presidential nominee who calls himself a “democratic socialist,” is experiencing widespread success, particularly among young voters. In the Iowa primary, 84 percent of Democratic voters aged 17-29 supported Sanders. In the New Hampshire primary, that number was 83 percent. In a recent Chegg study of 1,363 college students, 6 percent self-identified as socialists.

Is John Reed’s crusade experiencing a revival?
He Li ’16, president of Harvard Students for Bernie, considers it a question of semantics. “Obviously Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, [but] what’s more important to everybody I’ve talked to are his specific policies and what he stands for,” Li said. “The label of socialist, that comes second.”

Others feel differently. “One of the long-lasting impacts of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is the way that… he’s been able to change the conversation around “the s-word,” Tyrik LaCruise ’17, an avid Sanders supporter, said. “Running as a democratic socialist, people are like ‘Whoa, wait a second. It’s not as dirty as I thought. The post office is socialism. Public schools? Socialism. We have roads. That’s socialism.’”

Paul Adler, a lecturer in Harvard’s History and Literature concentration, is intrigued by that reclamation. “The Sanders phenomenon is blowing my mind…. He calls himself a socialist. According to the polls of Democratic party voters, a lot of people are OK calling themselves socialists,” he said. “Maybe it’s been enough time since the Cold War that there can be a renewed attempt at all this.”

If the Cold War and the Red Scare really are beginning to fade from cultural memory, then contemporary students might find themselves facing a form of socialism in some ways analogous to the one that faced Reed. After all, Reed grew up in a pre-Soviet world. As Adler pointed out, “People were scared of socialism and said negative things about it, but it had more a connotation of scary anarchy than totalitarianism.” The same could be said today.

In that case, perhaps we should take a close look at John Reed. His life reads like a short novel, gripping in its intensity and poignant in its brevity. He believed in an ideal, and it drove him through college, across Europe, and into the ground before he turned 33.

Adler suggests that we view the revolutionary as simultaneous warning and inspiration.

“I think the most truthful interpretation is that [Reed] encompasses both,” said Adler. “He’s a warning about the dangers of political idealism, about having a philosophy that the ends justify the means. But he’s also an inspiration about getting down in the muck and trying to create some sort of better society.”

Courtesy :thecrimson.com, futureofcapitalism.com

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

Sanders and the Left After Super Tuesday

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics, Opinion, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, 2016 US Elections, Bernie Sanders, Democratic party, U.S. president, US Left, US left politics

Why there is still hope and why the Left should rejoice and push forward

Brad A. Bauerly and Ingar Solty

While some have become skeptical, there are those – fromThe Nation
viaPolitico and Tom Cahill (U.S. Uncut) to Robert Reich – who are now saying that this is not the end of the line for Bernie Sanders U.S. presidential bid.

Not Me, Us!

And it is indeed true that we should remind ourselves that ever since the 1980s the Democratic party leadership has scheduled the primary season in ways that voters in more conservative states would go to the polls first in order to prevent leftist grassroots candidates from challenging the neoliberal party establishment. Keeping that in mind, it’s also true that pretty much all the upcoming states are way more favorable to Sanders than most of the ones that have already voted.

And it’s also true that only those will now despair who had somewhat unrealistic hopes with regard to what was actually possible Tuesday night. After all, despite all the Sanders momentum etc., another historic upset like the one in Michigan was unlikely.

Regardless of how critical one is of how the corporate media prefers to talk about polls and electability instead of about actual political issues, regardless of how the 2016 U.S. presidential election is taking place in a highly dynamic and ultimately unpredictable “populist moment” and regardless also of how incredibly wrong therefore FiveThirtyEight and other influential polling institutions were when it came to predicting Michigan, one must admit that the FiveThirtyEight predictions have been quite accurate in most of the previous states so far. And despite the come-from-behind momentum resulting from the Michigan boost, one could simply not expect another upset in the states that voted Tuesday night.[1] FiveThirtyEight’s predictions of Sanders victories, just based on their polls, were <1% in Florida, <10% in Illinois, <1% in North Carolina, only 3% in Ohio and 46% in Missouri. So in a way, it was rather surprising that Sanders even came so close to winning Illinois and Missouri, beating the delegate goals of the Clinton campaign.

End of the Firewall?

All in all, Sanders’ lost by big margins only in the two states where everyone knew he would. And although those two states increase Clintons’ lead by more than 70 delegates, Reich and others are correct when they note that the Democratic primary scheduling “firewall” for Clinton has now come to an end. In the upcoming states the situation looks much better for Sanders withFiveThirtyEight suggesting a Sanders win probability – based on the previous primary elections – of 40% in Arizona, 75% in Idaho, 82% in Utah (March 22), 91% in Alaska, 81% in Hawaii and 85% in Washington (March 26), 61% in Wisconsin (April 5), 80% in Wyoming (April 9) etc.

In other words, unless the corporate media message according to which the presidential bid of the leftist candidate – against whom both theNew York Times
and theWashington Posthave been fighting tooth and nail all along – ended last night leads to disillusionment, even lower millennial and working class voter turnout in the upcoming states etc., a Sanders comeback, which equals a continued presence of his extremely popular left social-democratic message, is not that unlikely and can and should be fought for. And Reich and others are right to point out that the majority of delegates are still in play – with big prizes like California (548 delegates) and Wisconsin (96 delegates) still to come. And if the momentum is back and the movement behind Sanders continues to further effectively deconstruct Clinton’s faux progressivism, “faux feminism”[2] and her zombie-ish electability myth (polls show that the probability of a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz presidency is much higher with a Clinton nomination), etc. then also the super-delegates will find it harder to support Clinton against the popular vote. And the left may find comfort in the fact that Sanders is actually still doing better than he ought to be doing according to at least one of the comprehensive three Sanders victory scenarios outlined byDailyKoslast month.

Nevertheless, yesterday obviously made things more difficult. Sanders’ come-from-behind momentum appears to have taken a brunt. And gone is the message that Clinton can only win the solid South (which – with maybe a few exceptions like Florida, Virginia and North Carolina – Democrats are bound to lose in the federal election anyway…) but hardly anywhere else, especially not in the Midwest/rust belt hard-hit by the highly unpopular free-trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and TPP which Clinton embraced until she suddenly and without further explanation changed her mind on the trade issue in a blog post(!). So a successful Sanders nomination as the Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential elections has become even more unlikely last night, for sure.

However, here’s why beyond this type of reasoning leftists should not be disillusioned. In the very narrow sense of success, i.e. a successful Democratic nomination, a Sanders victory was extremely unlikely from the get-go. No one, not even the wildest optimists among us, expected Sanders to even get this far last year. And this also appears to have been one of the reasons why many of his radical left-wing supporters today were initially very critical of his campaign when it started, not just because of some controversial foreign-policy stances or because of real “social-democratic illusions” (especially with regard to finance and banking reform) but especially because he was considered a catalyst of left-wing, anti-neoliberal grassroots mobilization for an eventual neoliberal Clinton presidential bid.

And even when the campaign developed what Loren Balhorn would have called Sanders’ “WTF?! dynamism” (if only the German publisher had let him get away with that), only the boldest (or most clueless) leftist observers ended up saying last week that they would once and for all declare Sanders to become the Democratic party nominee. Of course, we all have hopes and dreams. We would not be leftists if we didn’t believe in the possibility of sudden unexpected change. If history was left to the pollsters and ‘pundits,’ theOctober Revolution would never have happened. Still, we must remember that only an incredible mass movement can/could bring Sanders even close to winning the Democratic nomination.

Why Should the Left Rejoice?

First of all, in terms of the narrow question of a presidential bid, there is the fact that because of the far-reaching popularity of his unique left-wing social-democratic message there’s still hope to be generated from the fact that, as the polls show, Sanders still has the capability of building majorities both within the Democratic primary as well as in the federal elections in November. And even though he has commented that he wouldn’t run as an independent candidate because of how it would split the vote and possibly hand the election to the GOP, it is still a possibility. A possibility which presumably would depend on a mixture of how the dynamism plays out in both parties’ primary elections over the course of the next months and maybe also who is pushing Sanders in which direction. Generally speaking, with Trump having moved one step further in the direction of a Republican nomination Tuesday night by winning Florida (albeit losing in Ohio against the establishment’s new favorite candidate, John Kasich, as opposed to the tea party government shutdown leader Ted Cruz…) and with the Republican party establishment apparently being dead set on preventing Trump at whatever political cost, we might even see four presidential candidates in November. And obviously such a split in both parties would be highly beneficial to such a Sanders presidential bid, because otherwise the Ralph Nader 2000 trauma would be reawakened and it would be all Clinton vs. Trump.

“

The American left … has won by how the Sanders campaign politicized the usually completely depoliticized American presidential elections of neoliberal candidates of various shades vaguely promising ‘hope’ and ‘change’ and ‘conservative values’.”

However, the point why the global left should rejoice is, secondly, that all of these ifs-and-buts questions are really not even the most important ones. The main reason why the global left should rejoice is because the left in the U.S. will not only have won in case Sanders eventually wins, against all odds, the nomination and the 2016 presidential election (which, given the popularity of his message and the widespread hatred of Trump, he then probably would). The American left has already won no matter what happens next! It has won by how the Sanders campaign politicized the usually completely depoliticized American presidential elections of neoliberal candidates of various shades vaguely promising ‘hope’ and ‘change’ and ‘conservative values’. It has won by enforcing a debate about capitalism and its surface symptomology income and wealth inequality. It has won by pulling it out into the open how this obscene inequality is corrupting liberal democracy, how it has created an oligarchic power structure and how only a comprehensive strategy of conflict-oriented social movements at all levels – the workplace, the street, and the political/parliamentary system, i.e. a revolutionary realpolitik (Rosa Luxemburg) inside and against the state, which is aimed at shifting the balance of forces between capital and labour, can undo it. And it has won by clearly demarcating the divide between the left in the U.S. and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Despite Sanders’ recent claim that he ran as a Democrat because it would give him greater media exposure and because they had an existing institutional structure, he clearly also did so to drive home just how neoliberal Clinton was and to reveal how a left Democrat could run. A very strong reason to keep hope alive in the Sanders camp is because of how he will continue to reveal this divide in the party. It is a real victory of this campaign in exposing what Sanders, based on decades of dealings with the party knows: that the DP is the main barrier to leftward movement in the U.S. and the true source of the neoliberal hegemony. By showing that it is possible to run as a socialist Democratic candidate and have a chance, Bernie has opened up future possibilities by exposing the rift in the party. In fact, we quite possibly will look back at this as the moment of the break with neoliberalism of the party. And Sanders’ run has also put the left on solid footing of attack if Hillary becomes the president. Again, this will take future work but it will be much harder to pass off future rightward drift as inevitable or just Democratic party business-as-usual with the divide in the party exposed. The background noise of future politics will always be: we had another path but chose this one. Conversely if Trump wins the left will also have a solid foundation to argue that his victory was due to the neoliberal drift of the Democratic Party and only a left Democrat could’ve/can stop the hard right in the future.

And finally, and this may be the most remarkable achievement, the American left has won by establishing Sanders’ concrete left-wing social-democratic and/or transformative transition demands in the American political landscape and imagination: single-payer health care, free public education, a federal living wage of $15/hour, the Workplace Democracy Act facilitating unionization, fundamental banking reform (even if focused on dismantling instead of socialization…). Hence, the American populace is now much more aware about the real tertium-non-datur alternative: A left-wing Social Green New Deal as a general, inclusive and solidarity-based high-road exit strategy from the crisis, which would re-shift the relationship of forces between capital and labour and could function as the most coherent entrance project to a post-capitalist future, or the global neoliberal unity coalition’s low-road exit strategy of austerity with further immiseration, nationalist exclusion and destruction of the public good.

All of this will not go away. Or rather, beyond carrying on the Sanders presidential campaign, the American left now has the opportunity (and, we think, obligation) to not let the Sanders mobilization eventually dissolve but integrate the millions of enthused, but often – not least because of their extremely young age – politically inexperienced Sanders supporters into (the already existing) social movements mobilizing around those concrete demands of “Medicare for all,” “Fight for 15 and a union” etc.

And in all of that, the Sanders movement is also a historic victory not only for the American left. Rather, the American left has given the world the greatest gift. And that is that, because of U.S. hegemony, the entire world has been watching how the anti-neoliberal left is now suddenly capable of building majorities around transformative transition programs. We cannot overestimate and should take pleasure in how this fact would send shivers down the spines of current and former third way social-democratic party leaders all across the core capitalist countries if only the Clintons, Blairs, Schroeders, Jospins, Zapateros, Hollandes, Gabriels, Renzis and Sánchez’ had spines. Yes, the entire world is watching how the anti-neoliberal left is now suddenly even moving into the direction of once again and realistically posing the question of (political) power – and not only in the “imperialist chain’s weakest links,” i.e. economically devastated peripheries with very, very little room for maneuvering such as Greece, but also in the very heart of the core capitalist countries and the American Empire.

Thus, the SYRIZA-Corbyn-Sanders freedom train continues zooming down the tracks. Its path is bumpy. To every up-hill there’s a down-hill. But it’s moving forward, and, despite it all, it’s moving forward fast. •

Brad Bauerly has his Ph.D. from York University and is an instructor in Political Science at SUNY Plattsburgh. His book on agriculture and U.S. state building will be out this summer.

Ingar Solty is a Fellow at the Berlin Institute for Critical Theory and a Fellow at the Institute for Social Analysis at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. His most recent books areThe USA under Obama: Charismatic Leadership, Social Movements and Imperial Politics in the Global Crisis(Argument Verlag, 2013),New German Foreign Policy, the Crisis and Left-Wing Alternatives(Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, 2016) andAesthetics in a Changing Capitalism: Studies on the Politics of Culture in Fascism, Fordism and Neoliberalism(forthcoming, Argument Verlag, 2016 – all in German).

Endnotes:

1. It is also unclear what impact the recent violence at Trump rallies had in the primaries outcomes. While those on the left would like to believe that seeing protesters take on and challenge the xenophobic and racist atmosphere of those events we should also be mindful that many would see that violence and the potential for more in the future and run back into the arms of the neoliberal Democrats who they see as able to protect them.

2. Liza Featherstone, Ed.,False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Verso Books, London/New York 2016.

This article First Appeared in socialistproject.ca

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

అమెరికాలో ఆకస్మికంగా మిలియన్ల మంది సోషలిస్టులు ఎలా వచ్చారు ?

13 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics, Opinion, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, inequality, new American socialism, Occupy Wall Street, Socialism, socialists

హెరాల్డ్‌ మేయర్స్‌న్‌

    అమెరికా సంయుక్త రాష్ట్రాలలో సోషలిజం ఎందుకు లేదు అనే శీర్షికతో 1906లో జర్మన్‌ సామాజికవేత్త వెర్నర్‌ సోంబార్ట్‌ ఒక వ్యాసం రాశారు. పెద్ద పారిశ్రామిక దేశాలలో అమెరికాలోనే ఎందుకు పెద్ద సోషలిస్టు వుద్యమాలు అభివృద్ధి కాలేదు అనే అంశాన్ని వివరించేందుకు ప్రయత్నించారు. ఈరోజు మనం భిన్నమైన ప్రశ్నను వేయాల్సి వుంది. అదేమంటే అమెరికాలో సోషలిస్టులు ఎలా వచ్చారు ? ఈ దేశంలో చాలా కాలం నుంచి సోషలిజం పిలుపుకు ప్రతిఘటన వుంది.ఈ రోజు ఆకస్మికంగా తమను తాము సోషలిస్టులుగా ప్రకటించుకుంటున్న వీరు ఎవరు? ఎక్కడి నుంచి వచ్చారు ? వారి దృష్టిలో సోషలిజం అంటే ఏమిటి ?

    స్వయంగా తాను డెమోక్రటిక్‌ సోషలిస్టును అని ప్రకటించుకున్న ఒక అభ్యర్ధికి అనేక మంది డెమోక్రాట్లు ఓట్లు వేసేందుకు సిద్దపడటాన్ని బెర్నీ శాండర్స్‌ అధ్యక్ష అభ్యర్ది ప్రచారం స్పష్టం చేసింది. కానీ అంతకంటే ఎక్కువగా నాటకీయంగా మరియు పర్యవసానాల కారణంగా ఇంకా ఎక్కువ మంది తాము సోషలిస్టులమని స్వయంగా చెబుతున్నారు. లోవా రాష్ట్ర సమావేశాల సందర్బంగా జరిగిన ఒక సర్వేలో దానికి హాజరు కావాలని నిర్ణయించుకున్న డెమోక్రాట్స్‌లో 40శాతం మంది తాము సోషలిస్టుల మని చెప్పారు. న్యూ హాంప్‌షైర్‌ ప్రాధమిక సమావేశాల సందర్భంగా బోస్టన్‌ గ్లోబ్‌ సర్వేలో 31శాతం మంది న్యూహాంప్‌షైర్‌ డెమోక్రాట్‌ ఓటర్లు తాము సోషలిస్టులమని, ముప్పై ఐదు సంవత్సరాల లోపు ఓటర్లలో సగానికిపైగా చెప్పారు. ఫిబ్రవరి చివరలో సౌత్‌ కరోలినా సమావేశాల సందర్బంగా తాము సోషలిస్టులమని 39శాతం మంది డెమోక్రాట్స్‌ చెప్పారు.

   సోషలిజానికి అనుకూలమైన అభిప్రాయాలు శాండర్స్‌ మద్దతుదార్లకే పరిమితం కాలేదు. సౌత్‌ కరోలినా రాష్ట్రంలో అయనకు వాస్తవంగా ఓటు వేసిన వారికంటే 13శాతం ఎక్కువగా సోషలిస్టులమని చెప్పారు. నవంబరులో న్యూయార్క్‌ టైమ్స్‌ పత్రిక చేసిన సర్వేలో 52శాతం మంది హిల్లరీ క్లింటన్‌ అభిమానులతో సహా 56శాతం డెమోక్రాట్స్‌ సోషలిజానికి అనుకూలం అని వెల్లడించారు. శాండర్స్‌ అభ్యర్ధిత్వమే వారిని సోషలిజం వైపుకు లాగలేదు. 2011లోనే ప్యూ సర్వే 30 సంవత్సరాల లోపు అమెరికన్లు (కేవలం డెమోక్రాట్లే కాదు) 49శాతం మంది సోషలిజం పట్ల సానుకూల వైఖరితో, కేవలం 47శాతం మందే పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానానికి అనుకూలంగా వున్నట్లు వెల్లడించింది. బెర్నీ శాండర్స్‌ యువతరాన్ని సోషలిజం వైపు నెట్టలేదు, అప్పటికే అక్కడ వున్నారు.

    నిజానికి సర్వేలలో కనిపిస్తున్న వర్తమాన సోషలిజంవైపు మొగ్గు తొంభైతొమ్మిది శాతాన్ని ఫణంగా పెట్టి ఒక శాతం మంది లబ్దిపొందుతున్నారనే వాల్‌స్ట్రీట్‌ ఆక్రమణ వుద్యమం సందేశంలోనే ఎక్కువ మంది అమెరికన్లు ఆవైపు వున్నట్లు ముందే చెప్పింది. ఇరవై ఒకటవ శతాబ్దంలో పెట్టుబడి అనే థామస్‌ పికెట్టీ గ్రంధం అత్యధికంగా అమ్ముడు పోయిన పుస్తకాల జాబితాలోకి ఎదగటం, కనీస వేతనం 15 డాలర్లు (గంటకు) వుండాలనే పోరాటం నగరాలు, రాష్ట్రాలను కదిలించటంలో విజయవంతం కావటంలోనే అది కనిపించింది.

    నూతన అమెరికన్‌ సోషలిజం సారాంశం ఏమిటి ? తమను తాము సోషలిస్టులుగా వర్ణించుకున్న కొత్తగా పొదిగిన ఈ పిల్లలను దాని అర్ధం ఏమిటని ఏ ఒక్క సర్వే అడగలేని నాకు తెలుసు, అయితే మనం జ్ఞాన సంబంధంగా కొన్నింటిని వూహించుకోవచ్చు. తొలుత వారు సోషలిజాన్ని తీవ్ర వుదారవాదానికి పోటీగా ముందుకు తేలేదు. ఎవరైతే సోషలిస్టులుగా గుర్తింపును చెప్పుకొనే వారు సంఖ్యా పరంగా పెరిగారో అదే సమయంలో తమను వుదారవాదులుగా చెప్పుకొనే వారు కూడా పెరిగారు. పూ సర్వేలో 2000 సంవత్సరంలో కేవలం 27శాతం మంది డెమోక్రాట్లు మాత్రమే తాము వుదారవాదులమని చెప్పారు, అది 2015 నాటికి 42 శాతానికి పెరిగింది. నూతన తరంలో 2004లో 37శాతం మంది వుంటే నేటికి 49శాతానికి పెరిగారు.దక్షిణ కరోలినా బ్లూమ్‌బెర్గ్‌ సర్వేలో 39శాతం తాము సోషలిస్టుల మని చెప్పుకోగా, 74శాతం మంది తాము పురోగమన వాదులమని, 68శాతం మంది వుదారవాదులమని చెప్పుకున్నారు. ఏదో ఒకదానిని ఎంచుకోవాలనే షరతు ఆ సర్వేలో పెట్టలేదు.

   నిజానికి అమెరికన్లు సోషలిజాన్ని అంగీకరించటంలో ఒక కీలకం ఏమంటే వామపక్షమా-మధ్యేవాదమా ఏదో ఒక రాజకీయ గుర్తింపును తేల్చుకోమని వారిని అడగలేదు. మూడవ ప్రత్యామ్నాయ అభ్యర్దిగా గాక ఒక డెమోక్రాట్‌గా శాండర్స్‌ పోటీ చేయటం ద్వారా నిజమైన అమెరికన్‌ (లేదా కనీసం డెమోక్రటిక్‌)రాజకీయాలలో తమ సామర్ద్యాన్ని కోల్పోకుండానే అభ్యుదయ వాదులు తమను తాము సోషలిస్టులుగా పిలిపించుకొనటాన్ని సాధ్యం చేశాడు.

    నేడు శాండర్స్‌ స్వంత కార్యక్రమాన్ని ఆయన మద్దతుదార్లు కాని ఎక్కువ మంది వుదారవాదులు బలపరచటం లేదు. కేవలం నలుగురు పార్లమెంట్‌ సభ్యులు మాత్రమే ఆయనను బలపరిచారు. అందరికీ ఒకే సంస్ధ చెల్లించే ఆరోగ్యబీమా పధకానికి మాత్రం 60 మంది మద్దతు పలికారు అయితే అది శాండర్స్‌ ముద్ర వున్న ప్రతిపాదన అనుకోండి. గతంలో తమను వుదారవాదులుగా పిలవాలని కోరుకున్నవారిలో మిలియన్ల మంది అమెరికన్లు ఇప్పుడు సోషలిస్టు ముద్రతో ఎందుకు గుర్తింపును కోరుతున్నారు? ఒకటి శాండర్స్‌ ప్రచారం, కొందరిలో సోషలిజం గురించి వున్న అపవాదును తుడిపివేసిందనటంలో ఎలాంటి సందేహం లేదు. సోవియట్‌ కమ్యూనిజం కుప్పకూలటం పశ్చిమ ఐరోపాలోని సోషల్‌ డెమోక్రటిక్‌ దేశాల సోషలిజంతో తమ గుర్తింపును పొందటానికి అమెరికన్‌ యువతను అనుమతించింది. అమెరికాతో పోల్చితే వాటన్నింటిలో ఆర్ధిక అసమానత మరియు దానిని అనుసరించి వుండే కష్టనష్టాలు తక్కువగా వున్నాయి.

    అయితే మిలియన్ల మంది అమెరికన్లు సోషలిస్టు వరుసలో నిలబడటానికి వర్తమాన అమెరికన్‌ పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానం దాదాపు పూర్తిగా పనిచేయక పోవటమే ప్రధానంగా వారిని కదిలించింది. ఒకసారి క్రమబద్దీకరించబడిన, యూనియన్లలో సంఘటితమైన, 20వ శతాబ్దపు మధ్య కాలంలో పాక్షిక సామాజికమైన పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానం ప్రతిస్పందించే మధ్య తరగతి మెజారిటీని సృష్టించింది. గత మూడున్నర దశాబ్దాల క్రమబద్దీకరణ ఎత్తివేసిన, యూనియన్లలో సంఘటితం కాని, ద్రవ్య పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానం రికార్డు స్ధాయిలో అసమానతను పెంచటం, మధ్య తరగతి తగ్గిపోవటం, యువతకు ఆర్ధిక అవకాశాలు(వాటితో పాటు రికార్డు స్ధాయిలో ఆర్ధిక భారాలు పెరగటం) తగ్గిపోయాయి.

     ఆమెరికా ఆకస్మికంగా మిలియన్ల మంది సోషలిస్టులకు నిలయం కావచ్చు, కానీ ఇప్పటికీ దానికి సోషలిస్టు వుద్యమం లేదు, బెర్నీ శాండర్స్‌ ఎన్నికల ప్రచారం అయిపోయిన తరువాత శాండరిస్టులు వుద్యమ నిర్మాణం చేయాల్సి వుంది. బెర్న్‌ భావిస్తున్నట్లుగా దీనిని వ్యక్తులకు మరియు కొన్ని సంస్ధలకే పరిమితం చేస్తే అది స్వయం ఓటమి అవుతుంది.వుదాహరణకు ఈ ఏడాది పోటీలో హిల్లరీ క్లింటన్‌ను బలపరిచిన పురోగామి యూనియన్లు అంతర్గతంగా డెమోక్రటిక్‌ పార్టీలోనే ప్రస్తుతం తీవ్రంగా ఆవిర్బవిస్తున్న సోషల్‌ డెమోక్రటిక్‌ సంస్ధ లేదా సంస్ధలకు మద్దతు పలకటం సంభావ్యంగా కనిపిస్తోంది.

   గొడ్డు మాంస వేపుడు, ఆపిల్‌ వంటకాలతో అమెరికాలో సోషలిస్టు ఊహ కూలిపోయింది అని 1906లో వెర్నర్‌ సాంబార్ట్‌ వ్యాఖ్యానించాడు. పారిశ్రామిక కార్మికులుగా అమెరికాకు వలస వచ్చిన వారికి తాము వదలి వచ్చిన ప్రాంతాలతో పోల్చితే అక్కడి జీవన ప్రమాణాలు ఎంతో ఎక్కువగా వుండటంతో వారికి సోషలిజం అనవసరమైందిగా కనిపించిందని ఆయన చెప్పాడు.సాంబార్ట్‌ చెప్పినదాని ప్రకారం వాస్తవంగా మరియు ఆర్ధిక పరిస్తితులు మెరుగు పడి కష్టానికి తగిన ప్రతిఫలం కీలకంగా వున్న దేశంలో సోషలిజం అవసరం వుండదు.అలాగాక వాస్తవంగా మరియు ఆర్ధిక పరిస్తితులు దిగజారుతూ కేవలం ధనికులకు మాత్రమే ప్రతిఫలం ఇచ్చే దేశం సోషలిజానికి లేదా మరింత సూటిగా చెప్పాలంటే సోషలిస్టులు ఆకస్మికంగా వునికిలోకి రావటం కీలకం అవుతుంది.అందుకే 2016లో అమెరికాలో సోషలిస్టులు మిలియన్ల మంది వున్నారు.

ఈ వ్యాసం తొలుత బ్రిటన్‌ గార్డియన్‌ పత్రికలో ప్రచురితమైంది

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

A POLITICAL REVOLUTION FOR THE U.S. LEFT

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by raomk in INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics, Opinion, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, communist, Democratic party, MARXIST, POLITICAL REVOLUTION, Socialist, The Left’s, THE U.S. LEFT

Ethan Young – March 2016

The U.S. Left is in the process of emerging from decades of decline. It entered the Obama years in terrible shape: politically incoherent, cut off from its historical continuity, and organizationally and socially fragmented. Yet in the last years there have been signs of awakening, and in the past few months a new progressive insurgency has appeared, piercing public consciousness in a way not seen in generations.

The most distinctive form this insurgency takes is the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2016. Sanders is the first self-proclaimed socialist to win a national audience since Eugene V. Debs ran as the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate in the early 20th century, and the size of his base is arguably greater than that of any socialist leader in U.S. history.

This is primarily a political movement with social overtones—in particular, its embrace by students and young people, mainly white, who are responding to an anti-austerity message presented clearly, forcefully and repeatedly. The racial composition is significant because African American and Latino constituencies, in most cases, comprise the most left-leaning sectors of the electorate and of the working class nationally.

Social movements have also appeared (or re-appeared) in response to social issues stimulated by neoliberalism, and by the rise of the nativist, religious, and armed far Right. Black Lives Matter is a network of young Black activists responding to an epidemic of deadly racist police violence. Fight for $15 is a labor-initiated campaign of mostly non-union, low-wage workers demanding a higher minimum wage. DREAMers demand an end to deportation and mass imprisonment of immigrants without papers. There are many more.

Social Movements and their Repression

The current political moment will be discussed in further detail below, but first some particularities about U.S. social movements must be understood before we can make sense of the concept of a “U.S. Left.” Repeated attempts to introduce a social democratic or labor party that could eclipse the Democratic/Republican duopoly have never succeeded. From 1900 to 1946, the political Left was largely embodied in two parties: Socialist and Communist. Both of these parties fell to the background during the years of the New Deal and World War II. After the war, the purge of leftists from government, unions and civil service marginalized both the SP and the CP. From that time on, the majority of those identifying with socialism were either former party members or never-affiliated independents. Higher education was the only public arena where a few could express support for socialism without severe ostracism.

The U.S. state, the FBI in particular, spent millions to spy on and disrupt left social movements. This was logical, since that area in society was the most unpredictable, and the hardest for the insular, conformist culture of capitalism to comprehend. Nevertheless, such movements had a tendency to spring into action and threaten the status quo, generally considered impregnable during the national economy’s Golden Age. In every case, some of those in the movements engaging in protest and street action turned to organized political action, and began to shift the direction of national and local politics. Many turned to Marxist study and cadre groups of various persuasions, in the absence of a central political organization for the broader Left after the 1969 collapse of SDS, the largest radical student group in the nation’s history.

With limited contributions from marginal political parties and unions, in a stable economy, and coming out of a period of intense repression in the 1950s, social movements achieved astonishing results during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. The civil rights movement eliminated de jure racial segregation and discrimination, and broke through the violent abrogation of voting rights for African Americans in the South. The women’s movement broke through society-wide restrictions on gender equality. Legal breakthroughs have marked the years since, leading to the Right directly attacking the goals and gains of social movements, as a central pillar of their strategy.

The dramatic turn in public opinion against the Vietnam War changed politics to an unprecedented extent. By the early 1970s the mood had shifted from unquestioning acceptance of militarism and imperial crusades, to outright hostility towards the pro-war stances of both parties. This largely arose from the student movement’s efforts to oppose the war under Johnson and Nixon, which sparked the broader peace movement and provided hundreds of thousands of activists.

These movements were constantly subjected to state repression, from infiltration to imprisonment to murder. Internal tensions also contributed to their inability to cohere politically. Subsequent events that indicated mass opposition to neoliberalism—the Jesse Jackson campaigns of 1984 and 1988, the altermondialiste Battle of Seattle at the WTO in 1999, Occupy Wall Street—all emerged with little or no backing or direction from any traditional form of the political Left.

From Bush to Obama

The fragmentation of the Left mirrored the increasing fragmentation of society under neoliberalism, to an extent. The gulfs between the intellectual sector of the Left, the political Left, and the social movements had debilitating effects on all three. In the academy, cultural studies diverted the discussion of the ideas generated by social movements into apolitical hairsplitting. This phenomenon, generated by the increased precariousness of careers in higher education (“publish or perish”) continues to influence discussions in social movements and the political Left.

The Left’s prospects grew even dimmer in 2000. Rightist influence in the judicial branch of government forced through an otherwise illegitimate seating of George W. Bush as president. This was simultaneously an abrogation of electoral democracy; an effective coup d’etat by one party and one governmental branch, upending the separation of powers; and another in a series of capitulations made by the Democratic Party to the rightward-moving private sector and the Pentagon.

This was almost immediately followed by the attacks of September 11, 2001, which led to a wave of xenophobia and militarist jingoism that still holds sway in large popular segments. The most dangerous result was the PATRIOT Act, which eased restrictions on domestic repression and military intervention. This in turn was followed by the misbegotten Iraq war. The inability of mass protest to head off the bombing and invasion essentially broke the peace movement.

The Obama election and re-election (2008 and 2012), then, came as a surprise for supporters and opponents alike. Obama was a center-leftist, running on his opposition to the Iraq war and mild criticism of neoliberalism. This distinction from his rival Hillary Clinton was minor compared to the unexpected success of an African American candidate in a period of relative ebb in Black social movement activity. The role of race in the formation of capital in the U.S. is fundamental, and the idea of a Black president was virtually unthinkable until the 1980s. Obama’s rise highlighted the rise of a Black political class in cities and states which had consolidated since the Jackson campaigns. It also flagged the growing non-white demographic, poised to outnumber whites in a matter of decades.

Obama’s critics on the Left decried his incrementalism and his continuation of the Bush administration’s role in the Mideast. But Obama was no neoconservative, and he kept a critical stance toward extremely powerful sectors, including oil, pharmaceuticals, private insurance, the gun lobby, and pro-Likud hawks. On some occasions these criticisms were backed by action—for example, he took on the Religious Right—and overall this yielded space for more left, anti-neoliberal political motion at the Democratic Party’s electoral base.

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign

This manifested in the whirlwind rise of the Bernie Sanders campaign. In some ways this was as unprecedented and as unexpected as Obama’s ascent. Sanders has always been an anomaly in U.S. politics. His views since his early years of activism as a student in the early 60s were consistently New Left: socialist but not pro-Soviet, and framed by the social movements he encountered. Like many others, he moved towards electoral politics, but saw the Democratic Party as a quagmire. He saw the efforts of socialist electoral campaigns: the largest at the time, the Socialist Workers Party, was concerned with spreading their Trotskyist program rather than winning.

Sanders’ pragmatism chafed at this approach. He moved to Vermont, a rural, mostly white New England state where many East Coast liberals and radicals were migrating. He worked in local third-party efforts, and won election after election as an independent—as mayor of Burlington, congressional representative, and finally senator from Vermont—the only elected independent in the U.S. Senate. His successes were based on careful coalition-building and keeping campaign promises. Throughout, he never backtracked on his identification with socialism.

The anti-neoliberal wing of the Democrats and Occupy veterans originally stumped for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. When it became clear that Warren would not run, attention turned to Sanders. He was viewed as a risky choice, both for his socialism and for his independence from the Democrats. Progressive Democrats of America, a rump group active in several states, convinced Sanders to run for the Democratic nomination against the assumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Online activists from Occupy began consolidating data for a Sanders campaign.

No one in the Democratic Party had high expectations for the Sanders campaign. Left critics urged Sanders to run as an independent or Green candidate. He made clear that all his hopes rested on winning a following for an anti-neoliberal platform. To avoid the stigma of splitting the Democratic vote and ensuring a Republican victory, Sanders pledged to support whomever won the party’s nominated candidate if he lost the primaries or was squeezed out in the national convention. (Ralph Nader’s run as a Green in 2000 may or may not have led to a tie vote between George W. Bush and Al Gore, and still sits badly with Democratic leftists. Donald Trump made a similar pledge to the Republicans, then took it back when his lead was challenged by another rightist demagogue, Rafael “Ted” Cruz.)

Sanders’ straightforward attacks on Wall Street, big money in politics, and racism won approval first with aging leftists, and then, unexpectedly, with Millennials. The word spread through sharing and networking on social media, rather than through unions and nongovernmental organizations with large “get out the vote” operations. This led to the largest influx of small donations to an electoral campaign in history. The Democratic Party leadership was completely taken off guard—to the initial delight of the Republicans—until they realized that a socialist was drawing the biggest crowds of any candidate.

The “Political Revolution”

The most significant feature of the campaign is the agreement between Sanders and his volunteers that only a coordinated mass political movement (a “political revolution”) could enable a president elected by any margin to effectively oppose the “billionaire class.” Moreover, he may prove unable to win the nomination. An organized, politically coherent Left, inside and outside the party duopoly, is the first order of business, whether the centrist Clinton or one of the far right Republican contenders wins the election in November.

Part of the emerging, reconstructed Left will likely take the form of an anti-neoliberal “Sanders Democrats” wing of the Democratic Party. This could directly challenge party centrists in every state, and change the direction of policy battles in Congress and in state and city governments. It would also further challenge the view on the Left that holds to a purist stance of permanently attacking the Democrats as a class enemy. This tendency, which sees the formation of a third party as always the immediate priority in electoral politics, claims that its opponents are careerists or naive liberals. However, the most widely held view among independent leftists is an “inside/outside” strategy, favoring independent candidates where the power of the party machine excludes progressive reformers. Some die-hards of the other camp have been swayed by the upsurge for Sanders.

Sanders’ campaign promotes policies that run counter to neoliberalism and anti-government conservatism, but despite the socialist banner he flies, they don’t undermine capitalism per se. Sanders is more feared for his emphasis on mass mobilization—strengthening democracy under attack by the private sector and quasi-fascist elements. His campaign has made the word “socialist” acceptable in ways that it never was heretofore in the U.S. Now the tiny socialist movement has a chance to crawl out of the rubble and join a new generation, fueled by disgust for the capitalist system and a growing determination to replace it with something just, sustainable, and beautiful.

This article first published in rosalux-nyc.org

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

The Inequality Puzzle

24 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in CHINA, Current Affairs, Economics, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Opinion, Readers News Service, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Dream, China, Gini coefficient, inequality, US

 

In the US, inequality is rapidly worsening. In 1978, the top 1% of the US population was ten times richer than the rest of the country. Today, the average income of the top 1% is roughly 30 times that of the average person in the remaining 99%. During the same period, inequality in China has been declining.

Dambisa Moyo

Dambisa Moyo

Over the past decade, income inequality has come to be ranked alongside terrorism, climate change, pandemics, and economic stagnation as one of the most urgent issues on the international policy agenda. And yet, despite all the attention, few potentially effective solutions have been proposed. Identifying the best policies for reducing inequality remains a puzzle.

To understand why the problem confounds policymakers, it is helpful to compare the world’s two largest economies. The United States is a liberal democracy with a market-based economy, in which the factors of production are privately owned. China, by contrast, is governed by a political class that holds democracy in contempt. Its economy – despite decades of pro-market reforms – continues to be defined by heavy state intervention.

But despite their radically different political and economic systems, the two countries have roughly the same level of income inequality. Each country’s Gini coefficient – the most commonly used measure of income equality – is roughly 0.47.

In one important way, however, their situations are very different. In the US, inequality is rapidly worsening. In 1978, the top 1% of the US population was ten times richer than the rest of the country. Today, the average income of the top 1% is roughly 30 times that of the average person in the remaining 99%. During the same period, inequality in China has been declining.

This poses a challenge for policymakers. Free market capitalism has proved itself to be the best system for driving income growth and creating a large economic surplus. And yet, when it comes to the distribution of income, it performs far less well.

Most democratic societies have attempted to address the problem through left-leaning redistributive policies or right-leaning supply-side approaches. But neither seems to be particularly effective. In the US, income inequality has steadily widened under both Democratic and Republican administrations. China’s success in this arena points to the possible advantages of its heavy-handed system – a conclusion that makes many Western policymakers uncomfortable.

One aspect of the discussion, however, need not be so controversial. Adding to the challenges of the policy debate are assertions that inequality is unimportant. If a rising tide is lifting all boats, the thinking goes, it doesn’t matter that some may be rising more slowly than others.

Those who argue for de-emphasizing income inequality maintain that public policy should seek to ensure that all citizens enjoy basic living standards – nutritious food, adequate shelter, quality health care, and modern infrastructure – rather than aiming to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Indeed, some contend that income inequality drives economic growth and that redistributive transfers weaken the incentive to work, in turn depressing productivity, reducing investment, and ultimately harming the wider community.

But societies do not flourish on economic growth alone. They suffer when the poor are unable to see a path toward betterment. Social mobility in the US (and elsewhere) has been declining, undermining faith in the “American Dream” (which includes the belief that hard work will make one better off than one’s parents). Over the past 30 years, the probability that an American born into the bottom quartile of the income distribution will end his life in the top quartile has more than halved.

To be sure, much progress has been made. Over the past 50 years, as countries such as China and India posted double-digit economic growth, the global Gini coefficient dropped from 0.65 to 0.55. But further headway is unlikely – at least for the foreseeable future.

Economic growth in most emerging economies has slowed below 7%, the threshold needed to double per capita income in a single generation. In many countries, the rate has fallen below the point at which it is likely to make a significant dent in poverty.

This bleak economic outlook has serious consequences. Widening inequality provides fodder for political unrest, as citizens watch their prospects decline. Reports that just 158 wealthy donors provided half of all campaign contributions in the first phase of the 2016 US presidential election cycle highlight the worry that income inequality can lead to political inequality.

Globally, the slowdown in economic convergence has similar implications, as richer countries maintain their outsize influence around the world – leading to disaffection and radicalization among the poor. As difficult a puzzle as income inequality may seem today, failing to solve it could lead to far more severe challenges.

© Project Syndicate

 This article first appeared in the

 www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/the-inequality-puzzle/

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

సుగర్‌ బేబీలు ఎందుకు పెరుగుతున్నారు ?

23 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, Education, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, UK, USA, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAPITALISM, capitalist crisis, student debt, students, Sugar Babies, sugar mummies and daddies, UK, USA

ఎం కోటేశ్వరరావు

   సుగర్‌ డాడీ, సుగర్‌ మమ్మీ, సుగర్‌ బేబీ ఆగండాగండి. సుగర్‌ వ్యాధి కుటుంబం గురించి చెబుతున్నారని అనుకుంటున్నారా ? కానే కాదు, ఆ వ్యాధికీ వీరికీ నక్కకూ నాగలోగలోకానికి వున్నంత దూరం. పోనీ ఈ పదాల గురించి విన్నారా ? లేదా ఎక్కడైనా తారసిల్లారా ?

     సోషల్‌ మీడియాలోని ఫేస్‌బుక్‌లో ఖాతాలున్న వారికి ఎప్పుడో ఒకప్పడు వీళ్లలో ఎవరో ఒకరు ఏదో ఒక రూపంలో తగిలే వుంటారు. పబ్లిక్‌ అన్నతరువాత పది రకాల మనుషులు వుంటారు.నేను ఖాళీగా వున్నాను కావాలంటే మీరు నాతో మాట్లాడవచ్చు, నా ఫోన్‌ రీచార్జి చేయించండి నేను సెక్స్‌ ఛాట్‌ చేస్తా, నాకు చాలా డబ్బు అవసరం ప్లీజ్‌ ఎక్కడికి రమ్మంటే అక్కడికి వస్తా ఇలాంటి మెసేజ్‌లు ఫోన్‌,ఫేస్‌బుక్‌లో చాలా మందికి రావటం, కొంత మంది స్పందించటం సర్వసాధారణం. ఇంకా చాలా దారుణమైన సందేశాలు కూడా వస్తుంటాయి. సోషల్‌ మీడియాతో ప్రయోజనంతో పాటు ఇలాంటి ప్రమాదాలు కూడా వున్నాయి.

    ముందుగా సుగర్‌ డాడీ, సుగర్‌ మమ్మీల గురించి తెలుసుకుందాం. డాడీలైతే తమ కూతురి వయస్సున్న ఆడపిల్లలను, మమ్మీలైతే తమ కొడుకుల, కూతుర్ల వయస్సులో వున్న కోడెకారు కుర్ర వాళ్లను చేరదీసి తమ దేహ అవసరాలను తీర్చుకోవటంతో పాటు వారి ఆర్ధిక అవసరాలను కూడా తీర్చే వారు. భూస్వామిక వ్యవస్ధ పెత్తనం చేస్తున్న రోజులలో సుగర్‌ డాడీలు అనేక చోట్ల తమ ఖాతాలు తెరిచేవారు, ఎంత మందిని చేరదీస్తే అంత గొప్ప భూస్వామి లేదా జమిందారు కింద లెక్క. మరి ఇప్పుడు కార్పొరేట్‌ సుగర్‌ డాడీలు ఆ స్ధానాన్ని ఆక్రమిస్తున్నారు.ఈ పరంపరలోనే సుగర్‌ మమ్మీలు కూడా తయారవుతారని వేరే చెప్పనవసరం లేదు. వారికి ఎస్కార్టులనో మరో పేరుతోనే బలయ్యేవారే సుగర్‌ బేబీలు, బాబులు.

      పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానం బాగా పెరిగే కొద్దీ ఇలాంటి వారి సంఖ్య పెరుగుతూ వుంటుంది. మన దేశం లేదా ప్రాంతం ఇంకా అలాంటి వున్నత ‘అభివృద్ధి’ దశకు చేరలేదు కనుక ఈ విషయాలు కొంచెం ఎబ్బెట్టుగానూ, మరీ చోద్యం గాకపోతే అనిపిస్తాయి. పెట్టుబడిదారీ వ్యవస్దలో ప్రతిదీ సరుకే. కార్పొరేట్స్‌ తమకు అవసరమైన దానిని కొనుక్కుంటారు. అభాగ్యులు, వేరే ప్రత్యామ్నాయం లేనివారు, పెట్టుబడిదారీ విలాసాలకు అలవాటు పడి వెనక్కు రాలేని వారు వారు తమ దగ్గర వున్నదానిని అది శ్రమ లేదా శరీరం ఏదైనా కావచ్చు విక్రయించటం,అవసరాలు తీర్చుకోవటం జరుగుతుంది.

     పశ్చిమ దేశాలలో ఇలాంటి వ్యాపారం లేదా సేవలు అందించేందుకు ప్రత్యేకంగా కొన్ని వెబ్‌సైట్లు కూడా పనిచేస్తున్నాయి. మన దగ్గర కూడా కొన్ని సైట్స్‌ వున్నాయి. బ్రిటన్‌లో ‘సీకింగ్‌ అరేంజ్‌మెంట్‌.కామ్‌ అనేది ఒక పేరుమోసిన సుగర్‌ డాడీ,మమ్మీ, బేబీల డేటింగ్‌ సైట్‌. పచ్చి తెలుగులో చెప్పుకోవాలంటే తార్పుడు కేంద్రం. పెట్టుబడిదారీ వ్యవస్ధకు పుట్టిన ఒక తీవ్ర అవలక్షణం.

     బ్రిటన్‌ ప్రభుత్వం ట్యూషన్‌ ఫీజులను మూడు రెట్లు పెంచిన తరువాత కేంబ్రిడ్జి విశ్వవిద్యాలయానికి చెందిన విద్యార్ధినులు ఈ సైట్లో తమ పేర్లు నమోదు చేసుకోవటం పెరిగినట్లు తేలింది. అంటే విశ్వవిద్యాలయ విద్యను కొనుగోలు చేయటానికి స్ధోమత లేనివారు దానికి దూరంగా వుండాలి లేదా అందుకోసం దేనికైనా సిద్ధ పడాలి. బ్రిటన్‌లో అత్యంత ప్రతిష్ట కలిగిన ఆ సంస్ధకు నిర్వహణ వ్యయం చెల్లించటాన్ని నిలిపివేస్తామని ఈనెలలో ప్రభుత్వం ప్రకటించింది కనుక వచ్చే ఏడాది మరోసారి ట్యూషన్‌ ఫీజులతో పాటు వాటిని చెల్లించేందుకు డబ్బులిచ్చే సుగర్‌ డాడీల కోసం వెతికే విద్యార్దులు కూడా పెరుగుతారని ఆ కేంద్రం అంచనా వేస్తోంది.ఎంత దైన్య స్దితి, ఎంత దుర్మార్గం ?

      వెబ్‌సైట్‌లో రకరకాల సేవల గురించి వివరాలు వుంటాయి. ఏ సేవ కావాల్సిన వారు వారిని ఎంచుకోవచ్చు. అందుకు తగ్గ ఫీజు లేదా పరిహారం, బహుమతులు వుంటాయి. పైన చెప్పిన బ్రిటన్‌ డాట్‌కామ్‌లో ఈ ఏడాది జనవరి నాటికి తమకు సదరు సేవలందించేందుకు సిద్దంగా వున్నట్లు అంగీకారం తెలిపేవారు గానీ 2.25లక్షల మంది విద్యార్ధులున్నారట. మరో అంచనా ప్రకారం ఇంకా ఎక్కువ మందే వున్నారు. ఆ డాట్‌కాం స్ధాపక సిఇవో బ్రాండన్‌ వేడ్‌ దీని గురించి చెబుతూ దేశం ఒక విధంగా అత్యవసర పరిస్ధితిలో వున్నట్లుగా వుంది.అయితే వుగ్రవాదంతో కాదు, 1.2లక్షల కోట్ల పౌండ్ల విద్యార్ధుల అప్పు పేరుకుపోయి సంక్షోభానికి దారితీసేదిగా వుంది.ఎవరూ దీని గురించి ఎవరూ పట్టించుకోవటం లేదు, మేము మిలియన్లలో గాక పోయినా లక్షల మందికి మా సైట్‌ ద్వారా విద్యకోసం చేసిన అప్పునుంచి బయట పడేట్లు తోడ్పడుతున్నాం అని కుండబద్దలు కొట్టినట్లు చెప్పాడు.

     సేవల విషయానికి వస్తే సుగర్‌ డాడీలు కొందరు వెబ్‌కామ్‌ల ముందు కూర్చొని కబుర్లు చెప్పమని అడుగుతారట. అయితే మేం బట్టలు వేసుకొనే మాట్లాడతాం అని అమ్మాయిలు షరతులు విధిస్తున్నవారు కూడా వున్నారట. ఇది అమలిన శృంగారం. కొంత మంది భౌతిక సుఖాల జోలికి పోకుండా కేవలం ఫోన్లో సంభాషిస్తూ విద్యార్దినులను ఆదుకొనే వారు కూడా వున్నారట.ఎవరైనా ఒక పరిధికి మించి డిమాండ్‌ చేస్తే దక్కిన వరకు సొమ్ము తీసుకొని గుడ్‌బై చెప్పేవారు కూడా వున్నారట.విశ్వవిద్యాలయ విద్యకోసం ఇదంతా తాము స్వచ్చందంగానే చేస్తున్నాం తప్ప ఎవరి బలవంతమూ లేదంటున్నవారు కూడా లేకపోలేదు.అయితే అవసరాల బలహీనతను సొమ్ము చేసుకోవటానికి ఏ అమ్మాయి దొరుకుతుందా అని సదరు వెబ్‌సైట్‌ వారు నిరంతరం శోధిస్తుంటారని, ఇక్కడ కూడా మహిళలు దోపిడీకి గురవుతున్నారని వేరు చెప్పనవసరం లేదు.

      పెట్టుబడిదారీ ధనిక దేశాలలో విద్యారంగం నుంచి ప్రభుత్వాలు తప్పుకోవటం, సంక్షేమ చర్యలపై కోత పెట్టటం ఎక్కువ చేయటంతో పాటు 2008లో ప్రారంభమైన ఆర్దిక సంక్షోభ సమయంలోనే బ్రిటన్‌లోనీ సీకింగ్‌ అరెంజ్‌మెంట్‌ డాట్‌ కామ్‌ 2006లో వునికిలోకి వచ్చింది. ఇప్పుడది ప్రపంచంలోనే అగ్రగామి సంస్ధ.ముందే చెప్పుకున్నట్లు విశ్వవిద్యాలయాలలో ఫీజుల రేట్లు పెరిగే కొద్దీ ఇలాంటి సైట్లలో నమోదు చేసుకొనే విద్యార్ధినుల సంఖ్య పెరుగుతోంది. అంతకు ముందు సంవత్సరంతో పోల్చితే 2015లో పెరుగుదల రేటు 40శాతం ఎక్కువ. అనధికారికంగా ఇంకా చాలా మంది వుంటారని వేరే చెప్పనవసరం లేదు. ఈ సేవలకు ముందుకు వస్తున్న వారి గురించి చేసిన విశ్లేషణలో ఇలాంటి వారు 21-27 సంవత్సరాల వయస్సులో వారు అత్యధికులు వున్నారు.ఇరవై నాలుగు శాతం మంది అల్పాదాయ, 56శాతం మధ్యతరగతి, ఎగువ మధ్యతరగతి కుటుంబాలకు చెందిన వారు. సగటున వారు రెండువేల పౌండ్ల ప్రతిఫలం పొందుతున్నారు.ఆ మొత్తంలో వారి కనీస అవసరాలైన ట్యూషన్‌ ఫీజుకు 36శాతం, అద్దెకు 23, పుస్తకాలకు 20, ట్రాన్స్‌పోర్ట్‌కు 9శాతం మొత్తాలను ఖర్చు చేస్తున్నట్లు తేలింది.

      నేటి విద్యార్ధే రేపటి పౌరుడన్న సంగతేమో గానీ రేపటి రుణగ్రస్తుడిగా మారుతున్నాడన్నది 2014 సర్వేలో తేలిన సత్యం. కాలేజీల నుంచి బయట పడిన తరువాత 50 సంవత్సరాల వయస్సు వచ్చే వరకు కొంత మంది విద్య కోసం చేసిన అప్పును తీరుస్తూనే వున్నారట.డిగ్రీతో పాటు సగటున 44వేల పౌండ్ల అప్పుతో బయటకు వస్తున్నారు. రుణం తీసుకొని చదువు కొనుక్కొనే వారు బ్రిటన్‌లో నానాటికీ పెరుగుతున్నారు . అలాంటి వారు 2013లో 60శాతం వుంటే 2015 నాటికి 74శాతానికి పెరిగారు.అంటే సంక్షోభ తీవ్రతకు ఇది దర్పణం. తమ చదువు కోసం పని చేస్తున్న వారి సంఖ్య కూడా 59 నుంచి 74శాతానికి పెరిగింది. యువకులు సగటున నెలకు 412 పౌండ్లు సంపాదిస్తుంటే, యువతులు 334 పౌండ్లు పొందుతున్నారు.ఈ పూర్వరంగంలోనే అవి చాలనపుడు 2000 పౌండ్ల ఆదాయం వచ్చే సుగర్‌ బేబీస్‌గా మారుతున్నారు.

      పోనీ పని చేసి సంపాదించినా లేదా నీతి తప్పి సంపాదించి పొందిన సర్టిఫికెట్లతో మంచి వుద్యోగాలు వస్తున్నాయా, వాటితో అప్పు తీర్చగలుగుతున్నారా అంటే అదీ లేదు. చదుకు తగిన వుద్యోగాలు లేవు, అవసరానికి తగిన వేతనాలు లేవు.ఇది ఒక్క బ్రిటన్‌ పరిస్దితే కాదు మొత్తం పెట్టుబడిదారీ ధనిక దేశాలన్నింటా వున్న దౌర్బాగ్యం. దివాళాకోరు, ఖాయిలా పడిన పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధాన ఫలితమిది.

    అమెరికాలో గత ఏడు సంవత్సరాలలో 58శాతం పెరిగింది. అప్పుతో పాటు చెల్లించలేని వారి సంఖ్య కూడా గణనీయంగా పెరుగుతోంది. విద్యార్ది రుణం 2014లో 1.2లక్షల కోట్ల డాలర్లని, చెల్లించటంలో విఫలమైన వారు 70లక్షల మంది వున్నట్లు తేలింది.ఈ కారణంగానే ఈ ఏడాది జరగనున్న ఎన్నికలలో విద్యార్ధి రుణ సమస్య కూడా ముందుకు వచ్చింది.ఈ సమస్య గత రెండు దశాబ్దాలలోనే ముందుకు వచ్చింది.కారణం అన్ని చోట్లా వుదారవాద విధానాల పేరుతో ప్రభుత్వం చేసే ఖర్చు తగ్గించటం, ప్రజలపై భారాలు మోపుతున్న పర్యవసానాల ఫలితమిది.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

FOR A NEW COMMUNIST PARTY

13 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAPITALISM, communism, Crowds and Party, Left politics, Occupy Wall Street’s, Socialism, US left politics

 So no, I don’t envision the Democratic Party as being that. That’s not at all what I have in mind. I’m thinking of a radical left party to which elections are incidental. Elections might be means for organizing, but the goal isn’t just being elected. The goal is overthrowing capitalism. The goal is being able to build a communist society as capitalism crumbles.

Transcribed from the 23 January 2016 episode of This is Hell! Radio(Chicago) 

“The goal isn’t just being elected. The goal is overthrowing capitalism. The goal is being able to build a communist society as capitalism crumbles.”

Chuck Mertz: Real change, the kind of change that Occupy Wall Street had hoped to start, can be achieved through—I know you’re going to find this hard to believe—a political party. I found it hard to believe, until I read Jodi Dean’s book Crowds and Party. Jodi is here to explain to us how a political party can bring about real change.

Welcome to This is Hell!, Jodi.

Jodi Dean: Hi! Thanks.

CM: Great to have you on the show.

Let’s start with Occupy. What, to you, explains the impact that the Tea Party had on Republicans, relative to the impact that Occupy seems to have had on the Democratic Party? All of the sudden there were “Tea Party Republicans.” There weren’t “Occupy Democrats.”

JD: That’s a good point. The Tea Party took the Republican Party as its target. They decided that their goal was going to be to influence the political system by getting people elected and basically by trying to take over part of government. That’s why they were able to have good effects. They didn’t regard the mainstream political process as something irrelevant to their concerns. They thought of it as something to seize.

The problem with many—but not all—leftists in the US is that they think the political process is so corrupted that we have to completely refuse it, and leave it altogether. The Tea Party decided to act as an organized militant force, and too much of the US left (we saw this in the wake of Occupy) has thought that to be “militant” means to refuse and disperse and become fragmented.

CM: So what explains the left turning its back on the collective action of a political party? It would seem like a political party would fit into what the left would historically want: an apparatus that can organize collective action.

JD: There are multiple things. First, the fear of success: the left has learned from the excesses of the twentieth century. Where Communist and socialist parties “succeeded,” there was violence and purges and repression. One reason the left has turned its back is because of this historical experience of state socialism. And we have taken that to mean that we should not ever have a state. I think that’s the wrong answer. That we—as the left—made a mistake with some regimes does not have to mean that we can never learn.

Another reason that the left has turned its back on the party form has been the important criticism of twentieth century parties that have been too white, too masculine, potentially homophobic; parties that have operated in intensely hierarchical fashion. Those criticisms are real. But rather than saying we can’t have a party form because that’s just what a party does, why not make a party that is not repressive and does not exclude or diminish people on the basis of sex, race, or sexuality?

So we’ve got at least two historical problems that have made people very reluctant to use the party. I also think that, whether or not you mark it as 1968 or 1989, the left’s embrace of cultural individualism and the free flow of personal experimentation has made it critical of discipline and critical of collectivity. But I think that’s just a capitalist sellout. Saying everybody should just “do their own thing” is just going in the direction of the dominant culture. That is actually not a left position at all.

CM: So does identity politics undermine collectivism? And did that end up leading to fragmentation and a weakening of the left? Because there are a lot of people we’ve had on the show—and one person in particular, Thomas Frank—who say that there is no left in the United States.

JD: First I want to say that I disagree with the claim that there is no left. In fact, I think that “the left” is that group that keeps denying its own existence. We’re always saying that we’re the ones who don’t exist. But the right thinks that we exist. That’s what is so fantastic, actually. Did you see the New York Post screaming that Bernie Sanders is really a communist? Great! They’re really still afraid of communists! And it’s people on the left who say, “Oh, no, we’re not here at all!”

The left denies its own existence and it denies its own collectivity. Now, is identity politics to blame? Maybe it’s better to say that identity politics has been a symptom of the pressure of capitalism. Capitalism has operated in the US by exacerbating racial differences. That has to be addressed on the left, and the left has been addressing that. But we haven’t been addressing it in a way that recognizes how racism operates to support capitalism. Instead, we’ve made it too much about identity rather than as an element in building collective solidarity.

I’m trying to find a way around this to express that identity politics has been important but it’s reached its limits. Identity politics can’t go any further insofar as it denies the impact of capitalism. An identity politics that just rests on itself is nothing but liberalism. Like all of the sudden everything will be better if black people and white people are equally exploited? What if black people and white people say, “No, we don’t want to live in a society based on exploitation?”

CM: You were saying that the left denies its own collectivity. Is that only in the US? Is that unique to the US culture of the left?

JD: That’s a really important question, and I’m not sure. Traveling in Europe, I see two different things. On the one hand I see a broad left discussion that is, in part, mediated through social media and is pretty generational—people in their twenties and thirties or younger—and that there’s a general feeling about the problem of collectivity, the problem of building something with cohesion, and a temptation to just emphasize multiplicity. You see this everywhere. Everybody worries about this, as far as what I’ve seen.

On the other hand, there are countries whose political culture has embraced parties much more, and fights politically through parties. Like Greece, for example—and we’ve seen the ups and downs with Syriza over the last two years. And Spain also. Because they have a parliamentary system where small parties can actually get in the mix and have a political effect—in ways that our two-party system excludes—the European context allows for more enthusiasm for the party as a form for politics.

But there’s still a lot of disagreement on the far left about whether or not the party form is useful, and shouldn’t we in fact retreat and have multiple actions and artistic events—you know, the whole alter-globalization framework. That’s still alive in a lot of places.

“I think holding on to the word ‘communism’ is useful, not only because our enemies are worried about communism, but also because it helps make socialists seem really, really mainstream. We don’t want socialism to seem like something that only happens in Sweden. We want it to seem like that’s what we should have at a bare minimum.”

CM: You mentioned the structure of the US electoral system doesn’t allow for a political party to necessarily be the solution for a group like Occupy. Is that one of the reasons that activists dismiss the party structure as something that could help move their agenda forward?

JD: We can think about the Black Panther Party as a neat example in the US context: A party which was operating not primarily to win elections but to galvanize social power. That’s an interesting way of thinking about what else parties can do in the US.

Or we can think about parties in terms of local elections. Socialist Alternative has been doing really neat work all over the country, organizing around local elections with people running as socialist candidates not within a mainstream party. I think that even as we come up against the limits of a two-party system, we can also begin to think better about local and regional elections.

The left really likes that old saw: “Think Globally, Act Locally.” And then it rejects parties—even though political parties are, historically, forms that do that, that actually scale, that operate on multiple levels as organizations.

That we have a two-party system makes sense as an excuse why people haven’t used left parties very well in the US, but that doesn’t have to be the case.

And one more thing: there is a ton of sectarianism in the far left parties that exist. Many still fight battles that go back to the twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, and haven’t let that go. That has to change. We don’t need that kind of sectarian purity right now.

CM: You ask the question, “How do we move from the inert mass to organized activists?” You mention how you were at Occupy Wall Street; you write about being there on 15 October 2011 as the massive crowd filled New York’s Times Square. And you mention this one young speaker, and he addresses the crowd; they’re deciding if they should move on to Washington Square Park or not, because they need to go somewhere where there are better facilities. You then quote the speaker saying, “We can take this park. We can take this park tonight. We can also take this park another night. Not everyone may be ready tonight. Each person has to make their own autonomous decision. No one can decide for you. You have to decide for yourself. Everyone is an autonomous individual.”

Did that kind of individualism kill Occupy Wall Street from the start?

JD: Yeah, I think so. A lot of times I blame the rhetorics of consensus and horizontalism, but both of those are rooted in an individualism that says politics must begin with each individual, their interests, their experience, their positions, and so on. As collectivity forms—which is not easy when everyone’s beginning from their individual position—what starts to happen is that people start looking for how their exact experiences and interests are not being recognized.

I think that the left has given in too much to this assumption that politics begins with an individual. That’s a liberal assumption. Leftists, historically, begin with the assumption that politics begins in groups. And for the left in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the operative group is class. Class is what determines where our political interests come from.

I try to do everything I can in the book to dismantle the assumption that politics, particularly left politics, should begin with the individual. Instead I want people thinking about how the individual is a fiction, and a really oppressive fiction at that. And one that’s actually, conveniently, falling apart.

CM: You write about Occupy Wall Street having been an opening but having had no continuing momentum. You mention that the party could add that needed momentum. That’s one of the things that parties can do. The structure of the party can continue momentum and keep the opening alive.

When you say that a party could be a solution for a movement like Occupy, you don’t mean the Democratic Party, do you?

JD: I’ve got a lot of layers on this question. My first answer is that no, I really mean the Communist Party. My friends call this “Jodi’s Fantasy Revolutionary Party” as a joke, because the kind of Communist Party I take as my model may not be real, or may have only existed for a year and a half in Brooklyn in the thirties. And I don’t mean the real-existing Communist Party in the US now, which still exists and basically endorses Democrats.

My idea is to think in terms of how we can imagine the Communist Party again as a force—what it could be like if all of our left activist groups and small sectarian parties decided to come together in a new radical left party.

So no, I don’t envision the Democratic Party as being that. That’s not at all what I have in mind. I’m thinking of a radical left party to which elections are incidental. Elections might be means for organizing, but the goal isn’t just being elected. The goal is overthrowing capitalism. The goal is being able to build a communist society as capitalism crumbles.

Second, it could be the case—as a matter of tactics on the ground in particular contexts—that working for a Democratic candidate might be useful. It could be the case that trying to take over a local Democratic committee in order to get communist/socialist/radical left candidates elected could also be useful. But I don’t see the goal as taking over the Democratic Party. That’s way too limited a goal, and it’s a goal that presupposes the continuation of the system we have, rather than its overthrow.

CM: But how difficult would it be for a Communist Party to emerge free of its past associations with the Soviet Union? Can we even use the word “communist” or is it impossibly taboo?

“It’s fantastic that Occupy Wall Street’s narrative of the 99% and the 1% asserted collectivity through division. This is class conflict. There is not a unified society. This is the collectivity of us against them. This narrative produced the proper collectivity: an antagonistic one.”

JD: We have to recognize that the right is still scared of communism. That means the term is still powerful. That means it still has the ability to instill fear in its enemies. I think that’s an argument for keeping the word “communism.”

It’s also amazing that close to half of Iowa participants in the caucuses say that they are socialist. Four or five years ago, people were saying socialism is dead in the US. No one could even say the word. So I actually think holding on to the word “communism” is useful not only because our enemies are worried about communism, but also because it helps make the socialists seem really, really mainstream, and that’s good. We don’t want socialism to seem like something that only happens in Sweden. We want it to seem like that’s what America should have at a bare minimum.

One last thing about the history of communism: every political ideology that has infused a state form has done awful things. For the most part, if people like the ideology, they either let the awful things slide, or they use the ideology to criticize the awful things that the state does. We can do the same thing with communism. It’s helpful to recognize that the countries we understand to have been ruled by Communist Parties were never really communist—they didn’t even claim to have achieved communism themselves. We can say that state socialism made these mistakes, and in so doing was betraying communist ideals.

I don’t think we need to abandon these terms or come up with new ones. I think we need to use the power that they have. And people recognize this, which is what makes it exciting.

CM: You write, “Some contemporary crowd observers claim the crowd for democracy. They see in the amassing of thousands a democratic insistence, a demand to be heard and included. In the context of communicative capitalism, however, the crowd exceeds democracy.

“In the 21st century, dominant nation-states exercise power as democracies. They bomb and invade as democracies, ‘for democracy’s sake.’ International political bodies legitimize themselves as democratic, as do the contradictory and tangled media practices of communicative capitalism. When crowds amass in opposition, they pose themselvesagainst democratic practices, systems, and bodies. To claim the crowd for democracy fails to register this change in the political setting of the crowd.”

So are crowds today, the protesters today, opposed to democracy? Or are they opposed to the current state of, let’s say, representative democracy?

JD: Let’s think about our basic environment. By “our,” now, I mean basically English-speaking people who use the internet and are listening to the radio and live in societies like the United States. In our environment, what we hear is that we live in democracy. We hear this all the time. We hear that the network media makes democratic exchange possible, that a free press is democracy, that we’ve got elections and that’s democracy.

When crowds amass in this setting, if they are just at a football game, it’s not a political statement. Even at a march (fully permitted) that’s registering opposition to the invasion of Iraq, for example, or concern about the climate—all of those things are within the general environment of “democracy,” and they don’t oppose the system. They don’t register as opposition to the system. They’re just saying that we want our view on this or that issue to count.

But the way that crowds have been amassing over the last four or five years—Occupy Wall Street is one example, but the Red Square debt movement in Canada is another; some of the more militant strikes of nurses and teachers are too—has been to say, “Look, the process that we have that’s been called democratic? It is not. We want to changethat.”

It’s not that we are anti-democratic. It’s that democracy is too limiting a term to register our opposition. We want something more. We want actual equality. Democracy is too limiting. The reason it’s too limiting is we live in a context that understands itself as “democratic.” So democracy as a political claim, in my language, can’t “register the gap that the crowd is inscribing.” It can’t register real division or opposition. Democracy is just more of what we have.

CM: We are so dependent. We use social media so much, we use Facebook so much, we use so many of these avenues of what you callcommunicative capitalism so much. How can we oppose or reject this system without hurting ourselves and our ability to communicate our message to each other? Can we just go on strike? Can we become the owners of the means of communicative production?

JD: One of the ways that Marxism historically has understood the political problems faced by workers is our total entrapment and embeddedness in the capitalist system. What makes a strike so courageous is that workers are shooting themselves in the foot. They’re not earning their wage for a time, as a way to put pressure on the capitalist owner of the workplace.

What does that mean under communicative capitalism? Does it mean that we have to shoot ourselves in the foot by completely extracting ourselves from all of the instruments of communication? Or does it mean that we change our attitude towards communication? Or does it mean that we develop our own means of communication?

There’s a whole range here. I’m not a Luddite. I don’t think the way we’re going to bring down capitalism is by quitting Facebook. I think that’s a little bit absurd. I think what makes more sense is to think of how we could use the tools we have to bring down the master’s house. We can consolidate our message together. We can get a better sense of how many we are. We can develop common modes of thinking. We can distribute organizing materials for the revolutionary party.

I don’t think that an extractive approach to our situation in communicative media is the right one. I think it’s got to be more tactical. How do we use the tools we have, and how do we find ways to seize the means of communication? This would mean the collectivization of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and using those apparatuses. But that would probably have to be day two of the revolution.

CM: Jodi, I’ve got one last question for you, and it’s the Question from Hell, the question we might hate to ask, you might hate to answer, or our audience is going to hate the response.

How much did the narrative that Occupy created, of the 99% and the 1%, undermine a of collectivity? Because it doesn’t include everyone…

JD: Division is crucial. Collectivity is never everyone. What this narrative did was produce the divided collectivity that we need. It’s great to undermine the stupid myth of American unity, “The country has to pull together” and all that crap. It’s fantastic that Occupy Wall Street asserted collectivity through division. This is class conflict. This says there is not a unified society. Collectivity is the collectivity of us against them. It produced the proper collectivity: an antagonistic one.

CM: Jodi, thanks so much for being on our show this week.

JD: Thank you! Take care.

This article first published in http://antidotezine.com/

Who is Jodi Dean ?

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   Jodi Dean (born April 9, 1962) is a professor in the Political Science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.[1] She has also held the position of Erasmus Professor of the Humanities in the Faculty of Philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Dean received her B.A. in History of Princeton University. She received her MA, MPhil, and PhD from Columbia University. Before joining the Department of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, she taught at the University of Texas in San Antonio. She has held visiting research appointments at the Institute for the Human Sciences in Vienna, Austria, as well as McGill University in Montreal and Cardiff University in Wales.

Drawing from Marxism, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, she has made contributions to contemporary political theory, media theory, and feminist theory, most notably with her theory of communicative capitalism; the online merging of democracy and capitalism into a single neoliberal formation that subverts the democratic impulses of the masses by valuing emotional expression over logical discourse. She has spoken and lectured in the United States, Canada, Ecuador, Peru, England, Wales, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Croatia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Turkey. She is the co-editor of the journal Theory & Event.

Crowds and Party

by Jodi Dean
How do mass protests become an organized activist collective?
Crowds and Party channels the energies of the riotous crowds who took to the streets in the past five years into an argument for the political party. Rejecting the emphasis on individuals and multitudes, Jodi Dean argues that we need to rethink the collective subject of politics. When crowds appear in spaces unauthorized by capital and the state—such as in the Occupy movement in New York, London and across the world—they create a gap of possibility. But too many on the Left remain stuck in this beautiful moment of promise—they argue for more of the same, further fragmenting issues and identities, rehearsing the last thirty years of left-wing defeat. In Crowds and Party, Dean argues that previous discussions of the party have missed its affective dimensions, the way it operates as a knot of unconscious processes and binds people together. Dean shows how we can see the party as an organization that can reinvigorate political practice.
Hardback, 288 pages

ISBN: 9781781686942 February 2016

 

Ebook  ISBN: 9781781686720

Reviews

  • “In this enthralling and exhilarating book, Jodi Dean shows that, contrary to neo-anarchist cliche, the party form and class struggle are very far from being outmoded. The revival of the party has produced a surge of enthusiasm in contemporary left politics—an enthusiasm that Crowds and Party both explains and stokes up.”

    – Mark Fisher, author of Capitalist Realism

  • “Jodi Dean’s new book isn’t just a timely reminder that to change our thoroughly and deliberately atomized society demands collective action and militant organization; it is also a passionate analysis of the fractured passion of shared political commitment, linking the enthusiasm of group experience with the sustained and steady discipline of popular empowerment.”

    – Peter Hallward, author of Damming the Flood

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

U.S. Futures Daily Cotton Market – 4th February, 2016

05 Friday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in CHINA, Current Affairs, Economics, Farmers, INDIA, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, Prices, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cotton, cotton farmers, cotton prices, us cotton futures, World Cotton

 

Contract Open * High Low Close * Settle Change
Mar ’16 61.89 61.89 59.99 60.28 60.23 -1.71
May ’16 62.34 62.37 60.42 60.77 60.70 -1.71
  Jul ’16 62.79 62.80 60.98 61.36 61.27 -1.50
Oct ’16 0 0 0 0 60.91 -1.41
Dec ’16 62.50 62.55 60.90 61.33 61.26 -1.36
� Open and Close prices reflect the first and last trade in the market and do not correlate to any opening or        closing period �
Cotlook ‘A’ Index 68.70 (-0.25)

 

**MARKET OUTLOOK**

India & International Market Highlights:

• Widespread whitefly damage to cotton crops in Pakistan could result in production levels falling to an 18-year low in 2015/16.

• Viscose prices have continued bottoming out in China after a small number of leading producers had previously agreed to lower their production.

North Zone:

Cotton traded steady tone across major spot markets of north India on Thursday. Prices were down Rs 05-10 per maund.  In Punjab, ready delivery cotton traded at Rs 3535-3540 a maund. In Haryana, it offered at Rs 3,510-3,520 while in Rajasthan, ready delivery new cotton quoted at Rs 3,470-3,530 a maund.

Central Zone:


Cotton spot prices steday tone across west India market on Thursday. Gujarat Sankar-6 cotton traded at  Rs 33700-34200 per candy. while B-Grade Cotton traded flat at Rs 33200-33500 per candy. V 797 cotton offered at Rs 22500-23500 a candy. While in Maharashtra, mech-1 good grade quoted at Rs 33700-34200 a candy.

South Zone:


Cotton spot price was steady tone across the major trading centers of south India.  

US Cotton Futures :

Cotton futures tumble: February 05, 2016 – Cotton futures fell on Wednesday despite a sharply weaker dollar and strength elsewhere in the commodity complex as investors hesitated to increase long positions ahead of the looming index fund roll, when large funds move positions forward from the front-month. “They don’t have a long time to build up a significant long,” said Louis Rose, independent cotton trader and consultant with Risk Analytics in Memphis, Tennessee. March cotton on ICE Futures US settled down 0.36 cent, or 0.58 percent, at 61.94 cents per lb. It traded within a range of 61.77 and 62.59 cents a lb. Total futures market volume fell by 4,576 to 43,027 lots. Data showed total open interest gained 2,126 to 197,632 contracts in the previous session. Certificated cotton stocks deliverable as of February 2 totalled 26,614 480-lb bales, down from 27,784 in the previous session. The dollar index was down 1.70 percent. The Thomson Reuters CoreCommodity CRB Index, which tracks 19 commodities, was up 2.50 percent. Copyright Reuters, 2016

Pakistan :

Cotton prices increase: February 05, 2016 — Karachi : Prices moved higher at the local cotton market on Thursday amid short supplies of high grade lint variety, brokers said.  The official spot rate held steady at Rs5,400 per maund. The Karachi Cotton Association (KCA) reported traders purchased 2,800 bales at Rs4,450 to Rs5,675 per maund as compared to Rs4,800 to Rs5,650/maund during previous trade. By and large, prices remained firm at the overnight level, but till the close of the trading session, some quality lint was quoted at higher prices.  “There is dearth of stocks lying with spinners and they see prices to remain on higher side in anticipation of shortfall in cotton production during the current season,” said a broker at Karachi Cotton Association. “The short supply prospects of cotton triggered buying at the market,” the broker said.  Many traders expect the cotton market to witness a steady trade on account of ease in demand for the cotton yarn by the spinners who are under capacity.

China :

Chinese industrial park in Ahmedabad to go functional by end of 2017: 2016-02-03 : The first Chinese general Industrial park with focus on textiles will be functional by the end of 2017 near Ahmedabad. The infrastructure for the park will be ready by 2017-end and some of the companies will begin setting up their units by the same time, said the country head of China Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (CASME) in India, Kamlesh Bhadani. An MoU for setting up this project was signed between China Development Bank and Gujarat government during the Vibrant Gujarat Summit 2015. The state government has set up a high-power committee under the chairmanship of the additional chief secretary of industries for this project. A group of senior officials of CASME and China Development Bank, including Bhadani and vice-managing director of China Development Bank Xiao Ming Zhen, had met the state chief minister last month. Zhen had said that work on the $1 billion industrial park will begin soon. The ground breaking of the project is likely to be held in the next few months. Bhadani said that they are looking at two land pockets — one in Sanand and other on Ahmedabad-Rajkot highway. It is going to be a general park and its developer will be CASME. Once the Chinese New Year celebrations are over, they will be conducting road shows and other campaigns to create awareness about this industrial park among the Chinese firms. The work on project will be expedited from March. Bhadani, speaking about the focus on textile sector in this park said that many of the Chinese textile firms will prefer to have a local partner as they will be coming from different environment. There is hardly any value addition in India to the raw material which is exported to China. The Chinese textile companies will do manufacturing here in Gujarat and export the finished product to China, as there is a huge market for this in China Some of companies interested in the project have already visited Ahmedabad and few more will be coming soon. These firms would like to do due diligence before investing here. Besides bringing in investment, this park will also provide employment on a large scale.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...

Win or lose, the campaign is an opening for movements fighting inequality

05 Friday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, International, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Readers News Service, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, 2016 US Elections, Bernie Sanders, Democratic party

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION RACE

Why the Bernie Sanders insurgency matters

Michal Rozworski, Derrick O’Keefe

Bernie Sanders’ achievement in Iowa, a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton, was one of the most remarkable electoral results in recent memory. Just as noteworthy as Sanders’ rise in the polls — he closed a 50-point gap in Iowa in just over six months — is the way his campaign’s themes and issues have resonated with a mass audience.

The core messages of the Sanders campaign, once scoffed at or derided when they were expressed by Occupy Wall Street, have become common sense for millions of people.

This is especially true among young people. Sanders won a staggering 84 per cent of Democrats under 30 in Iowa.

For some time now, mainstream political commentators have been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Sanders to dissuade primary voters from taking his campaign seriously. These pundits, presenting themselves as hard-headed realists while wagging their fingers, try to explain away Sanders’ growing public appeal. They are unwilling, and seemingly unable, to look fairly at what the campaign is proposing and how that might relate to people’s lives.

In other words, the pundits’ job is to distract from the things that really matter: the series of concrete ways that people’s lives could be be improved. Sanders’ meteoric rise, whatever else has helped bring it about, is a response to real inequality, stagnant incomes and bleak prospects for many Americans.

For an example of myopic punditry, take a look at how Canadian writer Stephen Marche described a Sanders rally in Iowa late last year:

“Sanders’s exasperation was the principal fact to be communicated, more than any political content. Trump was about winning again. Sanders was about having lost. The vagueness of American politics is what astonished the outsider. It’s all about feelings and God and bullshit. Sanders actually uttered the following sentence out loud: ‘What we’re saying is when millions of people come together to restore their government we can do extraordinary things.’ Nobody asked what he meant. Nobody asked for numbers. They applauded. Better to take it in the spirit in which it’s given, like a Catskills resort comedian.”

You have to work pretty hard to so completely miss the content of a Bernie Sanders stump speech. The same core issues are there every time. And yes, policy proposals, granted ones presented in broad brushstrokes, are clearly enumerated. Even his triumphant speech in Iowa late Monday night relentlessly went through the issues, one by one. Each of these key points highlights ways in which real inequality manifests, and points (albeit in some cases not far enough) toward reform and remedies that will benefit real people. On all these issues, Sanders is offering more than the corporate money supported Clinton.

If the pundits and ideologues weren’t sowing so much confusion, it wouldn’t even be necessary to point this out.

$15 minimum wage

While some cities in the United States have recently raised their minimum wage, with some even planning to get to $15 within a few years, the inflation-adjusted minimum wage across most of the country is lower today than it was in the 1970s. Consider that. Four decades of economic advance have left the lowest paid worse off. Minimum wage workers today may have iPhones, but too many are barely making ends meet for themselves and their families.

Of course, simply raising the minimum wage won’t be enough.

Sanders’ call for a nationwide $15 minimum wage is an integral part of his message that inequality is not natural but the result of policy choices and power. Raising the minimum wage is not only about restoring something ephemeral like dignity, but also about slowly swinging the pendulum of power back towards workers.

Of course, simply raising the minimum wage won’t be enough. Less than 10 per cent of U.S. workers are members of a union today. Reinvigorating the labour movement in a way that brings power back to the grassroots will have to happen for more substantive change. Bernie’s push for a $15 minimum wage across the United States and his focus on the need for greater participation and democracy could help push this more transformative change forward.

Universal health care

At the surface, the U.S. health care system is marked by a huge contradiction: the country manages to both spend the most on health care among developed countries and do very poorly on a raft of health measures.

Bernie Sanders’ championing of universal public health care exposes the simple cause of this disparity: the network of private health insurers, private health providers, pharmaceutical companies and army of consultants who all profit from the unequal and rationed delivery of what should be a human right.

Universal health care would immediately impact the lives of millions of people. The drama of not having coverage or having the wrong kind of coverage or not having enough to pay for a deductible or even just the small dramas of navigating the maze of forms, payments and providers — all of these would be alleviated with the social democratic cure of a universal public service.

When the media reduces Sanders’ program to economic inequality, it glosses over the many social and other inequities that are deeply intertwined with economic inequality. Poor health, for example, is a highly racialized issue. Just look at the enormous gaps in life expectancy and other measures.

Health and economics aren’t separate, and one can’t be reduced to the other, but a system where income and wealth go disproportionately to the 1 per cent while tens of millions don’t have access to health care at all and untold millions have inadequate care only reproduces and deepens deep divisions.

Free public college

Maybe it’s not such a mystery why young people overwhelmingly prefer Sanders to Hillary Clinton.

It might have something to do with his key campaign proposal of abolishing tuition fees at all four-year public universities and colleges in the United States. In fact he’s already put the idea forward, introducing legislation in the Senate for new federal spending on postsecondary education, to be supplemented by state-level funds.

When faced with accusations that free college is unrealistic, Sanders blasts back by listing all the European countries where free tuition has already been introduced. He also calls for relief of student debt, which has become a nationwide crisis. (Even 40-something Republican presidential contender Marco Rubio talks about how he only recently paid off his student loans.)

Students, and the many young workers who can’t afford to be students, would appear to be perfectly rational political actors in flocking to Sanders.

Progressive taxes

Sanders’ pledges to expand and universalize services are matched by his willingness to talk about paying for them. If inequality has grown and public services have deteriorated, it is because money has been flowing upwards and sticking rather than being redistributed.

Delivering a full range of universal services will require more people to pay more in taxes.

New income and wealth do go disproportionately to the top 1 per cent and less of the population, as Sanders doesn’t shy from repeating. Any social democratic program will need to reverse this flow. Sanders has proposed higher income taxes on the wealthy, closing loopholes for investment income and taxes on Wall Street speculation to this end.

The senator from Vermont has broken the consensus on the anti-tax, pocketbook rhetoric that has dominated politics in the United States and elsewhere — rhetoric that is the home turf of everyone from Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz. Delivering a full range of universal services will require more people to pay more in taxes and a redirection of resources away from waste such as the military and corporate subsidies.

A truly different economy will require far more democratic participation. Talking about the wealthy paying more, saying that it is “too late for establishment economics” and inching towards greater contributions from most for social(ized) goals, Sanders has opened an important debate.

Taking climate change seriously

It’s one of the most repeated applause lines of Sanders speeches: Climate change is real, humans are causing it, and we have a moral responsibility to act to mitigate it.

Sanders has one the support of many prominent activist campaigners including 350.org’s Bill McKibben.

This statement is maddeningly obvious, but it’s a direct response to the ongoing climate denialism of the Republicans, a party that is one of the last bastions of this retrograde nonsense on the planet.

But as an early champion of climate issues, however, Sanders has one the support of many prominent activist campaigners including 350.org’s Bill McKibben. What’s more, his general rhetoric is matched by leadership in opposing specific fossil fuel megaprojects. Whereas Clinton waited years to take a position against the Keystone XL tar sands proposal, Sanders took a strong stand against it early on, helping push the Obama administration to their eventual rejection of the pipeline.

Political revolution

These measures, and other needed measures that go beyond the limits of Sanders’ campaign, require deep political transformation. Contrary to the typical rhetoric of presidential candidates, Sanders has made this reality central to his campaign.

His campaign is not a manicured, media-driven effort to sell a progressive product.

Sanders’ call for “political revolution” is the glue that holds his program together and differentiates him from other upstart Democrats of the last decades. His campaign is not a manicured, media-driven effort to sell a progressive product. He seems to genuinely understand and want to inspire grassroots political mobilization. He will not turn decades of economic degradation into engagement for a truly democratic economy over the course of a presidential campaign, but it is hard to say that his campaign cannot bear fruit for the U.S. left.

Two moments stood out from Bernie’s speech in Iowa Monday night. The first was his finger pointed at the camera early on, calling out the media for willfully misrepresenting his campaign. Then there were his closing remarks, which echoed the common theme of political revolution, imploring those interested in his campaign to join actively.

These simple messages are the stuff to build off on in his campaign: we have to take on powerful interests and we have to do it actively.

Far from being just a lament for what has been lost, Sanders’ campaign has stoked new hopes and energized new political constituencies. Millions of people can see that there is, as the campaign slogan says, “a future to believe in.” But this future won’t be delivered by one politician; this future can only be fought for and won by millions.

This article first appeared in ricochet.media

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • బ్రెజిల్ అధ్యక్షుడిగా నాలుగవసారి లూలా చారిత్రాత్మక విజయం ! దేశం వదలి పారిపోయిన ప్రత్యర్ధి బోల్సనారో !!
  • కాషాయ దళ పెంపుడు చిలుక – వామపక్షాలపై తస్లీమా నస్రీన్ అడ్డుసవాళ్లు !
  • ప్రజాకంటకుల మధ్య సమన్వయం ఉన్నపుడు వారిని వ్యతిరేకించేవారు అదే చేస్తే తప్పా !
  • కొలకతా కాళీ ఆలయంలో మాంసం తిన్న బిజెపి సనాతనులు ! ఎలా సమర్దించుకున్నారో తెలుసా !!
  • బ్రెట్టన్ ఉడ్ కవలల పొదుపు కత్తి – సంక్షేమ పధకాలకు ముంచుకువస్తున్న ముప్పు !

Recent Comments

pscknr's avatarpscknr on పశ్చిమబెంగాల్లో మహమ్మద్ ఘోరీ వ…
SIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunturu's avatarSIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunt… on రాముడి సొమ్ము స్వాహా దర్యాప్తు…
Venugopalrao Nagumothu's avatarVenugopalrao Nagumot… on అసంబద్ద వాదనలు, అడ్డగోలు మాటలు…
Sk mahesh gupta's avatarSk mahesh gupta on శనగ రైతుల సంక్షోభం
pscknr's avatarpscknr on ఆడంతే నమ్మక ద్రోహి అన్న ఇరాన్‌…

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • Africa
  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • Asia
  • BJP
  • BRS
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Europe
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • tdp
  • TDP
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women
  • Ycp

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • బ్రెజిల్ అధ్యక్షుడిగా నాలుగవసారి లూలా చారిత్రాత్మక విజయం ! దేశం వదలి పారిపోయిన ప్రత్యర్ధి బోల్సనారో !!
  • కాషాయ దళ పెంపుడు చిలుక – వామపక్షాలపై తస్లీమా నస్రీన్ అడ్డుసవాళ్లు !
  • ప్రజాకంటకుల మధ్య సమన్వయం ఉన్నపుడు వారిని వ్యతిరేకించేవారు అదే చేస్తే తప్పా !
  • కొలకతా కాళీ ఆలయంలో మాంసం తిన్న బిజెపి సనాతనులు ! ఎలా సమర్దించుకున్నారో తెలుసా !!
  • బ్రెట్టన్ ఉడ్ కవలల పొదుపు కత్తి – సంక్షేమ పధకాలకు ముంచుకువస్తున్న ముప్పు !

Recent Comments

pscknr's avatarpscknr on పశ్చిమబెంగాల్లో మహమ్మద్ ఘోరీ వ…
SIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunturu's avatarSIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunt… on రాముడి సొమ్ము స్వాహా దర్యాప్తు…
Venugopalrao Nagumothu's avatarVenugopalrao Nagumot… on అసంబద్ద వాదనలు, అడ్డగోలు మాటలు…
Sk mahesh gupta's avatarSk mahesh gupta on శనగ రైతుల సంక్షోభం
pscknr's avatarpscknr on ఆడంతే నమ్మక ద్రోహి అన్న ఇరాన్‌…

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • Africa
  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • Asia
  • BJP
  • BRS
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Europe
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • tdp
  • TDP
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women
  • Ycp

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Social

  • View mannem.koteswararao’s profile on Facebook
  • View mannemkoteswara’s profile on Twitter

Recent Posts

  • బ్రెజిల్ అధ్యక్షుడిగా నాలుగవసారి లూలా చారిత్రాత్మక విజయం ! దేశం వదలి పారిపోయిన ప్రత్యర్ధి బోల్సనారో !!
  • కాషాయ దళ పెంపుడు చిలుక – వామపక్షాలపై తస్లీమా నస్రీన్ అడ్డుసవాళ్లు !
  • ప్రజాకంటకుల మధ్య సమన్వయం ఉన్నపుడు వారిని వ్యతిరేకించేవారు అదే చేస్తే తప్పా !
  • కొలకతా కాళీ ఆలయంలో మాంసం తిన్న బిజెపి సనాతనులు ! ఎలా సమర్దించుకున్నారో తెలుసా !!
  • బ్రెట్టన్ ఉడ్ కవలల పొదుపు కత్తి – సంక్షేమ పధకాలకు ముంచుకువస్తున్న ముప్పు !

Recent Comments

pscknr's avatarpscknr on పశ్చిమబెంగాల్లో మహమ్మద్ ఘోరీ వ…
SIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunturu's avatarSIVARAMAKRISHNA Gunt… on రాముడి సొమ్ము స్వాహా దర్యాప్తు…
Venugopalrao Nagumothu's avatarVenugopalrao Nagumot… on అసంబద్ద వాదనలు, అడ్డగోలు మాటలు…
Sk mahesh gupta's avatarSk mahesh gupta on శనగ రైతుల సంక్షోభం
pscknr's avatarpscknr on ఆడంతే నమ్మక ద్రోహి అన్న ఇరాన్‌…

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • Africa
  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • Asia
  • BJP
  • BRS
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Europe
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • tdp
  • TDP
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women
  • Ycp

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    vedika
    Join 244 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • vedika
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...
%d