Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/11/fresh-case-political-revolution
I strongly agree with Jeremy Toback’s point that Sanders is the only one coming close to thinking outside the kakistrocratic prison walls we’ve made of USAmerica. Hardly anyone can keep up with the scale of climatic changes descending upon us in the next 2 or 3 years, rapidly rendering large portions of the globe uninhabitable. That’s now, actually – a looming reality calling into question the very concept of national boundaries. What can a border even mean in this reality, besides “keep out and die”? How can conscientious people defend nationhood, anymore?
Medicare-For-All, or Trump.
If you had to choose, which would you pick?
Right, there really was no choice, was there?
I would expand that to chosing between “Medicare-For-All” and the GOP seeing how we don’t have a Trump problem…the GOP is the problem and Trump is just their current pitchman who will be succeeded by people worse than Trump if we let that happen.
Or, Love and Hate.
Or, Compassion and Racism.
The distinctions are endless.
Oh, C’mon there is always more than one choice. Just removing national boundaries is not going to ensure any level of equality. We could as easily enmasse and implode which in some ways is what we are already doing. Policy changes need to reflect actual outcomes. We are not even on the same page let alone have an encompassing strategy.
Fern, we’re not even in the same library system.
From the auther:
"Sanders is building his campaign around a clear commitment to transformative universal policies that create the solidarity necessary to win them. The others are not. Sanders is using his campaign infrastructure and volunteers to create solidarity on the ground with workers and unions. The others are not. Sanders is coalescing the movement necessary to win the fight against powerful, monied interests. The others are not. None of the DEM candidates allegedly in Sanders’s lane exhibit even the most rudimentary understanding of the scale of this fight or the political power needed to win it. Sanders has made political revolution a mantra."’’
Mass voting turnout in early primary/caucus states is critical to push Sanders voice,advocacy, and issues inescapably to the front - something the corrupted media cannot ignore, avoid or silence - massive organization and solidarity of support for the sea-change messages Sanders delivers must reach people still ignorant (uninformed) of the enormity of the crimes against them by this and previous regimes Of, By , and For the wealthiest
That s the revolution Bernie is leading in word and deed! Just think of the people of great experience, wisdom, conscience and integrity he would bring into a Sanders administration - a Cabinet Of, By, and For the People - for the Common Good!!
We are witnessing the absolute worst corrupt destructive regime in our history, we critically need the BEST if we are to survive!.
“Its not me, its we”, Bernie says. He can’t fight big money alone. In fact, it is doubtful that hitting the streets can do that when the military and police have been bought by a Mafia government. And the Nazis are rigging the elections. Only a political revolution can change things.
Instead of fighting among ourselves, we should be fighting the oligarchy.
If its not direct, its not democracy.
Interesting. Asking the question what place does revolution have in a globalized humanity? Diversity is necessary for life to continue.
I have to answer with a frank admission that I have difficulty understanding the point or question you pose (hence the joke about “the same library system”). “Diversity” has a strict definition, but it’s unclear how it applies in the context of pointing out the inherent, manifest cruelty of borders. Surely you’re not saying that borders are necessary to preserve (racial?) diversity. I don’t know what you’re saying.
Well there are two different things here: The question is a little vague on purpose as globalization is also. Meaning, if evey thing is globalized, what role would revolution play. World revolution, I’m asking you?
Diversity may have a strict definition but it does not exist entirely by definition (at least not yet and only by human terms) Boundaries are not manifestly cruel, how they are used or imposed can be. How do you think that should be decided?
Why is there never a discussion of ridding ourselves of corporate welfare? huge annual subsidies for multi million/billion profitable corporations, laws written by their lobbyists to continue those benefits and add new benefits, trillion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
tax breaks since Reagan.
It needs to be laid out for the people to see where there tax dollars go. Pentagons accountability of trillions gone their way which has been talked about for decades but NOTHING is done?
It needs to be pointed our that these conglomerate are who we should fear eating up all the little entrepreneurs and stopping competition and new business’. They control are food supply, media, internet, et al.
Our the politicians to scare of these very, very rich white men?
This is my guess. Because we forfeited our power (the natural consequences that sustain large corporate interests) to a system that can sustain its self at our expense. We do object, and it is working to some degree but it takes a long time and at great cost. How you evaluate progress is another thing. We haven’t got to the real issue yet, just the symptoms.
This article, while having some very good points, uses propaganda to further its message. Negative reinforcement of political ideas with out any real outcomes. It lists all the bad things people don’t like or want and then provides a way to get rid of them. (that is not real choice) Kind of like a kid at a candy store. (it is all still candy) It is not bad ideas just incomplete ones.
I think simple questions, such as whether the only way boundaries are “used” is cruel, can be answered simply: by consulting one’s conscience. If you can’t even get there, we can’t connect.
It must be nice to have such absolute certainty. I don’t see an absence of conscience, just a difference of opinion or point of consideration.
Now I’m afraid you’re hitting below the belt: accusing me of certainty. From my point of view, you seem irrationally convinced of I don’t know what: that borders ensure some kind of diversity? Please explain why you are so certain that borders are harmonious with compassion. It doesn’t make any sense. What else do we do at borders besides turning people away (and if we don’t, why call it a border)?
Apparently, I am in favor of welcoming, while Fern is not.
The last 2 Democrat presidents simply normalized the authoritarian/military/plutocrat policies of their Republican predecessors, so there is no reason to believe Sanders or any other Democrat would behave differently. Obama was the most spectacular, actually expanding Bush’s Forever Wars, rebranding them as Humanitarian Interventions, & quadrupling drone strikes. Obama dropped about 30% more aerial bombs than Bush, and persecuted far more whistleblowers.
In metaphoric terms, Republicans burn the forest, then the Democrats pave it over, and call that progress.
The Democratic Party is a like the Mafia, CIA, or KKK, constitutionally unreformable, and with limitless capacity to corrupt. If they could, they would resurrect Eugene Debs, and then in a week they would make him happy to bomb grade schools in Yemen and direct taxpayers to write their income tax checks payable directly to 'Wells Fargo.
Sanders is a professional Sheepdog. His role is suck progressives into giving the Democrats one last chance. In the end, he will yank the football away, like Lucy does to Charlie Brown, & tell you to vote for Biden.
Forgive me if I misread your intent as a boundary. Ok, I suggest a little neutrality on your part, I haven’t used any value judgements, just asking for clarification. It is your position that by removal of borders, I prefer boundaries, that would end cruelty. I asked, what would that look like? So far, I’ve seen some evidence to the contrary, which you seem to think is irrational without having considered it as even possible. I’m not sure where you got boundaries create diversity, which calls for another look.
Goddam it, flapdoodle. You talk like one of those sages out at Black Agenda Report, which means your logic is absolutely unassailable. Still, I don’t like it. Maybe there’s a part of me hoping this democracy thing has a chance – but I know in my cerebral cortex it don’t, not the way we’re going. You’re right, but I don’t like it. Is it just vain thrashing to back up Bernie, at this point?