Home | About | Donate

Because He's 'The Best Candidate for Working Families,' Sanders Nabs Another Union Endorsement


#1

Because He's 'The Best Candidate for Working Families,' Sanders Nabs Another Union Endorsement

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Citing his support for workers and willingness to take on Wall Street, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) on Thursday endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

With the endorsement from ILWU, which represents 50,000 workers in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, Sanders has now nabbed the support of five national unions.


#3

This is a really important endorsement because these are solid "blue-collar" workers who have upheld the traditions of FDR since their begining, and are a natural fit for Bernie. Onward to victory in California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska...


#4

Bernie is not really a socialist, or a democratic socialist for that matter. Wish he would stop calling himself that. It confuses everyone and puts off people who just really want Franklin Roosevelt to march in and get us out of our present malaise. I like him because he isn't beholden to the banksters and the oligarchs.

He is still way too much of an interventionist for my taste, though. Bring the troops home. They can build bridges, schools, solar arrays, etc. We need to cut the defense budget by half. We need a department of DEFENSE!


#5

It's refreshing to see unions--whose workers have directly experienced the "fruit" of NAFTA--lining up to NOT support the Clinton "free trade" tag team.

If media was doing its job, and if states didn't limit early elections to ONLY those registered with a D or R branding, Sanders would be so far ahead, the Talking Heads of the MSM would all get whiplash trying to keep up with him... and how far he is leads all other contenders!

Meanwhile, they hurl every conceivable handicap his way.


#8

Thanks again Siouxrose11...


#9

You like to use scatalogical terminology at lot. Bernie is definitely not for pulling the troops home. He wants to keep us involved in Middle East confrontations. He has voted for the F35 being based in Vermont. The MIC thanks him for that.


#10

YEP- NPR is certainly in the camp of Hillary, and NPR Takes every opportunity to promote their girl.
Jeremey (Geremy) Hobson and Ray Suarez of NPR are very subtle in this approach.......handicapping Bernie as often as they can.


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#12

THE MORE HE RUNS AND SPEAKS OUT, THE MORE HE GETS THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE! GO BERNIE GO!
and fyi

THE ILWU IS ONE OF THE MOST PROGRESSIVE UNIONS WE HAVE EVER HAD.


#15

Actually tcarlson is technically correct. Bernie is more of a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist. He is not calling for workers to own the means of production with democratic governance.

But, regardless of labels, many of his policy proposals are good ones.


#16

Good question. The phrase we hear is "working people" as if the US is a classless society.


#17

The tragedy is that there is NO politician who stands with the masses who aren't as well off as "working families." In real life, not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people struggling to find one. The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, and turns its back on our "surplus population" -- those who aren't of current use to employers/the corporate state. Those in deep poverty are paying the price for decades of upward wealth redistribution, and bestowing massive tax cuts on corporations, much of which went into moving our jobs out.

Sen. Sanders used to know better. He used to know why it's impossible to save/rebuild the middle class without shoring up the poor, a lesson our own 20th Century history clearly shows. Now he apparently believes that the appropriate response to our poverty crisis is yet another decade of merely calling for jobs and waiting for trickle-down.


#18

Actually, Sen. Sanders is a Democrat and a capitalist, not a socialist. Ask him. Inexplicably, certain liberal media tried to label him as a democratic socialist, a system that is obviously not supported by today's Democrats and liberals. Note that democratic socialism, as well as it appears to work in a number of countries (which now surpass the US in higher overall quality of life) does include a legitimate system of welfare aid. We ended ours.


#19

Not just a problem, but a crisis. As FDR stressed, the survival of the US itself requires a large middle class. Without this, the nation will inevitably collapse. This is why, from FDR to Reagan, we implemented a range of policies and programs to ensure this -- poverty relief with the proverbial ladder out of poverty, while imposing restraints on corporate and financial powers. During these decades, the US had achieved its height of wealth and productivity. Then, by the 1980s, they changed their minds, and decided to reverse course, putting their trust in a deregulated "free market" system.


#23

Well "Commie,"

That's quite a manifesto devoid of capitalist spelling and paragraphs. But State-Sanctioned Communism never works. It's a fraud. One only need to look at the failed U.S.S.R. KGB or China physical factory slavery to see that oppression, human rights violations and class Dachas are ever present in such a elite-constructed utopia.

Thank god Bernie Sanders lives in the real world. He knows that prosperity across the class spectrum depends not on trusting the elites to set up a Red China (which has more Naked Unregulated Capitalism than the USA does.)

Rather, prosperity across the board requires Union rights to commit job actions against intransigent management when organized labor so decides. These legal actions of non-cooperation are enshrined in Federal Labor Law from FDR's New Deal statutes and even before in the Railway Labor Act and other Worker Struggles.

It matters not that most of the nation is non-union. High-paying Union jobs jack up the whole house, Union and non-union alike. But that time-tested formula cannot work while Wall Street is allowed to buy off Uncle Sam and export all our jobs to slave China and India. Off-shoring our jobs is unacceptable and Bernie Sanders vows to break up the banks and CEO's who did this to America.

Bernie Sanders is a real American who really cares about our future no matter what side of the fence you are on. Ignoring his sage advice is at our peril. Bernie is not doing this to get rich, unlike all the other candidates with their obscene Super Pacs and Super Delegates.

He is for real. He very well just saved America from mindless greed. He very much just saved our faith in Democracy, which even the One Percent should be interested in, since they may wind up swinging from lamp posts if things don't get restored back toward some semblance of fair play.

TJ


#25

Nothing wore than someone claiming to be a communist who fails to understand it and accuses others of ignorance. First a factual error (perhaps it was an innocent typo, so apologies if it were). NEP was adopted at the 17th Session, 5 July 1921 under Lenin, as was the earlier one-man management policy that eliminated the soviets and removed workers committees from running enterprises

Second, an error of Marxism. Marx did not differentiate between socialism and communism. For him they were synonyms. Of course Lenin used the Gotha to try and claim there was a difference but even the Trotskyist James Cannon acknowledged the fact

Q: Is there socialism in the Soviet Union?
A: No—well, I would like to clarify that now. Socialism and communism are more or less interchangeable terms in the Marxist movement. Some make a distinction between them in this respect; for example, Lenin used the expression socialism as the first stage of communism, but I haven’t found any other authority for that use. I think that is Lenin’s own particular idea. I, for example, consider the terms socialism and communism interchangeable.

I could cite others. Hillel Ticktin,> "The fundamental aspect of a communist or socialist society (I make no distinction between the two) is that for the first time a society is planned by the associated producers themselves." He elaborates > “The transition to what - socialism or communism? It is clear that Marx made no distinction between the two....What difference does this terminology make? Well, it has made a great deal of difference, because it allowed the Stalinists to say that socialism is the lower phase of communism and, while in this lower phase all sorts of dreadful things can happen, we are still advancing to a communist society...We should simply go back to Marx's use. The society we are striving to attain may be called communist or socialist, but in the transitional period it is neither. As far as I am concerned, 'socialist society' and 'communist society' refer to the same thing.”

Of course, Lenin's apologists will refer to his distortion of Marx's Gotha Critique as justification where Lenin misquotes.
Marx wrote:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx describes “the first phase of communist society”, as compared with a “higher phase” but he doesn't call the first phase socialism nor the higher phase communism. Marx is talking of different phases of the same society, based on common ownership: a lower stage, with individual consumption being rationed, possibly by the use of labour-time vouchers, and a higher stage in which each person contributes to society according to ability and draws from the common stock according to needs. In both stages, however, there would be no money economy or state. It was Lenin, in his State and Revolution who made famous the description of these two stages as ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ respectively, in which there would be a money economy and state in the transitional society of ‘socialism’. Lenin re-defined the terms. Once again to make clear, for Marx there were three different circumstances:
1. A political—i.e., with the state still existing — transition period between capitalism and socialism.
2. An early stage of socialism (communism), i.e., with the state gone, without full free access.
3. A later stage of socialism (communism) with free access according to needs.

Lenin's deliberately confused Marx's political transition period and his early stage of Socialism, trying to make out that they were one and the same. What happened in Russia did not qualify even as a “first phase of communism”.


#27

Dear "Communist",

I used to fly to 58 countries. I'm here to tell you that Capitalism is always present, in every single one of them, all the time. You can’t ever get rid of it. The best you can hope to do is regulate it. For even when governments try to throttle it, Capitalism always manifests itself in a Black Market where people will barter goods or print counterfeit script if no money is available. It’s been that way all through time in nearly all societies. Even nomadic tribal society traded in women and had leaders who got more pussy than the average Indian. Your fantasy of a egalitarian society is exactly that. A fantasy. Unobtainable as long as Homo sapiens are involved.

Students of history know it has always been this way throughout countless cultures.

Your communist idea of banning property or money (if I understand where you are going with this), except what the State decides you deserve, is guaranteed totalitarianism, imho. Obviously, under such a Nanny State structure, all political dissidents will be immediately homeless, disarmed and destitute by a simple command issued from any bureaucrat irked by them in any one of endless layers of government. There will be no political resistance possible. Just like North Korea. You can’t start over down the road. You have to become a refugee since you can buy nothing or earn nothing except what Big Brother allows you to.

Right now, there is a serious effort afoot to ban all physical cash by the International Banksters. Electronic credits, which they control will be all that’s left if they get their way. They have already confiscated cash, via negative interest rates scams in Cyprus, Greece and Switzerland and are trying to do it all through the EU. The Clinton’s economist, Larry Summers, wants to do it in the US. Already it’s increasingly difficult to withdraw large sums of your own money in cash form. I had to call the cops since Bank of America wouldn’t honor my order for a large cashier’s check to be printed to make a downpayment on a house. Exorbitant banking transaction fees and small ATM cash limits are already common throughout the world.

Is Nationalism a bad thing? Nationalism hampers International Banksters who fund war and subvert local Trade and Environmental Laws. Having locals in charge is a good thing. Once TPP is ratified, democracy will die all over the world. In it’s place an unknown, unelected board of Dictators will trump all constitutions.

But that’s not Capitalism, my friend. It’s racketeering. It’s Monopoly trade. It’s Fortune 500 Tyranny. It’s lack of any meaningful competition, which the father of Western Capitalism, Adam Smith, said you must have in order for the market to function correctly. It’s a few men in control of both the government and the UNfree market, where WTO trade violations demand mandatory purchases from huge Multi-globals or you are kicked out of the game of Monopoly. Just like the 1775 British East India Company, which sold all imported goods at inflated prices to the colonies through London Globalists, which is the real reason the American Revolution started (not just taxes.)

On the other extreme, Communism is a fool’s delusion. It never has, nor can it ever work. Far better to just get rid of large structures, and let the street people decide for themselves what is proper. Instead of burned-out inner cites with no hope in America or long bread lines and apartment cues for decades in the USSR, you get flourishing villages where the downtrodden are not cast aside into the shadows. I live on such islands. Squatters have rights and cannot be displaced from unoccupied land. Most people are unemployed and poor, but happier than most Westerners. It’s still Capitalism, but it’s a better way, imho.

Since you can't be homeless, you are not under the constant stress of having to kiss the corporate ring to slave for the man. Which is why most natives here don't really care if they get fired. The community will shelter them. Most Fortune 500 companies gave up here long ago and moved on to Communist China where the cops routinely beat up non-compliant worker/slaves and then go after their families.

Now, there is a persistent communist movement here, particularly in the Southern Islands, but it's been going on for 100 years with little success. Even Communist leaders are susceptible to bribes offered by mining companies in lieu of having to engaging the national army.

So your ideas can never work in the real world, imho, since all men are fallible if enough pressure is applied.

Chairman Mao, by the way, was educated at Yale University. Yes it's true. And guess who set up "Yale in China"?

The Rockefeller Oil Monopoly, who supplied all of China's energy in the 1920's (mainly cooking and heating oil back then.) Mao was trained in guerrilla warfare by the predecessors of CIA: Naval Intell and later the offices that became OSS.

And your heroes Marx, Lenin and Trotsky where all part of an international banking cartel, if my research is correct.

I'm afraid you've been had, my friend. What you seek is not possible. Unless you can figure out a way to change human nature itself.

TJ


#29

Well, Com,

Fair enough. I suspect English is not your first language. My good nature-ed barbs are just part of my passion for the subject; they are not meant as insults. But I said nothing about the "illuminati" (sic).

I'm merely pointing out that behind every revolution and war is a Banker who, more often than not, lends money to both sides in a conflict with the agreement that the winning side cover all debts.

No Banker? Then no War. No Banker? Then, No Revolution (since no arms). This puts Capital in charge of world conflict; not people, as you mistakenly believe.

Dynasty Families with massive wealth view the world as nothing more than the Devil's Chessboard, to be wagered on. They fund guns. They start "humanitarian programs" and predatory micro-finance scams to ensnare all of us into a web of debt and eternal servitude. This is what they do for kicks.

They don't care who gets hurt, as long as it isn't them. Do you really think, that a communist web-site which advocates armed revolution against the West would be allowed to exist on the very same internet designed by DARPA?

If you do, then you are a fool indeed, my friend. You are playing Cat-and-Mouse with you as the mouse. Now I have nothing against international workers movements that are peaceful and non-violent, but what your linked site advocates is this:

Our Party is building toward armed revolution in every country to smash... national borders and imperialism. From Anaheim to Ankara, every anti-immigrant rally is an opportunity to build international solidarity. From Pakistan to Palestine, every racist, sexist budget attack is an opportunity to fight back. These are the sparks of communist revolution. Our organizing will fan the flames.

I don't want armed revolution all over the world. I don't want a crazy One-World-Government. All I want is "the pendulum pushed back to center rather than armed conflict", which the founders said is the duty of all citizens to affect.

Sorry my friend, what you are apparently building is another violent USSR Frankenstein and I will not be a part of it. Big is always bad. Can't you learn from history?

My founding fathers of America (the Anti-Federalists who got us the Bill of Rights) knew that democracy could only work in small structures like Swiss Cantons or Greek City-States. They knew that citizen freedom could never exist under a King/President over such a vast area, which is why all present referred to the 1787 government as the "great experiment".

O.K., great thinker, answer me this:

How do you propose to join $2.00/day wage slaves in India with Union members in America who make $15-300/hr? All you will succeed in doing is averaging the two extremes which will put everyone in America in poverty since banksters have debased our currency through overprinting. Stagflation is ramped in the USA.

Real CPI inflation (if it included food, fuel, mandatory healthcare and mandatory insurance) would be over seven percent per year. Simple mathematics shows that in ten years time, Americans will need to earn double what they do now just to avoid landing in debt prison. We now incarcerate more people than anywhere else in the world.

I am pro-worker. I am Pro-Labor. I am against "smashing borders" or globalization (which is nothing but the hunt for slave labor) and cabotage, so your Communist site's gullible naivety that slave drivers won't pervert and take over your idealistic movement like Lenin did once you institute a New World Order is abhorrent to me.

IMHO, you are repeating failed history; you are walking right into the mouth of the banking shark with no thought where people will turn once a global police state is implemented.

TJ