This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Bingo! Buffet says they are winning but does he do anything to help? No. Screw him!
Indeed it will be easier to build a new party than to change the old.
I think Bernie knows that but he has been fighting for us in government all his life. It must be difficult for him but I think he had to try. In any case, his run has exposed everything we need to see to make better choices. Now the country is seeing more of what the Dem's are really about. Good job.
If he is not the nominee I don't see a choice but to vote other. Green Party or write in, just not for "them". If our vote has any meaning at all it will send a clear message that we are over them and their lies. If Clinton gets in there we'll see Marshall law before we see changes for the better. It was planned for her to be the one to put the final nail in our coffin. I would rather Trump than her and the conniving, corrupt and warmongering a Clinton administration will give us. If the Dem's are our only hope we may as well vote Green or write in.
A brilliant and comprehensive vision of where we stand and how we have been betrayed by self-serving politicians and the party(s) they subverted. Kudos to Jake Johnson!
Vulture Capitalism can and does increasingly enrich Democrats as well as R'Cons, and the current Dems dominating and controlling the party have made sure they are enriched ten-fold, by profits from decisions made as legislators, presidents, or cabinet members (like SOS), all profited as sure as R'Cons have. When profits are created by actions, or failures to act, as a public official (like SOS) it is more than an ordinary crime. Payoffs can be delivered in many ways, such as million dollar payments for speeches to the profiteers or "foundation" donations - the graft just as surely enriches the criminal.
The division between politicians and the masses they ostensibly serve, has always existed, but the extreme nature of the disconnect between Dems being the "party of the people" and just out for themselves and their corporate/banker/wall street/war-machine clients really took-off with the advent of the DLC and the Clinton's who cannot be separated - they are a single entity, both work together - then Obama, The Great Pretender, who openly champions and serves big money and power while talking a progressive game - he is the master deceiver and liar and perhaps the most to be despised. Corrupt Dem DINO's, including Obama, have learned to use social issues to advantage, to mask and divert attention from their larger global betrayals to the 1%.
Now the Clinton II charade comes to town and the Dem establishment (and clients) salivate at the prospect of even more wealth/profits - the disconnect between "We The People" and corrupt Dem Party machinery/hacks/elite who rule the roost dominates. The role older black voters played in Hillary's ascendance and primary victories, is especially saddening. The fact so many rank and file Dems just mindlessly lap-up the deceptions and lies to dutifully play their roles as pawns to the Clinton/Obama/DLC/DNC game of wealth is disturbing - those ill informed puppets must be turned from the Dark Side!
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/07/all-opposed-to-the-blind-fascism-of-hillarys-lackeys-let-the-dead-bury-their-dead/ The cult of Hillary and her brainwashed lackeys.....excellent read!
Bernie Or Bust! Occupy Philly! No Hillary, No Trump! There must be a very loud voice for real change and return to government OF, BY and FOR the people, and its either Bernie and/or Jill Stein!
"Largely due to both their acceptance of an ideological system that runs counter to the needs of the masses and "pragmatic" commitments to the needs of organized wealth, gradually during the late 20th century Democrats abandoned the language of class, instead adopting the seemingly high-minded — but often diversionary and empty, particularly when put to use by elites — language of identity politics."
The above is true, but many things can be true without digging down deep into the well of causality.
The problem I have with the above paragraph is that it belittles "identity politics" and I've observed that MANY in these threads do likewise. Almost always, they happen to be White Males.
I don't see wisdom or justice in belittling so-called Identity Politics since the needs of women and the limited opportunities offered to the Black and Latino Communities are very valid matters.
Those who argue the "Identity Politics" frame basically set up a ranking system that, as usual, puts women's rights/needs and Black/Latino rights/needs at the bottom of the pyramid, class-based or otherwise.
The reasons for the Women's Movement and the Black Lives Matter/Civil Rights movements were largely because white males, sensitive to the Class War or otherwise didn't care much for the challenges facing these huge marginalized groups.
Also missing is WHY the "Class War language" was replaced with so-called Identity Politics.
Why isn't Big Money mentioned? If election/campaign costs range from several million to many millions of dollars, either those running for office will COME from independent wealth or end up beholden to it through their "sponsors."
THAT is why the language of Class War was temporarily retired.
Besides, it hardly complemented the Libertarian agenda that insisted that Freedom meant granting corporations the undiluted right to pillage and plunger wherever they touched down. Heck, Eminent Domain let loose these demons on lots of private property while Captured EPA officials played dumb to the costs in the way of poisoned water systems and other toxic detritus left behind.
The following quote is true, except that lately I've heard some amazing Black Feminists and Indigenous women leaders speak of the intersections (the new Intersectionality) of these things. That's a far wiser perspective than setting the categories up as competitive to one another:
"The point, as Walter Benn Michaels has put it, is "not that anti-racism and anti-sexism are not good things." Rather, it is that, as a "substitute" for a broad progressive political project, they fail to address the "increased inequalities of neoliberalism."
Quite a spot on summary, here. The " blind spot " in the DLC/3rd Way policies has rendered them absolutely worthless in solving the black, brown and white working-class economic woes. In fact, they are exacerbating, upwards, the devastating costs of Neo-liberalism at home and Neo-conservative Militarism abroad. However, under a corrupted political party structure ( Uniparty) at the Federal level, the DLCers running the show have no fear of retribution from the 70% of America's voters affected by this Beltway Cronyism and Organized Dystopian Disaster. The Deep State, aligned primarily with energy interests, will crush resistance either through policing or other coercive ( and extra-legal ) means; count on it, too. The DLCers within the Democratic Party are nothing more than Neo-Statist and closeted Crypto-Fascist in orientation. They are horrible people when it comes to economic fairness and social justice for those who can't " pay the freight " on their lofty, but impractical, policy wonky ( nuanced ) prescriptions, anymore. The Democratic Party must be dissolved now for the working-class and the aspiring middle class to suvive. It's truly come to this.
Thanks for raising the abandonment of class issues for identity politics, but only a couple of your copious quotes mentioned the identity that has been made the be-all and end-all of the Democrats' primary-season-turned-coronation. The dismissive label "Bernie bros" says it all.
As a woman not quite as old as Bernie, I've been scolded by age-peer and older women friends, as I was scolded by Madeleine Albright, for not falling into line behind the one 'destined to be our first woman President' and not recognizing 'the historic moment' of her "clinching the nomination." In other forums, I've had to defend Bernie (and by extension all who support his candidacy) against charges of sexism for simply getting in the way of the anointing of Hillary, and for raising those pesky issues.
Bernie Bros vs. Hillary's Handmaids. Sounds like a wrestling match suited for a jingoistic mud puddle in Philadelphia. Neither is close but the MSM ( MSNBC & Phoney Progressive Websites ) picked up on this nonsense and ran with it. Especially galling were younger black and brown female commentators. They're true believer loyalty to their racial and feminist recipes exposes them as useful idiots for DLC politics. They should have just waved their resumes in front of the cameras. MLK wouldn't find their selfish antics very helpful, either. Political Opportunists and Political Operatives: just like the Clintons you get two for the price of one.
Conversation? About actual issues of liberty? Surely that would spoil the spirit of the jingo!
The present system is designed to concentrate OWNERSHIP of wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets among a tiny fraction of the American population – the 1 percent – leaving the vast majority of Americans dependent on fewer and fewer good paying jobs due to non-human "computerized automation," out-sourcing jobs, and globalization. Yet, other than pronouncing that there is economic inequality, there is no national discourse on Who OWNS America and Who Ought To OWN America. See my article "The Absent Conversation: Who Should Own America?" published by The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/who-should-own-america_b_2040592.html and by OpEd News at http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-Absent-Conversation--by-Gary-Reber-130429-498.html.
I have a fairly good source to the effect that Trump has already taken money for a fall. My understanding is that this is with respect to the general election in November.
You lost me from the title, itself. Democrats since Clinton are responsible for most of the extreme inequality we have today, and even liberals have been very comfortable with this inequality. While complex, repealing welfare, taking the first steps to "reform" Social Security, and NAFTA, the TPP, etc., all fly in the face of economic, racial, and any other kind of justice.
Think about it: We know that not everyone is able to work (health, etc.) and that there aren't jobs for all. The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s. What is "justice" for all those who are left out? We decided that those who aren't of current use to employers are undeserving of the most basic human rights (per the UDHR) of food and shelter. A nation that can do this has no concept of "justice."
Maybe a threat, prompting people to think about what they'll hear if they "Rise Up." Shrapnel from those "bombs bursting in air" can be quite deadly.
Michelle Alexander says it would be easier to build a third party than to fix the Democrats. Its easy enough to do the former, but what happens to us throughout the many years when the two largest corporate parties keep winning by virtue of their total control of the media? How long do we have to wait until the media brainwashed Americans figure out things and vote for a new third party? Wouldn't it be faster and more productive to change the Democrats from within by voting out the corporate Dems and voting for or running progressive Dems that won't take WS bribes?
And what is it you want Warren Buffett to do? Buffett is no Marxist who wants a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism. But Buffett does say that a system where his secretary pays more in taxes (as a percent of income) than he does is evil.
It is Congress that taxes and spends, not Warren Buffett. It is Democrats in Congress who have proposed increasing taxes on the wealthy, while it is Republican supply-siders who have proposed tax cuts for the wealthy that will benefit the Warren Buffett's of the world.
So, instead of bashing Democrats who gave us a progressive income tax and all those social welfare programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, a minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA, you ought to be bashing supply-side economics and its adherents: Republicans.
Class warfare is identity politics, SiouxRose. Marx wanted to create a dictatorship of the proletariate. The problem was that Marx mistakenly thought that German workers would have solidarity with French workers. However, during WWI, German workers had solidarity with German capitalists; they killed French workers.
Clinton accused Sanders of disrespecting Obama every time Sanders critiqued anything that happened on Obama's watch. This application of identity politics using the race card was instrumental in Clinton's success in the primaries.
Dear author, why, why, why would you pen the following? Emphasis mine.
"…Clinton, in one flourish, missed an opportunity to link the struggle for racial justice to the financial crisis, sparked by the very institutions that Sanders wants to break up, tax, and heavily regulate.…
What do you mean "missed".
She intentionally and methodically created that opportunity to service her corporate constituency.
I couldn't read another word, that was such shocking doublespeak.
I'll try to read the rest.
How about we just get over the whole party divisiveness? That's my hope, and why I support Bernie. Parties may be useful for promoting candidates with shared principles, but party loyalty that is more important than governing principles is what is destroying our democracy.
Marx didn't "want to create" anything, Goofar. He was a theorist, an analyst. He foresaw a dictatorship of the proletariat, and he identified the ways the rentier class would turn the bourgeoisie against the workers and use social institutions to repress the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where Marxism failed to create anything was when Russians tried to apply it prematurely and fairly ham-handedly, and especially when the least intelligent of them (Stalin) completely failed to see the authoritarianism of the culture and too much enjoyed the power of an autocrat (which had been a compliment to the Tsar).