Home | About | Donate

Tenemos Familias: Migrant Workers For Bernie, Who Didn't Keep Silent


#1

Tenemos Familias: Migrant Workers For Bernie, Who Didn't Keep Silent

In 2008, Bernie Sanders went to Immokalee, Fla. to meet migrant workers picking tomatoes under slavery-like conditions, which eventually improved thanks to his advocacy, a grassroots campaign and a Fair Food movement still fighting, most recently with a Wendy's boycott. Now, for the key Florida primary, Immokalee workers are in turn speaking up for Sanders; in a new video, they praise the only pol who paid attention, and "didn’t keep silent about what he witnessed."


#2

This is amazing!

And DHFabian.... watch this! You'll see that all the calumny you projected at Mr. Sanders was fallacious and unfounded.

Sanders' decency brings tears to my eyes!


#4

I continue to insist that Sanders is NOT a Socialist.

That said He IS a decent and kind man. It with a heavy heart that I look at tonights returns with the primaries. HRC is a great mistake.


#5

Bernie Sanders is the only one who had the courage to stick up for the tomato pickers down in Florida. That, in itself, is a plus, and he'd make a good POTUS, imho.


#6

Saying “I continue to insist that Sanders is NOT a Socialist” despite admitting that “...he IS a decent and kind man” is to also admit to a personal struggle. But I just don't think that's necessary. Socialism itself is founded on decency, justice and understanding. The rest is just an exercise in hierarchical purity. And hierarchy is antithetical to decency, justice and understanding.

Hard to image any socialist thinking they've got the whole thing solved and bundled into a neat package for all eternity. It's also not a demonstrable reality to expect that building a socialist society must begin with the top floor first. We as a species are not that gifted. If such a facility existed then it would have come to fruition long ago. But it doesn't exist and we must do what the rest of the known universe does and that's to evolve our capabilities. Socialism, it would seem, is an exercise of rational and social evolution. It also embodies the decent impulses that humans are born with. If we as a species can find a salvation that is it. It takes serious indoctrination to wipe out those decent impulses we acquire through birth

Sanders represents a person quite unadulterated by the perversities of propaganda and discriminatory behaviors. Avoiding and/or reversing doctrinal tampering is fundamental to any movement, wouldn't you think? We can leave it for the academics to sort out the nomenclatures.


#7

The reason I make that distinction is to ensure the meaning of the word "Socialism" does not get changed. We have people claiming Obama is a "socialist" and he most certainly is not.

As per Confucius

"When words lose meaning their people lose their freedom"

Things like universal health care , pensions , education funded through taxes and the like might be elements OF Socialism but that does not mean a party advocating the same Socialist any more than that a foot being an element of a mile means a foot is a mile.


#8

Seeing how civil rights and labor rights activist Sanders has been beaten down in the Southern states during this primary season, the only conclusion I have drawn thus far is that NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.


#9

Sure, throw Confucius at me. And I thought you were a decent bloke. You even got an imprimatur from Siouxrose1. And if you can't trust that what can one trust!?

This is a bit late replying but I've been tied up for a number of days. Or as my recently downloaded 'Confucius apology for a late reply' app exclaimes: “Can't anyone solve those damn time and ubiquity problems”. The app is still in its 'beta' phase.

Lapsing into a bit of sobriety for a moment, that Confucius quote you gave is no doubt often interpreted with an inverted cause and effect. Words lose meaning when their content loses meaning, which in turn leads to such results as loss of freedom. When the content is eviscerated then so are the words and not the other way around. Imho. Confucius understood the advantages of rhetoric.

It's very understandable that you have concerns about the relationship of socialism and the American public since it never existed in America, or virtually anywhere else for more than a fleeting amount of time until it was overthrown by totalitarian/centralized forms. As with the October phase of the Russian Revolution which killed socialism mere weeks after its beginnings. As you know, the 'Soviets' used the good name of socialism worldwide as a cover and the west was only too happy to equate socialism with a totalitarian state. Socialism became the demonizing word for anything or anyone, foreign and domestic, that was not in the interests of ruling power types in the west. There's no great insight needed to understand that. Nothing more than removing the blinders.

However, information technology and the birth of generations who do not have the history of living through WWII and/or the succeeding 'communist threats' are not susceptible to the same propaganda. And the younger generations are not adverse to using the net. While it's true Obama has been labeled a socialist by some, it's the same right wing propaganda that has for decades called the NY Times and NPR a socialist/commie front.

You've no doubt read the strange comments that at times have appeared in the CD commentary section which expressed 'concern' that if socialism was tried but 'failed' in the US, the population would give up on it. This 'reasoning' is so skewed it's like asking what is it like 10 feet north of the north pole. If anything (pineapple pizza, contour sheets, trickle down economics, whatever) 'fails' then the public would be perfectly sane to not embrace it. But cause and effect can't be ignored. Has there ever been anything that has exhibited the rationalism, the humanitarian and nurturing potentials, both individually and collectively than have been expressed with socialism? 'Failures' would almost by definition have to come from sabotaging the society, to be at war with it. Then that's a case of fighting the perpetrators and not its victims. Yet an established and secured socialist society, confident by its results, again, both individually and collectively in all domains is itself the best defense against potential enemies, foreign and domestic. And new ideas and concepts are not enemies but they are part of a behavior that helped make socialism such an appealing existence in the first place.

Overcoming the resistances that exist is the hard reality, obviously, or it would've happened long ago. But such a society that is so compatible to what it is to be human could mean that it only need to happen once. Worldwide. Such a society would welcome improvements and admit mistakes along with correcting them. A society where rationally accessing new ideas would not only be the norm but an exhilarating norm and yet where individualism flourishes. The best explanation of human nature I ever hear (read) came from Noam Chomsky which he gave as the need to create. A society that allows/encourages its members to create, allowing each member to thrive and grow, as is our innate nature, which in turn enriches the whole society, to never worry of being abandoned, or left alone, to evoke virtually all the positives in the human lexicon, that is a society that knows no bounds. Now there's some contrast for you since a capitalist would view such words as 'society' and 'knowing no bounds' as their ultimate wet dream.


#10

Let me add an addendum to my last comments. I stated: “Socialism became the demonizing word for anything or anyone, foreign and domestic, that was not in the interests of ruling power types in the west.” Someone may wonder if any source which was not in the least impinging on those 'ruling power types in the west' were also demonized. Western capitalists have created a 'bible' such that anything is looked at as either being exploitable or condemnable. If it doesn't benefit them it potentially represents something not of their liking. Even if they can't demonstrate the slightest potential, directly or indirectly, even by shallowest inference of any violation to their dominance, just the fact of not reacting is to set a bad precedent.Thrilling to think such vulgarism can have an evolutionary growth.


#11

Your reply changes nothing.

Part of the reason "socialism" in the way it is in the USA is the insistence on people giving it a meaning that it does not have. Those in power JUST like those that ran the Soviet Union distort the words meaning for their own reasons.

Sanders is not a Socialist and anytime peole claim him as such I will dispute that point. It does not eman that makes him evil or that he would not make a good President, It only means he is not a Socialist,


#12

Mate, please, take a breath. It's not necessary to fire off a reply that appears to have taken all of 27 and a half seconds to bang out. We don't have to live in the e-speak culture every moment. If just keeping to the CD commentary section, virtually all the associations of 'socialism being misidentified' and 'Bernie Sanders' are coming form sources who are making similar assertions that you are. Who/where are these other persons that are being mislead? It's hardly much of a realization to see that Sanders is in effect reconstituting New Deal philosophies. But the New Deal itself is very, very different from what exists at the present. After all, look at all the efforts that were made for generations to destroy the New Deal. Reconstituting a New Deal like policy is a realistic base from which to go beyond towards the goals that socialism strives towards. This is not 4th order differential equations. And tactics and strategy are not dirty words.

Claims that people will be confused and misguided are weak as water. Those that don't know can educate themselves quite painlessly in this the information age, as they can with finances, economics, bio-medical topics, climate physics, etc. There are much bigger audiences that are locked into their views and won't respond to any persuasion than there are those who puzzle over what socialism means. Hand wringing over the latter makes no sense. Tactics and strategy.

We can expect Clinton and her campaign to throw in intimations about socialism, certainly when the polling numbers are working again her, but it will surely be the GOP/right wing that will play that tune a lot. And certainly Trump. But it lacks the connection it had 30-40 plus years ago. WWII was the 'good' war, as the old saying went. The fight was against those WWII 'villains'. Institutional propaganda then made the contiguous connection of those villains with the 'commies/socialists' as the new world threat to our 'freedom, democracy and the American way of life'. Amen. That was pumped through us like our own blood. When attempts to pass Medicare were introduced a half century ago, the AMA used all of the the old Cold War mud slinging, socialist/commie this and that. By the time it got to the 1980s it was growing stale. Enter terrorism, which started under Reagan, with Bush the 2nd more or less reintroducing it post 9/11. To indoctrinate new generations from scratch about the 'socialist/commie' threat doesn't work, as the past few decades have shown.

Socialism in not a cult or a religion to be worshiped. It is the natural acceptance of rationality, decency and justice, which advantages people and not lexicography. Proclaim the content, not the name, and it can't be countered by propaganda. And that results in people's acceptance, people's vote, and people making changes. Real changes. Concerns about defending the good 'name' of socialism or that false images of socialism will prevent its acceptance means fighting propaganda on propaganda's terms. A fight about content is something propaganda can't counter. If a candidate acts as a protagonist for New Deal like policies and happens to throw the word socialism around in a positive fashion, then as someone who sees socialism among the height of rationality, decency and justice, I find this manna from heaven falling into our laps. A platform to advance progressive evolution. Within this framework of thinking is that of an open mind. So if yourself or anyone else can come up with a way to implement something better, and not merely wishing for it to happen, then by all means, don't keep it a secret.