Reblogged from Talking Union. Written by Steve Early and Rand Wilson.
Bernie Sanders’ segue from presidential candidate to barnstorming author was seamless. In between the Democratic National Convention in July and hitting the stump this fall to boost Hillary Clinton’s stock in battleground states, Sanders cranked out a 450-page book, which hit bookstores November 15. The author was not far behind, with sold-out appearances from Boston to San Francisco.
Jill Stein blew $3.5 million failing to even come close to winning 5% of the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election — as predicted — but she has a new scampaign: election integrity. In a few days, she raised over $3 million for vote recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan fueled by baseless rumors that Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in these states had something to do with hacking. Continue reading →
Local historian John Gurda is slated to give the second annual Frank P. Zeidler Memorial Lecture tonight on Milwaukee’s Socialist legacy. But he spoke with the Shepherd last week about his thoughts on how the Socialists saved Milwaukee. Here are some of his observations:
Shepherd: What was going on in Milwaukee when the Socialists emerged?
Gurda: They began to run candidates for office in 1898. That was the first year that David Rose was in office [as mayor]. Milwaukee was thoroughly corrupt. It was as bad as Chicago on a bad day. Everything was for sale, which was not atypical. That was the pattern in American politics back in what was called the Gilded Age. Milwaukee was also very heavily industrialized. This was a working-class town. More than half of the male working population would have been engaged in manufacturing of some sort. It was a visibly dirtier city than it is today with coal smoke and just incredible pollution in the rivers. It was also very compact and congested. When you look at the older part of town today there are a lot of open spaces, there has been renewal or removal of some kind. That was not true then. It was cheek by jowl.
Hillary Clinton’s surprise defeat in the 2016 presidential election at the hands of Donald Trump has led to much weeping and gnashing of teeth among liberals and progressives alike. Arguments that 60 million Trump voters are deplorables — irredeemable racists, misogynists, pussy-grabbing Muslim-hating fascist bigots — are really a back-handed way of saying two things:
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment that anointed her — over the vigorous objections of Bernie Sanders’ insurgency — are blameless for this unparalleled historic defeat. (Nevermind the fact that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run.)
There is no conceivable way Sanders could have won the election if had been the Democratic Party’s nominee. After all, if Hillary Clinton was too ‘left-wing’ for the general electorate, surely Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have stood a chance.
Such arguments ignore the mountain of evidence that it was Barack Obama voters who elected Trump. Just look at these maps.
June 2016 Political Theses of SYRIZA’s Central Committee for the Second Congress held on October 13-16. (Hyperlinks added by this blog.)
1. SYRIZA’s Victorious Advance – Unification at the First Congress, Preparation to Assume Responsibility for Government
The starting point of Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) great advance dates back to the late 1980s, when the first signs of a general political crisis and the crisis of the bourgeois party system appeared. This happened when the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK) started being fully controlled by the state, placing the state’s imperatives and rationale, as well as the particular vested interests it was involved with, at the core of its existence, gradually acceding to the rising neoliberalism and abandoning the political representation of those afflicted by the inequalities perpetually produced by capitalism. New Democracy (ND) emerged as the pure champion of neoliberalism and, thanks to PASOK’s shift and the now apparent corruption, managed to have two short, but equally scandalous, terms in government. Continue reading →
By Dimitris Rapidis. First published by Blog Active.eu. Hyperlinks added by this blog.
Between October 13-16, the governing Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) party held its second congress in Athens. There were many debates and fruitful discussions but above all else the congress addressed some major issues that define the party’s new vision and political scope.
1. Euclid Tsakalotos Comes in First in the Central Committee Ballot
The Greek Minister of Finance achieved to get the first place among the contenders for the party’s Central Committee. This is an historic achievement, considering also that he is the one managing negotiations with the creditors and implementing the bailout program. Leading one of the influential political trends in SYRIZA, the Group of 53+, mostly critical to the bailout deal, Tsakalotos combines efficiency in negotiations — considering the balances of power with and among the creditors — and a constant effort to open the debate over the political vision of the party and the Left in Greece and Europe. While he is not clamoring for any leading position in the party nor is he promoting himself, Tsakalotos turns out to be extremely popular in the party. He can definitely build on that, empowering his position abroad and building the bridge connecting policy-making and daily management of policy consequences. Continue reading →
This thesis is the story of Bernie Sanders, the socialist mayor of Burlington and his campaign for governor of Vermont in 1986. The campaign is used as a prism to explore his version of socialist politics and policies within a capitalist state. The policies which Sanders developed in this campaign for lowering property taxes for middle and lower income people, increasing social spending, increasing citizen participation, and raising the taxes for wealthy people and corporations are examined in detail. Sanders claims that city governments can work for poor and working class people; however, this thesis demonstrates the difficulties leftists have in getting elected and in implementing policies whenever they do win. In conclusion, I examine the questions about left participation in the electoral process, the autonomy of the state, and what socialist municipal and state policies should be.