[Marxism] Democratic Party debate enjoyable but skimmed the surface
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The latest Democratic Party debate once again featured a deafening absence: The absence of a mass, independent working class movement. "Like the gunfight at the OK Corral, the confrontation with Michael (“Mike can get it done”) Bloomberg was a much anticipated event. It did not disappoint as far as seeing an autocratic billionaire get his comeuppance. As far as providing a way forward, that’s a different question "In general, Bloomberg has been attacked for trying to buy an election, with his $338.3 million and counting spent so far. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; it’s what lies under the surface that is most significant " https://oaklandsocialist.com/2020/02/20/democratic-party-debate-in-nevada-was-enjoyable-but-skirted-the-surface/ -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party Debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I don't agree that it's not worth listening to debates such as the one of the 12 top Democratic candidates of the other night. If for no other reason than the fact that a reported 8.3 million people watched it, socialists should watch it too. Nor do I agree that it was totally without substance. In the first place, there is an ongoing debate between the candidates about Medicare for all and whether that should mean eliminating the option of having private insurance. I think it's very useful to listen to the arguments on both sides because that argument is going to be played out among millions of workers. We, as socialists, should be aware of what those arguments are and what is the socialist response. As I pointed out in my article, the defenders of Medicare for all (Warren and Sanders) were really ineffective in countering the opposing argument. That being the case, we have to be able to explain why they didn't answer the argument seriously. We also have to be able to answer the arguments that the right wing libertarian Andrew Yang is raising, again because I think he's affecting the thinking of millions of people, younger voters in particular. Obviously, we can't answer his arguments if we don't hear them. Finally, there is Tulsi Gabbard. I had thought (maybe thinking born of wishful thinking) that she would go away. After watching her in several debates, it's clear that that's not going to happen. After seeing some of her commercials on social media (Facebook), after seeing her endorsements from outright fascist forces, and after watching her the other night, I think she's going to be a very dangerous presence in the Democratic Party for some time to come. And I don't think we can really understand exactly what she's doing or be able to explain her role without doing such things as watching her in these debates. I know it can be frustrating to watch these debates, especially because there are so many candidates at a time. But I do think it's important to do so. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * It's also just blatantly transparent that CNN and MSNBC (for which much of the advertising comes from insurance companies, etc.) is doing their damnedest to disparage Warren as well as Sanders. They want Biden and are continually trying to force feed him to the electorate, though they're toying with the blatantly pro-corporate alternatives. Neither the so-called "liberal media" nor the Democratic hierarchy have learned much from the Trump disaster they helped to co-author. If there was any sort of serious Opposition party in the U.S., this trumpster fire would have been extinguished as soon as it started. But, too, it would never have been ignited. Cheers, Mark L. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Mark, I agree the corporate media debate format, is more a beauty contest for obtaining campaugn donations and endorsers - and that answers you question on why the "chosen" take part - for those donations and supporters that without - there would be no serious way to contnue for most all of them. However, I was pleased with Bernie Sanders and with the billionaire publicly admitting that Bernie Sanders is correct with the rigged system and the wealthy benefitting off the workers. This is not news to us - but helped raise awareness to some and led others to hopefully question - what the game and team are actually doing! The mud wrestling idea you raise - would help with more viewership and better ratings. As for "dignity", I have not seen much of that in any political office holder competition debate.Some acting coaches, speech writers and political consultants. putting forward a "professional politician", as a sports figure on view - to get behind and identify with. Using false insinuation of playing on hopes and making sure the performing candidate shows their ability to entertain, gain support and always show their loyal service to the producers and managers of the candidate game performance race. As with most games of the master owners - this one has a lot rigged too. Bernie Sanders understands that - and has decided to "perform and play". He with his awareness and whatever weak politics from our views, so far has been more effective than most of us, in raising Class Awareness and the word and concept of: socialism. Bernie was good in raising and identifying the threats and issues that are confronting Our Class. >From my view, Bernie is doing better than Jack Barnes, James Robertson, etc. I have seen the political theater of those people pretending they are "our leaders", but last night was a larger viewership and seeing how the various corporate owned candidates offered themselves - as the "alternative to Trump". But the Empire has been in crisis from within, between the greed corruption and expectations of the "American Dream". Of the 2008 Recession, revealing more to the actual nightmare and join many already in their real experiences "as losers" in the capitalist pyramid scheme. We see hopes of those caught up in the consumerism culture and denial - that are not making it! And expect to see more with unfolding events - and the "ideas" of a socialist planned economy for workers interests and a wild hope we share perhaps for a worker run cooperative society. The corporate media has their intent and ideas, they want to transmit for their owners benefit. Epect these monthly "performance debates" will lead to many asking - what was accomplished and it was more boring than entertaining - with expectations dashed. But could that not be the corporate rulers intentions and deceptions - to prefer many watch a baseball game or some comedy show or some religious ministry show instead? To ignore politics and ideas (workers told they have no influence in such) and just listen to the media talking head "experts". I think Mark's suggestion for mud wrestling might be a good idea for both the media ratings, advertisers and us the consumer viewers, to be better entertained. Some might get more informed in that process - revealing it is all entertainment by the real stage managers - as any theater productions. Ignore the Military Industrial Complex behind that curtain of deception, with posing as some kind of great wizard for "candidates" ratings approval - to save us. Bernie states we need a mass movement and not to rely on just some saviour wizard, no matter how smiling and soothing the false words and promises.Seeems good advice to me, can we do it - and build a real alternative to what the corporate entertainment (posing as news) considers to be "acceptable to them"? These "debates" have become less substantive and more of a spectacle every time they do them. Their corporate sponsorship and the requirement of a certain level of campaign moo-lah in order to buy your part of the platform makes the fundamental nature of electoral politics absolutely transparent--as much as the motives of the Democratic National Committee and the various organs of the media in sponsoring and structuring them. All the commentary building up to them aims at encouraging confrontational rhetoric and minimizing conflict over substantive questions. The whole thing is modeled on a game show and it's no secret that that's what framed the election of the present Con-artist-in-Chief. And they've gotten worse every four
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * These "debates" have become less substantive and more of a spectacle every time they do them. Their corporate sponsorship and the requirement of a certain level of campaign moo-lah in order to buy your part of the platform makes the fundamental nature of electoral politics absolutely transparent--as much as the motives of the Democratic National Committee and the various organs of the media in sponsoring and structuring them. All the commentary building up to them aims at encouraging confrontational rhetoric and minimizing conflict over substantive questions. The whole thing is modeled on a game show and it's no secret that that's what framed the election of the present Con-artist-in-Chief. And they've gotten worse every four years. Next time, I'm expecting mud wrestling. Eight years, maybe the swimsuit competition with Trump lurking in the dressing rooms. I don't know how anyone with an ounce of respect for themselves and what they say they're running to promote can go anywhere near them. ML _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * There were no real surprises at last night's Democratic Party debate. The main thing is that Tulsi Gabbard emerged as a serious danger, a real point of confusion, a future important nexus of the far right and the "left" - the red brown alliance, in other words. https://oaklandsocialist.com/2019/10/16/third-democratic-party-debate-2/ -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I agree with Mark Lause on some things but disagree on others. The DNC claims that they selected who is on which day by chance. I think that if things had been arranged intentionally there would at least have been rumors of complaints by one candidate or another. In any case, if the DNC were trying to protect Biden, one could just as easily have said that they'd have kept Harris off the stage with him. I think that some of the kingmakers must be starting to have second thoughts about Biden. If I were them, I'd be looking at Harris or Buttegieg right now. And, in fact, Harris has gotten a significant bump in the first polls to come out post-debate. As far as the role of the kingmakers and Biden: It's not purely a matter of their manipulation. Polls show that by a 2-1 margin, the number one concern of Democratic voters is which candidate stands the best chance of defeating Trump. I know all the arguments of Sanders that a turn to the left will bring in a whole new layer of voters - enough to sweep Trump out - but I think most Democratic Party voters are not convinced and neither am I. As far as Sanders defense of "socialism", we should remember how the entire issue arose in the first place. Scores of years ago, Sanders had called himself a socialist. Then he completely dropped the term. In the 2016 campaign, it was the capitalist media which kept on raising the issue with him. This was an attempt to undermine him by a subtle kind of red baiting, and it was one of the greatest miscalculations of recent time. Sanders did not "popularize" socialism. Polls showed that it was becoming increasingly popular, especially among younger people, as far back as 2014. Possibly even earlier. Then DSA burst on the scene. In some elections, they helped mobilize a base of members to campaign for some candidates who were DSA members. So this further brought into prominence "democratic socialism". This has become the term for the liberal wing of the Democrats now - the old Hubert Humphrey wing. It's made possible by the fact that the Cold War is barely a distant memory for millions today. But it's left Sanders in a bind. He cannot disassociate himself from "democratic socialism". Neither the capitalist media nor his own wing of the Democratic Party will allow him to. Thus is defense of the term. John Reimann On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:00 AM Mark Lause wrote: > I thought there were several surprises in the debate. My initial response > was that of the professional pundits, though for different reasons: the > women did superbly on many levels. Despite polls showing virtually all of > the leading Democratic contenders defeating Trump, the DNC and the media > has presented Biden as the only candidate that can beat Trump. > > The decision to isolate Warren from the other leading contenders by > putting her in the first group was a transparent attempt to insulate > Biden. In terms of rhetoric, Warren is fundamentally indistinguishable > from Sanders. People do need to remember that she described herself as a > Republican as late as 1996, explaining this by citing the party's > friendlier embrace of "the markets." So every time I hear her, I have to > wonder how serious she is after the years of Reagan-Gingrich "supply side" > "trickle-down" voodoo. > > Sanders' use of "socialism" weighs nothing--and probably a bit against > him. Wanting to spend time debating the meaning of a word in the present > circumstances indicates a real failure to understand those circumstances. > Worse, I think his making an issue of the term is a purely electoral stroke > on his part to recover the kind of support it garnered him four years ago. > Still worse, his version of "socialism" is--as Howie Hawkins just reminded > us all--a rewarmed liberalism. > > But back to the debate . . . despite that stacking of the deck in favor of > Biden hardly kept the other participants did a very decent job of mopping > the floor with him, albeit it in short sweeps. Harris' exposure of his > Thurmond-esque appreciation of states' rights on busing was brilliantly > done, for which the media and commentators have made an issue of her lack > of clarify over health care. > > I was particularly impressed with Bennet's quick cut to the core > commentary on Biden's BS about bipartisan "compromise" with McConnell--a > compromise that amounted to the kind of surrender we're used to seeing by > the "New Democrats." > > In the end, it seems clear that the DNC, MSNBC, etc. are hell-bound to > foist Biden on the party's base . . . because they don't really have any > other viable alternative to the candidates who are trying to channel an > angry and
Re: [Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I thought there were several surprises in the debate. My initial response was that of the professional pundits, though for different reasons: the women did superbly on many levels. Despite polls showing virtually all of the leading Democratic contenders defeating Trump, the DNC and the media has presented Biden as the only candidate that can beat Trump. The decision to isolate Warren from the other leading contenders by putting her in the first group was a transparent attempt to insulate Biden. In terms of rhetoric, Warren is fundamentally indistinguishable from Sanders. People do need to remember that she described herself as a Republican as late as 1996, explaining this by citing the party's friendlier embrace of "the markets." So every time I hear her, I have to wonder how serious she is after the years of Reagan-Gingrich "supply side" "trickle-down" voodoo. Sanders' use of "socialism" weighs nothing--and probably a bit against him. Wanting to spend time debating the meaning of a word in the present circumstances indicates a real failure to understand those circumstances. Worse, I think his making an issue of the term is a purely electoral stroke on his part to recover the kind of support it garnered him four years ago. Still worse, his version of "socialism" is--as Howie Hawkins just reminded us all--a rewarmed liberalism. But back to the debate . . . despite that stacking of the deck in favor of Biden hardly kept the other participants did a very decent job of mopping the floor with him, albeit it in short sweeps. Harris' exposure of his Thurmond-esque appreciation of states' rights on busing was brilliantly done, for which the media and commentators have made an issue of her lack of clarify over health care. I was particularly impressed with Bennet's quick cut to the core commentary on Biden's BS about bipartisan "compromise" with McConnell--a compromise that amounted to the kind of surrender we're used to seeing by the "New Democrats." In the end, it seems clear that the DNC, MSNBC, etc. are hell-bound to foist Biden on the party's base . . . because they don't really have any other viable alternative to the candidates who are trying to channel an angry and thoughtful electorate. At least, they don't really have one yet. And, as a candidate, Biden is as flawed in his way as Trump or was Clinton. This means that all the Sturm und Drang by the more "progressive" candidates will boil down to supporting Biden (or, if necessary, a stand-in for Biden) as a "lesser evil." Cheers, Mark L. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Democratic Party debate
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * "I went to a “watch party” to watch the first round of the Democratic Party debates. It was held at the offices of the Sierra Club in downtown Oakland. I went there to be around some other people and see what they might be thinking and feeling. It was probably around 100 people there, almost all young and maybe 2/3 women. I think all white. "Nothing really spectacular was said at the debate, but my preliminary impression is, first of all, you can forget about John Delaney. He looks like the treasurer (but not the CEO) of a major corporation. Sounds like one too "I try to watch these things from the frame of mind of how I think a more “average” person would be seeing it. With that in mind, the ones who made the biggest impression (on me as a middle of the road liberal) were Castro, De Blasio and Booker. Castro just seemed like a decent thoughtful guy. Booker had that hard stare that made you think “now, this guy is serious” and De Blasio talked like a really good liberal. Klobuchar just didn’t really make much of an impression, despite the fact that she had the best one-liners of the night – that Trump’s policy on something or another was “all suds and no beer” and attacking Trump for “conducting foreign policy in a bathrobe at 5 in the morning.” Beto O’Rourke just seemed lightweight "A few other things that impressed me: The number of candidates who used the word “fight”, as in “I will fight for you.”..." "I talk a lot about whether a presidential candidate has good hair. Of course, it’s partly tongue-in-cheek, but only partly. I do it to make a point: That the general appearance, the aura, of a candidate is what really matters most. This was confirmed by a conversation my wife and I had with a middle age couple we know from where we walk our dogs. This is a very nice couple. Friendly and thoughtful. They often greet us with some comment on current events, and it’s clear that they’re fairly well informed. Politically, I’d say they’re left liberals who are open to socialist ideas. We were talking about the Democratic Party debates. The wife commented on which candidates she liked and which she didn’t like. I forget her exact words, but it was something like, “there was just something about ___ that I liked. He/she seemed sincere.” Something like that. I commented that in my opinion, what most people respond to is the general aura of a candidate, and she agreed. This was clearly including herself. I commented on hair and referred to Trump. Nobody would take Trump seriously if he were bald. It’s really true.” Included in this article are photoshopped pictures of a bald Trump and Sanders with his hair slicked down. You'll see what I mean. Read entire article here: https://oaklandsocialist.com/2019/06/29/democratic-party-debates/ John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
