Every Treasured Progressive Reform Since the Abolition of Slavery Has Been Called 'Socialism'

Economy

Every Treasured Progressive Reform Since the Abolition of Slavery Has Been Called 'Socialism'

 

But there is evidence that the American public is warming up to the term. 

 

 

By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet

November 14, 2014

Bernie Sanders
Photo Credit: Erica J Mitchell/Shutterstock.com

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Congress's longest-serving independent, is reportedly seriously considering running for the White House. This is significant because Sanders openly declares himself to be a democratic socialist – a label which has been a taboo in U.S. political culture for decades.

But while Sanders will likely be attacked for identifying with socialism, it has a long history of being used by the reactionary right as a smear. In fact, that history pre-dates the Civil War. History blogger Matt Karp searched the Congressional record and found the very first instance that the word “socialism” was uttered in Congress. He found that the first time anyone used the phrase was when a North Carolinian congressman used it to attack opponents of slavery:

As far as I can make out, the first reference to “socialism” on the floor of Congress came  from North Carolina representative Abraham Venable in July 1848. During a debate over the Wilmot Proviso, Venable indulged himself in a familiar litany of destructive Northern manias, which ranged from “the wicked schemes of Garrison” to “the wild excesses of  Millerism, and of Latter-Day Saints, the abominations of Socialism, and of Fourieriesm …  and all the numerous fanaticisms which spring up and flourish in their  free soil…” […] This kind of pro-slavery, anti-Northern rant was the context for most mentions of “socialism” in Congress during the next several years.

As Karp notes, the “socialism” smear continued to rear its head during the next year leading up to the Emancipation Proclamation, as pro-slavery advocates warned that if abolitionists succeeded in ending the South's ownership of human beings, they may soon also end private ownership of massive industries like banking.

After the end of slavery, conservatives continued to invoke socialism to oppose all kinds of progressive reforms. In the early 20th century, the Congress, prodded by what was indeed an independent socialist movement and various other labor forces, banned child labor. But after the Supreme Court struck down the ban, arguing it violated state's rights, Congress debated a constitutional amendment to ban the practice instead (which required a larger threshold of votes to pass). One senator who opposed to the ban claimed that the child labor amendment was really about placing socialism “into the flesh and blood of Americans.”

ADVERTISEMENT

When Franklin Roosevelt (under whom the previously mentioned ban on child labor finally went through and was not struck down by a conservative Supreme Court) advocated for the Social Security system, the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed his push, saying that he was trying to enact a “compulsory socialistic tax.”

One of the most prominent uses of the socialism smear was when Lyndon Johnson was pushing for the enactment of Medicare, the single-payer health insurance system for the elderly. Ronald Reagan, then a prominent actor and not a politician, appeared in audio recordings for the AMA Operation Coffee Cup – which organized Americans to oppose the health care push. “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people is by way of medicine,” warned Reagan in the advertisement.

All of this begs the question: if all of these major reforms that are today virtually uncontroversial – few ever call for the total abolition of Medicare and Social Security, or for re-instating child labor or slavery – were decried as socialism, maybe socialism isn't so bad after all?

There is evidence that American public opinion is starting to warm up to the term. In 2011, Pew conducted polling finding that, among Americans age 18-29, 49 percent of them had a positive view of socialism, whereas 43 percent had a negative view. Meanwhile, among the same age bracket, 46 percent had a positive view of capitalism, while 47 percent had a negative view of it. While the overall views of Americans remained decidedly negative – with 60 percent holding a negative view of socialism and just 30 percent holding a positive view – this generational difference may point to shifting attitudes among future generations.

It may be just that shift in perspective that Sanders can tap into if he decides to seek the presidency – and a legacy of “socialism” that gave America some of its most treasured social policy reforms.

The People's Budget: Progressive Proposal Aims to Un-Rig Failed Economic System

Published on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 by

Common Dreams

The People's Budget: Progressive Proposal Aims to Un-Rig Failed Economic System

The budget plan 'fixes an economy that, for too long, has failed to provide the opportunities American families need to get ahead,' says Congressional Progressive Caucus

by

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The People's Budget claims it will drive full economic recovery by creating high-quality jobs and reducing family expenses, restoring the buying power of working Americans. (Image: CPC)

Offering a sustainable alternative to regressive federal budget proposals put forth this week by the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday released The People's Budget: A Raise for America, which aims to "level the playing field" for low- and middle-income Americans.

Surrounded by constituents the proposal is designed to help, leaders of the CPC unveiledthe budget blueprint at a Washington, D.C. press conference at noon EST:

"The People's Budget fixes an economy that, for too long, has failed to provide the opportunities American families need to get ahead," the document reads. "Despite their skills and work ethic, most American workers workers and families are so financially strapped from increasing income inequality that their paychecks barely cover basic necessities. They earn less and less as corporations and the wealthy continue amassing record profits. It has become clear to American workers that the system is rigged."

The CPC budget (pdf), in turn, attempts to un-rig that system by:

• creating new jobs
• increasing the minimum wage
• reversing harmful cuts to safety net programs (and then bolstering those same supports)
• implementing new tax brackets for those who earn more than $1 million annually
• providing debt-free college to every student
• enacting a price on carbon pollution and investing in renewable energy
• allowing states to transition to single-payer health care systems
• funding public financing of campaigns to curb special interest influence in politics.

Among other things, the proposal would allocate $820 billion for infrastructure and transportation improvements and enact short-term economic stimulus measures that would create 4.7 million jobs in 2015. 

Supporters hold a banner while CPC co-chair Rep. Keith Elllison (D-Minn.) speaks during Wednesday's press conference. (Photo: Twitpic/@USprogressives)

"And the CPC insists that the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes," writesRobert Borosage, of the Campaign for America's Future, in an op-ed published Wednesday. "It would create new tax brackets for those making a million or more. The People’s Budgetraises the estate tax for the super-wealthy. It taxes the income of investors at the same rates as the income of workers. It terminates deferral, which allows multinationals to avoid taxes on money they report as earned abroad."

Overall, the provisions included in the CPC budget contrast sharply with the austerity policies embraced by the right-wing.

"The People's Budget reverses the past few years of extraordinarily sharp cuts to federal spending, which have held us back from a full recovery," said Thomas Hungerford, an economist who analyzed the proposal for the Economic Policy Institute. "It is a forward-looking, evidence-based document that would set us on track to a full, durable recovery from the Great Recession."

In comparison with GOP budget plans, the CPC's ambitious proposal is "about as close to common sense as Congress gets," declared Katrina vanden Heuvel at the Washington Post.

"With few exceptions, Republicans are committed to slashing the basic functions of government and programs that support education, food stamps, energy and R&D to avoid asking corporations or the wealthy to contribute even one more dime in taxes," she wrote.

However, she continued: "What the CPC budget shows is what Washington too often suppresses: There is an alternative. We can afford to build a society that reflects the values and priorities of most Americans. We only have to choose to do so."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Why Social “Conductors” Will Win

Why Social “Conductors” Will Win

by JAY DERAGON on 02/19/2010

In the previous post we discussed why producers will lose. Now we will contrast why conductors will be the winners.

The optimum business model is one of embracing the “conductor” role aimed at providing people with “ideas, information and knowledge” they in turn can use to produce what they want with their community of friends and followers. Giving people the “right instruments to create their own communities” of conversations will ultimate lead to production of commerce.

A producer tries to “pull people” to their business. A conductor enables people to find the people, products and services they want, need or desire. A producer pulls people to their web site and the people are confronted with an anti-social experience and tricked into a “capture, control and frustrate” process. A conductor ensures that people are enabled to access, collaborate and share information seamlessly with no tricks, no intents to capture, control or frustrate people trying to use something to their benefit and the benefit of others.

What Does Win Mean to a Conductor?

Social conductors are focused on helping and enabling people to win. That is the overriding mission of their organization. Unless people can win then the organization will never win. Unless the community can win then there is no value to be conducted thus no role for the conductor. A social conductor is obsessed with finding ways to let people, markets and communities win.

On the opposing side is a producer who deems wining as meeting their goals, increasing results and subsequently everything evolves around those objectives.  The relationship between a producer and markets is marketing driven vs. relationally driven.  The producer looks at markets as places to get vs. places to give. The rules of the game of business are different for producers vs. conductors, they oppose each other.

The social conductor wins when people win and they focus on creative ways to facilitate wins for people. communities and markets. They know intrinsically that lasting results come from satisfying people beyond their expectations and respecting their relationship with people, internally and externally. The conductor views social technology as a new frontier to serve more people. The producer views social technology as a marketing medium to reach more people with their proposition.

The social conductor doesn’t worry about results or measuring social media rather they focus on measuring whether they are acting as the conductor on behalf of people. Social technology enables the conductor to do more with less and everything is done for the benefit and value of people. The conductor is focused on creation of value that people can use and measurement is centric to value improvements.

The social producer worries about results and measures everything they do with the aim of getting more by giving less. The differences between the conductor vs. the producer is what creates a win for the people they serve.

Given these scenarios which would do you think will win the most?

If Every Rich Person Were Like This Multimillionaire, The World Would Be A Better Place

If You Only News

If Every Rich Person Were Like This Multimillionaire, The World Would Be A Better Place

By Elisabeth Parker

Chinese multimillionaire Xiong Shuihua bulldozed all the ramshackle huts in his poverty-stricken hometown, and what he did next is amazing.

The Daily Mail reports Xiong Shuihua spent millions building luxury condos for everyone in the village he grew up in, so all 72 families in the Xiongkeng village in the city of Xinyu would have a place to live. The multimillionaire also promised to feed elderly and low income residents three times a day.

The project began five years ago and was completed last spring.

What was Xiong Shuihua’s motivation? Gratitude. In the original Chinese language news footage posted on  YouKu, he told reporters that people in his village were kind and helpful towards him and his parents during his hard-scrabble childhood. Xiong Shuihua first began building his fortune in the construction business, then made profitable investments in the steel industry.

“I earned more money than I knew what to do with, and I didn’t want to forget my roots. I always pay my debts, and wanted to make sure the people who helped me when I was younger and my family were paid back.”

Xiong Shuihua also built large villas for 18 families who had been particularly kind to him. That part of the construction project alone cost over $6.3 million.

Chinese multimillionaire Xiong Shuihua made his fortune in the construction and steel industries, and wanted to give something back to his childhood village. Photo: Video screen grab/YouKu.

---

Xiong Shuihua bulldozed the ramshackle wooden huts and dirt roads in his childhood village, and replaced them with luxury condos. Photo: Video screen grab/YouKu. 

---

Xiong Shuihua spent over $6.3 million building homes for all 72 families in the village of Xiongkeng in southern China. Photo: Video screen grab/YouKu. 

---

Xiong Shuihua also pledged to feed elderly and low-income villagers three times a day. Photo: Video screen grab/YouKu.

Chinese multimillionaire Xiong Shuihua builds luxury condos for 72 families in his former village.

Here’s the video from the original news report that got posted on YouKu, Unfortunately, there are no English subtitles.

---

Featured image: Composite with video screen grabs from a Chinese news report via YouKu.

Paul Krugman destroys arguments against Obama’s immigration plan

RAWSTORY

Paul Krugman destroys arguments against Obama’s immigration plan

Janet Allon, AlterNet

23 Nov 2014 at 05:08 ET  

                 

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman smiles during the World Business Forum in New York (AFP)

Now, that Obama has taken his much-needed and way overdue executive action to shield millions of undocumented families from heart-rending deportation, the fact that it was simply the right thing to do is abundantly clear. It also gives columnist Paul Krugman an opportunity to wax lyrical about his own family’s immigrant roots, and one of his favorite tourist attractions in New York City, the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side. “When you tour the museum, you come away with a powerful sense of immigration as a human experience, which — despite plenty of bad times, despite a cultural climate in which Jews, Italians, and others were often portrayed as racially inferior — was overwhelmingly positive,” he writes in his Friday column. “I get especially choked up about the Baldizzi apartment from 1934. When I described its layout to my parents, both declared, “I grew up in that apartment!” And today’s immigrants are the same, in aspiration and behavior, as my grandparents were — people seeking a better life, and by and large finding it.”

President Obama’s new immigration initiative, Krugman says, is “a simple matter of human decency.”

Krugman goes on to parse the issue, and to point out that supporting the humane treatment of children born in this country to undocumented immigrant parents is not the same as supporting completely open borders. Under F.D.R., he points out, “Once immigration restrictions were in place, and immigrants already here gained citizenship, this disenfranchised class at the bottom shrank rapidly, helping to create the political conditions for a stronger social safety net. And, yes, low-skill immigration probably has some depressing effect on wages, although the available evidence suggests that the effect is quite small.”

Yes, it is normal to be conflicted about immigration issues, Krugman allows. What is not normal is the desire to punish innocent children, who are already here, for their parents’ decision to bend the rules to give them a better life. Predictably, as we all know, there are far too many right-wing zealots and haters in politics and the media who are quite happy to exact this punishment. Krugman:

Who are we talking about? First, there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported.

What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.

Krugman gets downright sentimental about the issue, stating his belief that Americans are simply not “that cruel.” And anyway a crackdown on these families would cost money, which Republicans don’t want to spend.  (One hopes.) The real question is how they should be treated, he asks. his answer is not only humane but economical.

Today’s immigrant children are tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers and neighbors. Condemning them to life in the shadows means that they will have less stable home lives than they should, be denied the opportunity to acquire skills and education, contribute less to the economy, and play a less positive role in society. Failure to act is just self-destructive.

But more importantly, it’s the humane thing to do.

7 Financial Tips From the Great Depression

The Best Article Every Day

7 Financial Tips From the Great Depression

Written by Jason Lankow

Having lived through the depression, our grandparents and great-grandparents formed a lack of trust in banks and turned to burying cash in the backyard or hiding it under the mattress. Our current economic downturn doesn’t yet call for such drastic measures but there are things we can learn from those who went through this challenging era and prospered.

Food: Grow a Garden

Source: BW/Color

Growing at least some of your own food can save a lot of money and provide the satisfaction that comes from eating local, really local. Consider starting a community garden such as the Depression-era community relief gardens, or the World War II Victory Gardens. For step-by-step instructions on growing your own relief garden at home, check here, and apply those same basic ideas to any project that you can implement on someone’s vacant lot (with permission) and organize some friends, family and neighbors. If you are more interested in developing a community garden, here is an in-depth overview.

Entertainment: Enjoying the Simple Things

Source: BW/Color

Not everything about the Depression was actually depressing. In hard times, we can sometimes find a lot of pleasure in remembering to enjoy the simple things in life. During the 1930s, games like Monopoly became popular because they gave people hope and allowed them to dream of a better life. Remember some of the board games from your childhood, and plan a low-tech outing with friends and family. It will also help you remember that you don’t absolutely NEED every single gadget that hits the store shelves, and on top of that it will be a bit cheaper than spending the day at Disneyland.

Transportation: How Many SUVs Does Your Family Need?

Source: BW/Color

Hitchhiking was prevalent in the Great Depression, and this is one area that can at least offer some creativity, although Mint absolutely does not recommend that you sell your car and get to work each day by holding up a thumb next to the freeway, nor should you become a hobohemian and hop trains to get around. However, since owning a car is more of a luxury than a necessity, we can learn from the community aspect and form carpools, walk to the store if it’s only a mile away, and if you are lucky enough to have a half-decent public transportation system, Google Maps now shows your time and cost to drive relative to taking a bus or walking. Consider moving closer to where you work and walk or ride a bike instead. Like Dave Ramsey, author of Total Money Makeover, says: “If you are willing to live like no one else now, you can live like no one else later.” Essentially, by defying convention, even for a relatively short amount of time, you can save a hefty sum of money.

Housing: Downsize or Rent a Room

Source: BW/Color

We all have different situations, and this is one of the most pressing issues facing our nation and the world right now. You might be just out of college and trying to make it on your own, or you might be paying for your child’s college now, but there are definitely lessons to be learned from the Depression. In some cases, it may be beneficial to sacrifice a bit of privacy in the short-term in order to get back on track financially. Rent an extra bedroom to a friend, have your child move back home if you are struggling to send him or her rent money every month, or downsize your home. You don’t have to necessarily make a gut-wrenching decision overnight, but do yourself a favor and at least check out some listings on Craigslist for rentals, or have a real estate agent email you listings in a cheaper price range. If a great deal pops up that piques your interest, you can at least bat around the idea with your family. If you are single, just go for it!

Jobs/Entrepreneurship: Nothing Left to Lose?

Source: BW/Color

Due to the extensive public works projects in the 1930s, there was at least a bit of relief for the unemployed masses. People simply took any work they could, and often worked 12 hour days. If you are looking for employment, you might consider looking for a position that is slightly below your ideal salary, but that seems to have the most potential for advancement. If you are entrepreneurial, and perhaps have already fallen behind on bills, one positive thing about the current economic climate is that you are starting over at a time when many other people are also faced with starting from scratch financially, and perhaps you may even be in a position where you literally have nothing left to lose, which can be a great time for personal innovation and taking the risk to start in a new industry or implement an idea that’s always been in the back of your mind. It’s time for boot-strapping!

Credit: Redefining What You Can Afford and Need

Source: BW/Color

If you have credit available, you might be tempted to use it before the bank cuts the credit line. Don’t do it. Going into debt will only hurt you in the long run. Instead, remember the words of your grandmother and heed this simple, age-old advice – “if you can’t afford to pay cash, you can’t afford it.”

Money Management/Budgeting: Simplify Your System

Source: BW/Color

When you simply have no money, it is easy to keep spending under control because it is impossible to spend. In many cases, one spouse saved money in the cupboard and even hid it from the other spouse. There is a good trick to be found here that requires a lot of discipline. If, for example, you are getting hit with overdraft fees, you need to establish a barrier that you absolutely will not dip below (even if it means paying a bill late). Take the cue from the 1930s and use cash rather than debit for your petty purchases, especially when you are close to zero in your account. This will help avoid paying $36 for that pack of gum if an unexpected payment goes through your account and causes an overdraft fee.

For our grandparents and great-grandparents who lived through the 1930s, many months surely consisted of living in survival mode, and there were much fewer recurring expenses and bills to be paid, so it was possible in a lot of cases to keep track of spending without even necessarily writing it down. Today, we have several types of accounts, in many cases at different institutions, with new types of debt and monthly payments to keep track of, so take a look at Mint’s free software today and start tracking your spending automatically to find areas where you can save money.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on November 21, 2008.

Look Out, Wall Street, the New Populism Is Coming

Home » blogs » Richard Eskow's blog

Look Out, Wall Street, the New Populism Is Coming

Richard Eskow

Article ToolsE-mailPrintComments (6)

Share

  

Economic Equity | Social Justice and Activism

by Richard Eskow | May 14, 2014 - 9:47am

---

Even as the Campaign for America's Future prepares for its May conference on the New Populism, attacks on populism keep coming from all directions. One of the latest salvos to be publicized comes in the form of an anecdote about Bill Clinton. As Tim Geithner told Andrew Ross Sorkin, Clinton sarcastically told the Wall Street-friendly Treasury Secretary how to "pursue a more populist strategy":

"You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley," Clinton said, "and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again."

Clinton was always effective at belittling people with whom he disagrees -- even when, as in this case, his own position is morally indefensible. The president and his economic team deregulated Wall Street to disastrous effect, then became very wealthy there after leaving office.

The "them" in Clinton's quote is us. And the only people who confuse a cry for justice with "blood lust" are those who have become too close to the unjust.

It is precisely this sort of sneering insider indifference to public opinion -- not to mention good governance and fair play -- which has given rise to today's populist mood. And make no mistake about it: the public's mood, despite years of attempts by most Republicans and many Democrats to placate them, is distinctly populist. And much of that populist sentiment is directed toward the financial institutions which have so badly damaged our economy.

The fear triggered in some circles by a figure like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (who is the keynote speaker at the New Populism) conference is based, not on concerns about "blood lust," but on an understanding of the politics involved. Washington insiders can protect Wall Street -- and themselves -- only so long as nobody represents the majority on the political stage. Once a populist alternative appears, like that represented by Sen. Warren and like-minded politicians, this "bipartisan" tilt toward bankers becomes much harder to maintain.

Why? Because these populist leaders aren't just proposing the right policies toward Wall Street. They're also offering very popular policies, policies with much deeper and broader support than those of the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations. Polling results compiled in CAF's PopulistMajority.org website show, for example, that

• More than half of those polled last month think the problems with banks which led to the 2008 financial crisis haven't been fixed (to a large extent, they're right);
• Two-thirds of those polled believe that Wall Street financial institutions make it harder to find good jobs in the United States than was true in the past (again, there's a lot of truth to that, given the increasing share of national profits being captured by the nonproductive financial sector);
• Two-thirds believe there should be more government oversight of financial institutions such as banks and credit card companies;
• More than nine out of 10 people polled believe it is important to regulate financial services in order to ensure fairness toward customers;
• 80 percent of those polled supported the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) after learning about Wall Street's role in the economic crisis of 2008;
• 83 percent believe that new rules should be implemented for Wall Street, and that bankers should be held accountable for the actions which caused the financial crisis.

Most Americans are equally disturbed by the Wall Street- and billionaire-friendly economy which government policies have forged. Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans polled last month, for example, believe inequality is a problem - and more than half think it's a major problem. Two-thirds of those polled in March believe it's important for the government to implement policies that reduce inequality. 71 percent think the government believes it's more important to help major corporations than to help the poor.
What's more, Americans correctly perceive that bankers broke the law and got away with it -- that, in fact, they were bailed out rather than punished. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last September showed that only 15 percent of the public agreed that "The government has sufficiently prosecuted bankers for their role in the financial crisis," while more than half disagreed with that statement.

These populist trends are powerful enough to capture the attention of many politicians, including some Republicans. Public opinion, and presumably the free-market side of the conservative spectrum, have led several Republican politicians to take surprisingly populist positions on Wall Street issues. Last year, for example, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter joined with Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (who is also speaking at the conference) to introduce a bill which takes aim at "too big to fail" banks. And earlier this year Republican Rep. Dave Camp proposed a bank asset tax designed to offset the market advantage held by large financial institutions.

But most of the populist financial action is taking place on the Democratic side of the aisle, perhaps to the consternation of the party's Clinton/Obama wing. Sen. Warren's brilliant campaign against Wall Street's political privileges has been reinforced by proposals like Sen. Brown's and has received the enthusiastic backing of independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

(Sen. Sanders and several key congressional progressive leaders, including Representatives Keith Ellison and Jan Schakowsky, will also be speaking at the conference.)

These legislators cannot force the Department of Justice to pursue lawbreaking bankers. But if enough of them come together, they can pass legislation to protect our economy. And, perhaps even more importantly, they can use their Congressional exposure to shift the political debate.

Insiders may scoff, but populist views of Wall Street aren't driven by "blood lust" -- or any other kind of lust. They're driven by love -- love of justice, love of fair play, love of democracy, love of country. And that's giving rise to something which is already afflicting the comfortable and challenging the powerful.

Call it "the New Populism."

_______

ABOUT AUTHORRichard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer, is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard blogs at:

No Middle Class Health Tax
A Night Light

Website: Eskow and Associates