"socialism" popular in the US
- This topic has 169 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Sanders left-wing history that won’t go away
He sought state-wide office four times as the nominee of the Liberty Union Party of Vermont. Campaigning for U.S. Senate in 1971, he demanded the nationalization of utilities.
In 1973 he proposed a federal takeover of “the entire energy industry,”
In 1974 he wanted a 100% tax on all income above $1million.
In 1976 he asserted that workers needed to “take immediate control of the economy if we are to survive” and called for “public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries.”
In 1987 he asserted that “ democracy means public ownership of the major means of production.”
Sanders endorsed the SWP presidential nominee in 1980 and 1984, spoke at SWP campaign rallies during that period, and in 1980 was part of its slate of would-be presidential electors.
The billionaires rally against “socialism”
https://www.dw.com/en/iowa-caucus-poll-results-bernie-sanders-and-wall-street/a-52242365
“You don’t make poor people rich by making rich people poor,” he quoted Winston Churchill. The vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. “The main vice of socialism is the equal distribution of misery,” added the billionaire. Leon Cooperman is one of the 0.1%. The richest Americans, exactly the people who Warren wants to hit with a wealth tax: 2% for anyone who owns more than $50 million (€45 million). Billionaires like Cooperman would have to pay 6%.
If, for example, the tax had already come into force in 1982, the assets of Microsoft founder Bill Gates wouldn’t have been $97 billion at the end of 2018, but would have only been $13.9 billion, according to Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of Berkeley.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, think Michael Bloomberg would make a good president. It was widely reported that Bezos personally asked him to reconsider entering the race after he announced his intention to stay out.
If Elizabeth Warren comes to power, some investors like hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones anticipate a bear market where prices could fall 25% or more within a year. Barreet Tabeek from Axa Advisors has been warning his wealthy clients of a possible Warren election victory for months. In a four-page letter in early October, he listed 10 dangers that could potentially have a negative impact on the markets.
Warren will make it difficult for oil and gas companies by banning fracking, it said for example. She also wants to increase corporate taxes, smash large tech companies and bring the Glass-Steagall Act back to life. The 1930s law separated investment banking and retail lending to avoid conflicts of interest. Under President Bill Clinton, the law was repealed in the late 1990s. Many experts see this move as a cause of the real estate and financial crises after 2007. Warren’s plans would cut American firms’ profits, Tabeek says. “Warren is an unapologetic populist who, if in power, would enact policies designed to reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders. The bottom line is that from a market standpoint, all of these policies would be negative for stocks, with some being downright negative for the broad markets while others would be material negatives for certain sectors like large-cap tech or defense stocks.”
Robert Wolf, former chairman and CEO of UBS in America and founder of the consultancy 32 Advisors, currently believes Wall Street’s fear of Warren is unfounded. She wants to promote capitalism … She wants capitalism to be fair and balanced and regulated. It’s to be determined what that all means, and I’m not losing sleep yet,”
He summarizes Wall Street’s preferences in simple terms: 40% of investors are determined Democrats who would vote for Elizabeth Warren despite the possible risks. Another 40% are steadfast Republicans who would remain loyal to President Donald Trump. And then there are the remaining 20% who chose Democrat Barack Obama in 2008, Republican Mitt Romney in 2012 and Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Bond investor Jeffrey Gundlach, who predicted the election of Donald Trump in 2016, describes Sanders as a problem for Wall Street. He believes Sanders is actually far ahead of his competitors. “Bernie is stronger than people think,” Gundlach told CNBC. And warned: “Bernie Sanders is the biggest risk for the financial markets in 2020.”
Sam Stovall thinks this is exaggerated. He looked at stock market developments in election years for the investment analysis institute CFRA Research. In the end, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican won, the stock market has mostly grown. The S&P 500 stock market index has gained an average of 6.3% in election years since the Second World War.
Stovall expects stocks to rise again this year, which will help Donald Trump. “This year, the market is expected to record a similar price gain as a result of an expanding economy and improving corporate profits. I think Wall Street prefers the reelection of the current administration,” he said. Electing a new government would only raise new questions and uncertainties. With the current one you know what you get. With tax gifts and a generous deregulation offensive, Trump has made himself popular with financiers and company heads. But the trade dispute with China continues to cause headaches for many investors.Even under Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, all of these industries would come under pressure. Investment bank JP Morgan has compiled a list of 51 stocks that would suffer from the progressive left, the New York Times reported. The banking sector is just as much a part of this list as the tech sector, but so was pizza chain Papa John’s. Their profit margins would all be at risk because Sanders and Warren are campaigning for a higher minimum wage.
A media over-view of the capitalist counter-attack against “socialism”.
Interesting but essentially scaremongering on the part of the sectional capitalist interests involved.
What you have pointed out in the case of Sanders applies equally to Warren:
”On various US progressive websites I have argued that a Sanders presidency would face a united opposition of Republicans and Democratic parties in Congress – he would be an orphan president.”
The President does have fairly wide powers but passing laws is not one of them. That’s up to the House of Representatives and the Senate. So to implement their vote-catching programmes (at the moment only aimed at Democratic Party supporters) Sanders and/or Warren would need majorities for them there too. As of course would a mass movement in the US for real socialism as a stateless, wageless, moneyless society, at least in the House.
Biden uses the word “socialism” to attack Sanders
“If Sanders is the nominee for the party, every Democrat in America up and down the ballot, in blue states, red states, purple states, in easy districts and competitive ones, every Democrat will have to carry the label Senator Sanders has chosen for himself” Mr Biden said, referring to the “Democratic Socialist” label Mr Sanders and many of his supporters use to describe the Vermont senator’s platform. “He calls him — and I don’t criticise him — he calls himself a democratic socialist,” the former vice president continued. “Well, we’re already seeing what Donald Trump is gonna do with that.”
Perhaps “socialism” isn’t that popular in the US if it’s a vote loser. Clearly it is popular amongst quite a wide section of the population but nowhere near a majority. Not that it is socialism in the proper sense of course, rather it is dissatisfaction with the private enterprise and so-called free market capitalism that used to be the unchallenged model of capitalism there. Not that’s necessarily a bad thing but it it would just be a beginning.
But the association of socialism with the Democratic Party began with Obama being repeated accused of “socialism” by the right-wing. So imbued with such a belief-system, little will change that mind-set.
But I think the average voter may well now be immune to the accusation especially when socialism is associated with medicare for all and government intervention to reduce the effects of climate change, viewed as common-sense policies.
I have often tried to relate socialism to Americans to the NHS – a system based on patients needs and not a patients ability to pay, at least at the point of delivery. And the dedication of the health workers give their all according to ability.
Imperfect analogy I know but it is a hook to involve further explanation. For instance it leads to the counter claim that the NHS is not free but paid by taxes and that leads to our case that the burden is on employers to provide a healthy work-force through the tax burden they have to pay, not the worker.
Similarly with climate change, after recent mentions here on the forum, I have directed debates to free travel to suggest free access of all goods and services would ultimately bring a reduction in consumption. (Just where are that network of American bullet-trains?)
We need a start to begin a dialogue and perhaps build upon ideas that many already intuitively hold to…that people are good…that they work together… that they help one another out…
Or am I being too Christian-like and should stick to material self-interest as the case for socialism.
I’ll now make a prediction
Michael Bloomberg will get the Democratic Party nomination. He has already out-spent the other candidates in advertising, created a vast organisation in all the key states and with each centrist dropping out, he will pick up their support. Rather provide Bloomberg with cash he does not require, the anti-Sanders camps will finance independent media campaigns against Sanders in the right-wing states where the word “socialism” is still an anathema such as Florida and Texas.
Bloomberg is already gathering endorsements from mayors of major cities and courting the black elites.
The presidential election will be Billionaire V. Billionaire, Oligarch V. Plutocrat, Bloomberg V. Trump
Wall St will be safe no matter who wins in the battle of Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dummer.
It is like Greg Palast book: “The best democracy that money can buy”. It looks like some women at the US congress had more balls than men, even that Donald Trump is not the problem, most of them said that the impeachment clauses were too narrow and that he to be impeached for all his criminals offenses which are around 15 or 20 clauses, and they were the only one who refused to attend to his speech, all men were applauding like little poppies moving the tails, to their master. It is going to be a billionaire against a billionaire, and the US working class will follow them like good children. The generation of the 60 is completely dead and gone
Bloomberg is going to do like Nelson Rockefeller who invested a lot of money in order to become the governor of New York and Vice-President of the USA. In Chile peoples wanted to kick him out at the airport when he visited that country, and the same thing happened with the criminal Henry Kissinger. In the USA there is a cult and admiration for the rich peoples, and the military heroes
How to stop Sanders?
Michelle Obama for president with Hillary Clinton running mate as Vice-President.
Stranger things can happen
In 2016 more than 54% of the white women they voted for Donald Trump including feminists and lesbians, I do not know if they would vote for a black woman
If the line-up is going to be Bloomberg v Trump I wonder what Chomsky, the MHI and the others will say. Silly question, they’ll say vote for Bloomberg, vote for cholera rather than the plague.
Unless perhaps the manner Sanders lost the nomination leads to the break-up of the Democratic Party and the creation of a third party – unlikely I know since Sanders pledges his loyalty to whoever wins the nomination without any caveats
But to ensure Trump no longer wins, the electability of Bloomberg will get Chomsky’s vote in an election between the 0.1% (Trump) V. the 0.01% (Bloomberg)
After all Chomsky opposed the participation of the Green Party’s Jill Stein in 2016 and supported Clinton, so a principled position no longer his concern.
Here’s the MHI’s criticism of those who in the 2016 presidential elections either abstained or voted for the Greens:
”Varieties of “Leftist” Accommodation to Trumpism, and the Marxist-Humanist Alternative
A great many factors combined to hand Trump the presidency. A relatively small one, but one that may have been decisive in the election and may be decisive in the future, was accommodation to Trumpism among parts of the “left.”
One variant of soft-on-Trump “leftism” stems from the attitude that one should practice politics that make one feel good, without regard to its effect. Such people “righteously” refused to vote in a way that would have maximized the likelihood of Trump’s defeat, even in swing states that can—and did—decide the presidency. The number of votes cast for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in each of the three states that proved to be pivotal to Trump’s Electoral- College victory (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) exceeded his margin of victory. In addition, an unknown number of people chose not to vote at all, taking to heart the message–– emanating from Stein and many supporters of Bernie Sanders––that Hillary Clinton was as bad as or worse than Trump.”There is no reason to think they would take a different attitude in the event of Sanders standing as an independent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.