The attacks on Sanders were all ridiculous and show how completely the other Democratic contenders are simply hacks for the monopoly capitalist ruling class that currently controls the Democratic Party (but hopefully will begin to be dislodged this November). The main attacks were:1) Sanders was pro-Castro, etc. All he said was the literacy campaign was a good idea, the other candidates obviously think eliminating illiteracy is some sort of Communist plot. 2.) He can’t beat Trump: but all the recent polls say he can. 3.) His ideas are so extreme they are practically crazy: in reality they are just mainstream ideas found in all the other advanced industrial countries and had we already had them here we wouldn’t have a president that is practically crazy. 4. He has a bad foreign policy because he criticizes the over throwing of democratically elected governments (Iran, Chile) in favor of fascist replacements. The American people, basically the multiracial working class, youth, retired people and others on limited incomes (the majority) and genuine progressives want a candidate who offers a real changing revamping of our current system that favors a wealthy minority over the majority. None of the other candidates, including the saccharine watered down progressivism of Elizabeth (capitalism in my bones) Warren), offer the radically democratic people before profits change that Sanders is offering —his program is the one now on the agenda of history and can win in November.
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Monday, February 17, 2020
Nevada Culinary Union versus Sanders on Medical Care
Some points about this article: 1. Medicare for all provides not only the working class but all citizens with complete medical coverage. The leaders of the Culinary union seem to be sacrificing medical care for all just to preserve the medical care for their members without regard for the rest of the working class -- this is not a good example of "Solidarity Forever." 2. Nothing in this article indicates why the present union plan is better than medicare for all or what benefits would be missing from the union plan under Sanders' bill. 3. "The vile language prompted Mr. Sanders to issue a statement, in which he said “harassment of all forms is unacceptable to me” and urged “supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks.”'-- this is in reference to Sanders "supporters" emailing politically incorrect attacks on the union leaders and others who don't support Sanders. It is more than likely that these so-called Sanders "supporters" are actually Trump trolls as no real supporters of Sanders would engage in activity he has expressly condemned and they know hurts his campaign. 4. The position of the union supports Lenin's view that unions on their own can achieve working class union consciousness but socialist consciousness comes from the outside and is the reason a strong Communist Party is necessary which would have educated the union to the need for medicare for all and greater inter-union solidarity with the Sanders campaign -- a task the CPUSA is uniquely equipped to carry out, and perhaps could have been doing a better job at during this primary season.
Saturday, February 15, 2020
US imperialist/Russian Confrontation in Syria
"American officials say these actions by Russian personnel and their Syrian allies are devised to present a constant set of challenges, probes and encroachments to slowly create new facts on the ground and make the U.S. military presence there more tenuous. About 500 American troops remain deployed in Syria with a mission to protect oil fields and help fight remnants of the Islamic State."
The facts however are these: the US has no rights at all to be occupying any ground whatever in Syria let lone "guarding" oil fields that belong to the Syrian government, nor does Turkey. Russia, on the other hand, has every right to be in Syria as an ally of the officially United Nations recognised government of Syria. Meanwhile, Trump has remarked re the oil fields the US is "guarding"--
“We’ll work something out with the Kurds so that they have some money, so that they have some cash flow. Maybe we’ll get one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly.”[The Washington Post 10-22-19] The idea that a Syrian oil field, legally belonging to the Syrian government, could be turned over to an American "big oil company" is just the sort of US imperialist overreach that results in these confrontations in the areas described in the NYT article below. Once again US imperialism is risking an escalation that might lead to a serious military confrontation on even war in order to hold on to other people's oil and by invading and occupying the territory of another state. Trump and his mid-east policies are an existential menace to all concerned.
The facts however are these: the US has no rights at all to be occupying any ground whatever in Syria let lone "guarding" oil fields that belong to the Syrian government, nor does Turkey. Russia, on the other hand, has every right to be in Syria as an ally of the officially United Nations recognised government of Syria. Meanwhile, Trump has remarked re the oil fields the US is "guarding"--
“We’ll work something out with the Kurds so that they have some money, so that they have some cash flow. Maybe we’ll get one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly.”[The Washington Post 10-22-19] The idea that a Syrian oil field, legally belonging to the Syrian government, could be turned over to an American "big oil company" is just the sort of US imperialist overreach that results in these confrontations in the areas described in the NYT article below. Once again US imperialism is risking an escalation that might lead to a serious military confrontation on even war in order to hold on to other people's oil and by invading and occupying the territory of another state. Trump and his mid-east policies are an existential menace to all concerned.
Friday, February 7, 2020
More US Lies to Justify War?
"These facts all point to the Islamic State, Iraqi officials say." The preponderance of the evidence presented in this article, while not 100% conclusive, indicates that it was the Sunni group ISIS not an Iraqi Shia militia that attacked the military base used by the US and set off the series of events that led to the assassination of the Iranian general that 'almost led to war.'" The impression left from this article is that the US went out of its way to blame Iran in order to justify its attacks on what it calls "Iranian targets" (mostly Iraqi Shia forces sympathetic to Iran and who are aided by Iran in its own war against ISIS). The least we can say about the murder of the Iranian general (Qasem Soleimani, whose actions were no different than those of American generals except he knew what he was doing so was more effective) is that the excuses given were not based on any solid evidence that Iran was behind this attack. If we had ended up in a war this would have been a repeat of the Tonkin Bay farce when the US contrived a fake North Vietnamese attack on the US Navy to justify attacking military and civilian targets in that country. It is further confirmation that we should never trust anything we are told by the US military or intelligence services regarding those who are fighting against and opposed to US imperialism unless they provide proof of their claims that are open to independent verification. In this case, as in most others, the US claims to have "proof" but can't make it public, and since it has a record of deceit and lying, this claim is practically an admission that they have no "proof" at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)