therealnews--2020-04-16--Taxpayers Funded COVID-19 Research, And Big Pharma Profited

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Great to have you with us as usual .
Now there are some stories that seem to be overlooked when it comes to the intersection between dealing with fighting COVID-19 , the lies Trumps tells , and the power of big pharmaceutical .
Some leading the corona task force for Trump , like Secretary of Health , Alex Azar , and Joe Grogan , who heads domestic policy , comes straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always spent hundreds of millions of dollars on researching drugs that threaten our lives to help us .
Then we give them to big pharma that takes over and takes what we make for them and gouging our pocketbooks and wallets .
Medications to treat corona have been developed with our tax money , are now being given to big pharma to make their profits .
How is this happening and what can we do about it ?
Let ’ s welcome back to Real News Alex Lawson , Executive Director of Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see you .
Alex Lawson : Thanks for having me .
Marc Steiner : It was a great piece that you wrote and I really learned a lot in what you laid out for us .
So let ’ s talk a bit about this .
One of the things you talk about in there is that the United States government spent $ 700 million , given to the National Institutes of Health to study coronavirus and drugs that could affect coronavirus .
So it ’ s our public money being spent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else is going to gouge us to make the profits .
Am I making too much of that ?
Alex Lawson : No , that ’ s exactly how it works .
Look , it ’ s actually worse than most people can even sort of conceive .
All of the basic research , 100 % of the basic science is taxpayer funded , right ?
It ’ s our tax dollars go into the National Institute of Health , the NIH , also into grants that go to universities around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government agencies and programs , like BARDA is one specifically set up to create vaccines for pandemics .
That ’ s all taxpayer funded .
So we fund all of this basic research .
We fund a lot of the early stage research , like 80 % of the early stage research , and in some cases we spend all the way through late stage clinical trials , meaning that the taxpayer is funding for some drugs , and a recent study put it at one in four drugs we fund all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 100 % of drugs we ’ re doing the basic research , which is the riskiest part .
You ’ re just looking for things .
You don ’ t know , you don ’ t have any idea if it ’ s going to become something .
We take all of the risk , and in some cases we develop it all the way to the end and then we literally give the patents to a pharmaceutical corporation .
That ’ s what they do .
We hand it to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us the highest drug prices in the world .
The system is totally , absolutely corrupted by pharmaceutical money , and I ’ m hoping that people can see with the coronavirus the absolute failing of the pharmaceutical corporations to be prepared for this , because not only do they get the patent and can charge whatever they want , they also direct where the the priorities are .
So if we ’ re doing the early stage research but they don ’ t see a way to profit from it , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses , then it just sits on a shelf , because they don ’ t know how to profit from that .
They ’ re going to spend their money on things that they know how to profit from , another lookalike drug for cholesterol , a statin , or hundreds of millions of dollars investigating male pattern baldness , which again , that ’ d be great .
They should be doing that .
But not at the expense of doing research to prevent a pandemic , to prevent what we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not set up to benefit the public health .
It ’ s set up to benefit the bottom line of these corporations .
Marc Steiner : So there ’ s common wisdom out there .
Let ’ s talk about this for a moment and jump right back to COVID-19 and what ’ s going on at this moment , but most people are told , think that the reason our drugs cost so much money , well , we have to [ inaudible 00:04:32 ] money at the pharmacy is because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R & D and that ’ s how they recoup the hundreds of million dollars they spend on R & D is by charging us the money they do .
What you ’ re saying is that ’ s a mythology .
Alex Lawson : Yeah , I would just say a lie .
A lie that costs lives .
It ’ s obviously a myth , but it ’ s one of the best crafted pieces of propaganda out there that the high drug prices that we pay are somehow to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only thing that these pharmaceutical corporations are good at innovating in is increasing their profits , is increasing the stock prices of their companies through gimmicks like stock buybacks .
They spend more on stock buybacks then they do on research and development , or by marketing drugs to people some of the drugs that people don ’ t need .
Anyone who watches corporate television knows , it ’ s all pharmaceutical commercials .
They spend more on marketing than they do on research and development .
The system as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no incentive for these companies to innovate new molecule , new treatments and new cures .
There is always an incentive for these corporations to innovate new ways to extend the patents on drugs that make them money .
That ’ s where they ’ re innovating is new and fascinating ways of gaming the system so that they can continue their monopoly so that they can charge these outrageous prices that we face .
And I just want to do one example outside COVID so that everyone gets it .
Insulin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current molecules that we use , they ’ re biologics so they ’ re not molecules , but the current analogs that we use are decades old .
There ’ s been no innovation on insulin , none , zero since the analogs came out .
No innovation on it , and yet the price of insulin goes up every single year .
There ’ s three companies who produce these insulin analogs .
Alex Azar used to run one of them , and in lockstep as a cartel , they raise the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not to pay for innovation .
There is no innovation .
It ’ s an old drug .
That ’ s just so that they can buy another yacht at the expense of people ’ s lives .
That ’ s what the pharmaceutical business model is right now .
Marc Steiner : So you mentioned Alex Azar , and let ’ s talk about him for a moment , and Joe Grogan , who also comes out of big pharmaceutical , who heads domestic policy for Trump , and the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , some of it speculation , we just don ’ t know really .
But clearly they ’ re in the midst of that and part of the corona task force .
And then Joe Grogan , as you said , was in Gilead , which is getting this huge contract from the government .
So let ’ s talk a bit about that .
Alex Lawson : So you have Joe Grogan who used to be the chief lobbyist for Gilead , and you have Alex Azar who used to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the three in the insulin cartel .
And in fact it ’ s funny because they ’ re both like super pharma bros , right ?
They are not putting country first , they are putting corporations first .
The reason they ’ re in government is to protect these pharmaceutical corporations ’ interests and then when they leave government , they ’ re going right back into these pharmaceutical corporations .
But the funny thing is , and this is also sort of normal , they ’ re not allies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s throats a lot .
And when you ’ re watching it , you can kind of see the tug of war between them .
But in both cases , it ’ s not like one is fighting for the people ’ s interests and one is fighting for the corporate interests .
They ’ re just fighting for their own different corporate interests .
And again , we don ’ t have a detailed knowledge of how Joe Grogan , for example , was involved in Gilead getting this orphan drug status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is used to treat a very small number of people and therefore there ’ s not much incentive for companies to develop those drugs .
And it ’ s a myth .
It ’ s actually always used to game the system , but that ’ s like the general setup , and Gilead applied for and got an orphan drug status on a drug that they have that ’ s showing promise to treat COVID right now , a pandemic .
The word pandemic means all .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how greedy they are .
They see a pandemic and they ’ re going to look at any way to gain the system .
It was so egregious and we created such a din in a clamor that they had to roll that back , but it ’ s not like we won , because they already still get five years of market exclusivity .
Five years Gilead gets of charging whatever they want .
Astronomical rates for a potential treatment that again , the US taxpayer paid to develop .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Canadian taxpayer , and then this company is going to profit from it in any way that they can .
That shows the level that they ’ re willing to go to make a dollar .
Marc Steiner : So it ’ s probably just a coincidence that Grogan happened to be a lobbyist for Gilead and Gilead got this huge contract from the government .
We have got no proof , but it ’ s probably just a coincidence .
Alex Lawson : That ’ s usually how it works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Right .
So let ’ s jump into this .
You had a quote in the Washington Post , in the article , and it was interesting .
This is your quote , it ’ s something that folks should see , but I ’ ll just read it .
I won ’ t try to mimic you , but I ’ ll just read it .
“ Look at their plan , and you can see exactly who this guy is : Mnuchin is pushing a giant slush fund to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add unemployment insurance for millions of Americans losing their jobs and money for hospitals in the middle of a pandemic .
These were concessions he had to make .
He sees a global pandemic as an opportunity to move taxpayer money into the wallets of his Wall Street friends.
” Let ’ s pick up on that point you made .
Look at Gilead and also Johnson & Johnson now and how they ’ re going to benefit from this research and how all this ties together .
Alex Lawson : Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , they ’ re seeing this pandemic… Let me actually say the other way .
So there was an era when you had scientists and the government working for the people , where you had Jonas Salk and actually worked to eliminate polio by working globally together to eliminate and eradicate polio with smallpox .
We worked and led a global coalition through the WHO , with the US leading to eliminate the smallpox .
We eradicated it .
It ’ s the only way that we can actually fight a bug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not the era that we ’ re in anymore .
The pharmaceutical corporations are not scientists , they ’ re hedge fund guys .
They don ’ t wear lab coats , they wear $ 6,000 suits .
And what they ’ re good at is telling a story .
They paint a picture , they lie about what it is that they do .
They take our research , we paid for it .
And when we even tried to… we tried to add into the recovery package three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable pricing .
We didn ’ t even say that it had to be available to everybody , we just said that they had to charge a reasonable price and they slash and burn fought that and they won , and so we don ’ t even have a guarantee that they will charge a reasonable price for treatments and vaccines that were developed by taxpayer dollars .
But what Johnson & Johnson , another drug corporation , is doing is they just launched an eight-part mini series talking about the road to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant piece of corporate marketing .
They ’ re going to obviously leave out the fact that you and I and everyone in this country already paid for it .
They ’ re going to highlight , they ’ re going to have labs that are not their own .
I guarantee it .
It ’ s like their favorite thing to do .
They ’ re not going to be their labs , they ’ re going to film in some lab for “ the ” role and make it seem like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is getting done .
Bill Gates had to come in and actually start building laboratory capacity .
BARDA , the program I mentioned earlier , got , I think , three billion , I might be off a little bit on that , in stimulus .
BARDA is paying for the laboratory setup for vaccines .
US taxpayers pay for all of this and all the companies do is package it really prettily and then make outrageous profits .
Marc Steiner : So let ’ s talk a bit about what can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not just to expose what we ’ re talking about here , but part of what you do is to kind of really put forth policies that could change the way we do things .
When you just talked about Jonas Salk and polio , I ’ m an era of that age when polio was just crippling people and people I knew in school were getting sick , and Jonas Salk didn ’ t become a millionaire for developing polio , he did it because he ’ s a scientist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ global kind of work together .
So let ’ s talk a bit about now , the 21st century , what you ’ re proposing could be the way this should be done .
Alex Lawson : I will , and forgive for some like philosophical things here , but Jonas Salk made so much more than money .
He might not have become a billionaire , but his name is synonymous with public service , his name is synonymous with a person who put people in front of his own pocketbook .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over this country and they want to stand together and create a system that works for all of us .
Jonas Salk is not actually the exception , he ’ s much more of the rule .
It ’ s just that our system right now is driven by these sociopaths on the other side and we just need to take it back from them .
And the way we do that is by creating a public pharmaceutical system .
Almost all of it already exists .
We just put more money into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle from basic research all the way through production , and then the drugs are available immediately as generics and any company can compete producing the molecule , but no monopolies for anyone .
It seems radical , but all I ’ m saying is just do that on the side of the current system .
Let the [ crosstalk 00:15:31 ] - Marc Steiner : [ crosstalk 00:15:31 ] .
Alex , let me ask you [ inaudible 00:15:33 ] .
So are you saying that we don ’ t need the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that that ’ s unnecessary ?
Alex Lawson : Basically unnecessary .
So we can have Elizabeth Warren and Jan Schakowsky have a bill for public manufacturing , and that means two different things .
You can have a facility where you have government workers actually manufacturing , and we can do that , and DOD , they do it all the time in the defense sector .
But it also just means contracting with corporations , right ?
So it ’ s like , again , if you look at defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the corporation doesn ’ t end up owning the tank that they build .
The US government owns the tank , the corporation builds it .
So you could do something either/or or both of those for manufacturing .
And then in terms of distributing , as soon as you get rid of the monopoly , you allow all of the generic producers , and anyone who takes a pharmaceutical knows what a generic is .
Right ?
It ’ s available in your pharmacy just like the branded drugs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much , much cheaper .
So we don ’ t have to worry that somehow the system would fall apart because we ’ re talking about using the system as it is , just removing that one part where we give the monopoly to these corporations to charge whatever they want .
You remove the monopoly power and the system keeps going .
In fact , innovation will increase because there won ’ t be an incentive to just create yet another Viagra , there ’ ll be an incentive to create cures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentive to create new treatments and vaccines , preventative stuff , and there will be market competition .
It ’ s all going to be done by these companies who produce the drugs generically and then market them .
And just in case there were a market failure , it is also extremely possible for the government to step in and produce drugs through government manufacturing if there is a shortage .
And in fact , we should be doing that right now , because the idea that the shortages would happen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortages happen right now .
You can go to the FDA ’ s website .
There ’ s the FDA shortage list .
When a corporation does not see a way of making oodles of money , they don ’ t put any effort into making sure that people can get the drugs that they need .
If it ’ s done as a public service in a public pharmaceutical system , then the purpose of it will be to ensure that people get the drugs that they need .
It is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s generally been the way that drugs and medicines have existed for the most part of modern history .
It ’ s only since the 1980s that we ’ ve made this really wrongheaded move to say that pharmaceuticals and vaccines and others are market goods that we should hand over to corporations to profit on .
It ’ s good when it comes to like a candy bar , like how much are you willing to pay for this candy bar versus that candy bar ?
But when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your child or someone you love , how much are you willing to pay for the drug that keeps you or your loved one alive ?
And the answer is everything that you ’ ve got .
So we can ’ t give companies that power to hold our health and our lives hostage for profit .
Marc Steiner : Well , Alex , awesome .
Once again , thank you for joining us here on Real News .
It ’ s always a pleasure and I really appreciate the , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you do , social security works , to fight for justice in this area and looking forward to have many more conversations as we follow what happens with COVID-19 and how they roll these things out for the benefit of the people , not for profits .
We hope .
So , thank you again .
Alex Lawson : Thank you so much for having me .
Marc Steiner : Our pleasure .
I ’ m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network .
We ’ re going to stay on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspects .
Stay with us .
Let us know what you think .
Take care .

It’s definitely just a coincidence that one of Trump’s coronavirus task force members is a former lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the company that won orphan drug status for its COVID-19 treatment.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Great to have you with us as usual.
Now there are some stories that seem to be overlooked when it comes to the intersection between dealing with fighting COVID-19, the lies Trumps tells, and the power of big pharmaceutical. Some leading the corona task force for Trump, like Secretary of Health, Alex Azar, and Joe Grogan, who heads domestic policy, comes straight from big pharma. US government has always spent hundreds of millions of dollars on researching drugs that threaten our lives to help us. Then we give them to big pharma that takes over and takes what we make for them and gouging our pocketbooks and wallets. Medications to treat corona have been developed with our tax money, are now being given to big pharma to make their profits. How is this happening and what can we do about it?
Let’s welcome back to Real News Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works. Alex, good to see you.
Alex Lawson: Thanks for having me.
Marc Steiner: It was a great piece that you wrote and I really learned a lot in what you laid out for us. So let’s talk a bit about this. One of the things you talk about in there is that the United States government spent $700 million, given to the National Institutes of Health to study coronavirus and drugs that could affect coronavirus.
So it’s our public money being spent to help us fight this disease, but someone else is going to gouge us to make the profits. Am I making too much of that?
Alex Lawson: No, that’s exactly how it works. Look, it’s actually worse than most people can even sort of conceive. All of the basic research, 100% of the basic science is taxpayer funded, right? It’s our tax dollars go into the National Institute of Health, the NIH, also into grants that go to universities around the country and then a host of other government agencies and programs, like BARDA is one specifically set up to create vaccines for pandemics. That’s all taxpayer funded.
So we fund all of this basic research. We fund a lot of the early stage research, like 80% of the early stage research, and in some cases we spend all the way through late stage clinical trials, meaning that the taxpayer is funding for some drugs, and a recent study put it at one in four drugs we fund all the way through their life cycle.
Now, 100% of drugs we’re doing the basic research, which is the riskiest part. You’re just looking for things. You don’t know, you don’t have any idea if it’s going to become something. We take all of the risk, and in some cases we develop it all the way to the end and then we literally give the patents to a pharmaceutical corporation. That’s what they do. We hand it to them and they turn around and they charge us the highest drug prices in the world.
The system is totally, absolutely corrupted by pharmaceutical money, and I’m hoping that people can see with the coronavirus the absolute failing of the pharmaceutical corporations to be prepared for this, because not only do they get the patent and can charge whatever they want, they also direct where the the priorities are. So if we’re doing the early stage research but they don’t see a way to profit from it, say with doing more research on vaccines for coronaviruses, then it just sits on a shelf, because they don’t know how to profit from that. They’re going to spend their money on things that they know how to profit from, another lookalike drug for cholesterol, a statin, or hundreds of millions of dollars investigating male pattern baldness, which again, that’d be great. They should be doing that. But not at the expense of doing research to prevent a pandemic, to prevent what we are living in right now.
Our system is not set up to benefit the public health. It’s set up to benefit the bottom line of these corporations.
Marc Steiner: So there’s common wisdom out there. Let’s talk about this for a moment and jump right back to COVID-19 and what’s going on at this moment, but most people are told, think that the reason our drugs cost so much money, well, we have to [inaudible 00:04:32] money at the pharmacy is because big pharma spends all their money on R&D and that’s how they recoup the hundreds of million dollars they spend on R&D is by charging us the money they do. What you’re saying is that’s a mythology.
Alex Lawson: Yeah, I would just say a lie. A lie that costs lives. It’s obviously a myth, but it’s one of the best crafted pieces of propaganda out there that the high drug prices that we pay are somehow to pay for innovation.
The only thing, the only thing that these pharmaceutical corporations are good at innovating in is increasing their profits, is increasing the stock prices of their companies through gimmicks like stock buybacks. They spend more on stock buybacks then they do on research and development, or by marketing drugs to people some of the drugs that people don’t need. Anyone who watches corporate television knows, it’s all pharmaceutical commercials. They spend more on marketing than they do on research and development.
The system as it is is hurting innovation. There’s no incentive for these companies to innovate new molecule, new treatments and new cures. There is always an incentive for these corporations to innovate new ways to extend the patents on drugs that make them money. That’s where they’re innovating is new and fascinating ways of gaming the system so that they can continue their monopoly so that they can charge these outrageous prices that we face.
And I just want to do one example outside COVID so that everyone gets it. Insulin is over 100 years old. The current molecules that we use, they’re biologics so they’re not molecules, but the current analogs that we use are decades old. There’s been no innovation on insulin, none, zero since the analogs came out. No innovation on it, and yet the price of insulin goes up every single year.
There’s three companies who produce these insulin analogs. Alex Azar used to run one of them, and in lockstep as a cartel, they raise the price every single year. That’s not to pay for innovation. There is no innovation. It’s an old drug. That’s just so that they can buy another yacht at the expense of people’s lives. That’s what the pharmaceutical business model is right now.
Marc Steiner: So you mentioned Alex Azar, and let’s talk about him for a moment, and Joe Grogan, who also comes out of big pharmaceutical, who heads domestic policy for Trump, and the role they may be playing in all of this, some of it speculation, we just don’t know really. But clearly they’re in the midst of that and part of the corona task force. And then Joe Grogan, as you said, was in Gilead, which is getting this huge contract from the government. So let’s talk a bit about that.
Alex Lawson: So you have Joe Grogan who used to be the chief lobbyist for Gilead, and you have Alex Azar who used to run US Lilly, Eli Lilly, one of the three in the insulin cartel. And in fact it’s funny because they’re both like super pharma bros, right? They are not putting country first, they are putting corporations first. The reason they’re in government is to protect these pharmaceutical corporations’ interests and then when they leave government, they’re going right back into these pharmaceutical corporations.
But the funny thing is, and this is also sort of normal, they’re not allies. They actually are at each other’s throats a lot. And when you’re watching it, you can kind of see the tug of war between them. But in both cases, it’s not like one is fighting for the people’s interests and one is fighting for the corporate interests. They’re just fighting for their own different corporate interests. And again, we don’t have a detailed knowledge of how Joe Grogan, for example, was involved in Gilead getting this orphan drug status.
An orphan drug is a drug that is used to treat a very small number of people and therefore there’s not much incentive for companies to develop those drugs. And it’s a myth. It’s actually always used to game the system, but that’s like the general setup, and Gilead applied for and got an orphan drug status on a drug that they have that’s showing promise to treat COVID right now, a pandemic. The word pandemic means all. It’s the opposite of an orphan drug. That’s how greedy they are. They see a pandemic and they’re going to look at any way to gain the system.
It was so egregious and we created such a din in a clamor that they had to roll that back, but it’s not like we won, because they already still get five years of market exclusivity. Five years Gilead gets of charging whatever they want. Astronomical rates for a potential treatment that again, the US taxpayer paid to develop. It was actually developed originally around Ebola and the Canadian taxpayer, and then this company is going to profit from it in any way that they can. That shows the level that they’re willing to go to make a dollar.
Marc Steiner: So it’s probably just a coincidence that Grogan happened to be a lobbyist for Gilead and Gilead got this huge contract from the government. We have got no proof, but it’s probably just a coincidence.
Alex Lawson: That’s usually how it works in DC, right?
Marc Steiner: Right. So let’s jump into this. You had a quote in the Washington Post, in the article, and it was interesting. This is your quote, it’s something that folks should see, but I’ll just read it. I won’t try to mimic you, but I’ll just read it.
“Look at their plan, and you can see exactly who this guy is: Mnuchin is pushing a giant slush fund to give handoffs to corporate America and was forced to add unemployment insurance for millions of Americans losing their jobs and money for hospitals in the middle of a pandemic. These were concessions he had to make. He sees a global pandemic as an opportunity to move taxpayer money into the wallets of his Wall Street friends.”
Let’s pick up on that point you made. Look at Gilead and also Johnson & Johnson now and how they’re going to benefit from this research and how all this ties together.
Alex Lawson: Yeah, what they’re looking at is, they’re seeing this pandemic… Let me actually say the other way. So there was an era when you had scientists and the government working for the people, where you had Jonas Salk and actually worked to eliminate polio by working globally together to eliminate and eradicate polio with smallpox. We worked and led a global coalition through the WHO, with the US leading to eliminate the smallpox. We eradicated it. It’s the only way that we can actually fight a bug, a virus like COVID.
But that’s not the era that we’re in anymore. The pharmaceutical corporations are not scientists, they’re hedge fund guys. They don’t wear lab coats, they wear $6,000 suits. And what they’re good at is telling a story. They paint a picture, they lie about what it is that they do. They take our research, we paid for it. And when we even tried to… we tried to add into the recovery package three, the third recovery package, just reasonable pricing. We didn’t even say that it had to be available to everybody, we just said that they had to charge a reasonable price and they slash and burn fought that and they won, and so we don’t even have a guarantee that they will charge a reasonable price for treatments and vaccines that were developed by taxpayer dollars.
But what Johnson & Johnson, another drug corporation, is doing is they just launched an eight-part mini series talking about the road to a vaccine. This is just a giant piece of corporate marketing. They’re going to obviously leave out the fact that you and I and everyone in this country already paid for it. They’re going to highlight, they’re going to have labs that are not their own. I guarantee it. It’s like their favorite thing to do. They’re not going to be their labs, they’re going to film in some lab for “the” role and make it seem like that’s where all the research is getting done.
Bill Gates had to come in and actually start building laboratory capacity. BARDA, the program I mentioned earlier, got, I think, three billion, I might be off a little bit on that, in stimulus. BARDA is paying for the laboratory setup for vaccines. US taxpayers pay for all of this and all the companies do is package it really prettily and then make outrageous profits.
Marc Steiner: So let’s talk a bit about what can be done. Part of what you do is not just to expose what we’re talking about here, but part of what you do is to kind of really put forth policies that could change the way we do things.
When you just talked about Jonas Salk and polio, I’m an era of that age when polio was just crippling people and people I knew in school were getting sick, and Jonas Salk didn’t become a millionaire for developing polio, he did it because he’s a scientist. As you said, it was a global kind of work together. So let’s talk a bit about now, the 21st century, what you’re proposing could be the way this should be done.
Alex Lawson: I will, and forgive for some like philosophical things here, but Jonas Salk made so much more than money. He might not have become a billionaire, but his name is synonymous with public service, his name is synonymous with a person who put people in front of his own pocketbook. That type of person still exists all over this country and they want to stand together and create a system that works for all of us.
Jonas Salk is not actually the exception, he’s much more of the rule. It’s just that our system right now is driven by these sociopaths on the other side and we just need to take it back from them. And the way we do that is by creating a public pharmaceutical system. Almost all of it already exists. We just put more money into the NIH and we complete that full cycle from basic research all the way through production, and then the drugs are available immediately as generics and any company can compete producing the molecule, but no monopolies for anyone.
It seems radical, but all I’m saying is just do that on the side of the current system. Let the [crosstalk 00:15:31]-
Marc Steiner: [crosstalk 00:15:31]. Alex, let me ask you [inaudible 00:15:33]. So are you saying that we don’t need the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture and distribute drugs, that that’s unnecessary?
Alex Lawson: Basically unnecessary. So we can have Elizabeth Warren and Jan Schakowsky have a bill for public manufacturing, and that means two different things. You can have a facility where you have government workers actually manufacturing, and we can do that, and DOD, they do it all the time in the defense sector. But it also just means contracting with corporations, right?
So it’s like, again, if you look at defense, the DOD contracts with a corporation, but the corporation doesn’t end up owning the tank that they build. The US government owns the tank, the corporation builds it. So you could do something either/or or both of those for manufacturing. And then in terms of distributing, as soon as you get rid of the monopoly, you allow all of the generic producers, and anyone who takes a pharmaceutical knows what a generic is. Right? It’s available in your pharmacy just like the branded drugs are, it’s just much, much, much cheaper.
So we don’t have to worry that somehow the system would fall apart because we’re talking about using the system as it is, just removing that one part where we give the monopoly to these corporations to charge whatever they want. You remove the monopoly power and the system keeps going. In fact, innovation will increase because there won’t be an incentive to just create yet another Viagra, there’ll be an incentive to create cures for diseases. There’ll be incentive to create new treatments and vaccines, preventative stuff, and there will be market competition. It’s all going to be done by these companies who produce the drugs generically and then market them.
And just in case there were a market failure, it is also extremely possible for the government to step in and produce drugs through government manufacturing if there is a shortage. And in fact, we should be doing that right now, because the idea that the shortages would happen in the new system is silly because the shortages happen right now. You can go to the FDA’s website. There’s the FDA shortage list.
When a corporation does not see a way of making oodles of money, they don’t put any effort into making sure that people can get the drugs that they need. If it’s done as a public service in a public pharmaceutical system, then the purpose of it will be to ensure that people get the drugs that they need. It is not a radical idea. In fact, it’s generally been the way that drugs and medicines have existed for the most part of modern history. It’s only since the 1980s that we’ve made this really wrongheaded move to say that pharmaceuticals and vaccines and others are market goods that we should hand over to corporations to profit on.
It’s good when it comes to like a candy bar, like how much are you willing to pay for this candy bar versus that candy bar? But when it comes to your life, or the life of your child or someone you love, how much are you willing to pay for the drug that keeps you or your loved one alive? And the answer is everything that you’ve got. So we can’t give companies that power to hold our health and our lives hostage for profit.
Marc Steiner: Well, Alex, awesome. Once again, thank you for joining us here on Real News. It’s always a pleasure and I really appreciate the, I think we all do appreciate the work that you do, social security works, to fight for justice in this area and looking forward to have many more conversations as we follow what happens with COVID-19 and how they roll these things out for the benefit of the people, not for profits. We hope. So, thank you again.
Alex Lawson: Thank you so much for having me.
Marc Steiner: Our pleasure. I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. We’re going to stay on top of COVID-19 and all of the aspects. Stay with us. Let us know what you think. Take care.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-04-16--Stir Crazy! #15: No Time To Play: COVID-19 Hits Sports Hard

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-04-16--What’s Next For The Democratic Socialist Left?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Bernie Sanders : So I ’ m asking every Democrat .
I ’ m asking every independent .
I ’ m asking a lot of Republicans to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy , which I endorse to make certain that we defeat somebody who I believe , and I ’ m just speaking just for myself now , is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country .
Speaker 2 : Welcome to the Real News .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A week after suspending his presidential campaign , Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Vice-President Joe Biden .
With former President Barack Obama doing the same the next day , and Senator Elizabeth Warren the day after that .
Sanders ran two historic campaigns on policy ideas rooted in democratic socialism like taxing the wealthy , universal health care , free access to higher education , and housing access , revitalizing the American left in the process .
Here ’ s a clip of Sanders .
Bernie Sanders : Please also appreciate that not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are also winning it generationally .
The future of our country rests with young people and in state after state , whether we won or whether we lost , the Democratic primaries or caucuses , we received a significant majority of the votes .
Sometimes the overwhelming majority from people not only 30 years of age or under , but 50 years of age or younger .
Speaker 2 : The next question is whether the movement Sanders helped mobilize will determine the future of the Democratic Party and take it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class .
And more broadly , what comes next for the American socialist left ?
Well , now joining us to discuss this for a three-part interview is the coauthor of a new book that offers a powerful take on these pressing questions .
It ’ s called Bigger Than Bernie : How Do We Go From the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism ?
That book was coauthored by Meagan Day and we ’ re joined by Micah Uetricht .
He ’ s the managing editor of Jacobin , host of the Jacobin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a member of the DSA , the Democratic Socialists of America .
Thanks so much for joining us .
Micah Uetricht : Thanks for having me .
Speaker 2 : So I wanted to start off by getting your response to Bernie ’ s endorsement of Biden and then in an interview with the AP , he said , “ I believe that it ’ s irresponsible for anyone to say , well , I disagree with Joe Biden .
I disagree with Joe Biden and therefore I am not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who he calls the most dangerous president in the history of the United States.
” And that AP interview is interesting .
We don ’ t know the full context of it .
We just have these few quotes that the AP published , but Bernie is going further than he has before in at least that clip that the AP has published .
Give us your response to this moment we ’ re in right now .
Micah Uetricht : First of all , nobody should be surprised that Bernie has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along in this campaign that he would endorse whoever was the Democratic nominee for president .
He endorsed Hillary Clinton of course in 2016 , so this is to be expected .
If you weren ’ t ready for this… If this is hitting you out of the blue , you weren ’ t paying attention to the campaign so far .
And it makes sense that he would make that argument .
He is somebody who is , as much as he ’ s been an independent his entire career , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party establishment and political establishment generally , he ’ s also somebody who is a pragmatist fundamentally .
And he ’ s made this argument because he truly does believe that Trump represents a unique threat .
And I like I think literally every single person who makes up the reborn socialist left in the United States agrees with wanting to see Trump defeated .
But I would disagree with Bernie in saying that we need to… That it ’ s somehow irresponsible to now drop everything and then throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given that Joe Biden ’ s career record stands literally against every single major aspect of Bernie ’ s proposals that he has been putting forward in his two most recent presidential campaigns .
And he stands against what a group like the DSA is arguing for , what our basic fundamental principles are .
And I think that it ’ s important to maintain that level of independence .
It ’ s important for a group like DSA to not just cave in to whichever centrist Democrat the Democratic Party decides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain a level of independence from that party , especially when the party is making those kinds of decisions .
If you don ’ t , then you end up not standing for anything and you end up making moral compromises that will pull you further and further to the right to the point where the next thing you know you ’ re defending NAFTA or defending the welfare cuts that Bill Clinton made in the 90s were unfortunate but needed at the time .
I mean where does it end ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ social movement group in particular , like the DSA , to plant the flag and maintain a level of independence from the Democratic Party and from figures like Joe Biden .
Speaker 2 : And so an endorsement of a group like DSA is different than saying that our members are not going to vote for him in swing States where our votes could make a difference in the election .
Micah Uetricht : Yeah , exactly .
I mean personally , just speaking for myself , if I lived in a swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden .
I don ’ t think that there needs to be a huge level of hand-wringing about this .
It ’ s true that Trump is pretty uniquely awful .
And the world would be a better place if he were to hit the road .
But yeah , the endorsement of an organization means something qualitatively different .
And that is what DSA has done .
DSA has not said that none of our members will vote for Joe Biden , and not even say we discourage our members from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the organization as a whole will not be endorsing Joe Biden , but the values of the organization were uniquely represented in the Sanders campaign and that they were not seen in any other presidential campaigns .
Speaker 2 : So President Obama endorsed Joe Biden on Tuesday , and in that video message , he praised the Sanders movement and the Sanders campaign .
Here ’ s a clip .
Barack Obama : Bernie ’ s an American original , a man who has devoted his life to giving voice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and frustrations .
He and I haven ’ t always agreed on everything , but we ’ ve always shared a conviction that we have to make America a fairer , more just , more equitable society .
We both know that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change .
And the ideas he ’ s championed , the energy and enthusiasm he inspired , especially in young people , will be critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope .
Speaker 2 : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this praise of Obama .
He acknowledged in that speech that he ’ s differed .
He ’ s had his differences with Bernie in the past and those have been well documented , are actually very interesting and important to talk about .
But it ’ s been widely reported that Obama was a force behind the consolidation of all the centrist candidates behind Joe Biden before Super Tuesday in this historic way that really helped Biden secure this election .
Micah Uetricht : Right .
And again , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at either .
I mean Obama has played this role repeatedly as somebody trying to tamp down these kinds of left-wing surges in the party and saying that he doesn ’ t think that American voters want what he called a revolution , that he thinks that the American voters are a bit more centrist than what… Because they ’ re so centrist , they wouldn ’ t go for what Bernie was putting forward .
I mean to me what ’ s more interesting about this than the fact that Obama played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected and that he got behind Biden , which is of course to be expected , is the difference between now and in 2016 .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton and the party apparatus around her maintained this level of intransigence and a hostility towards Sanders and towards the Sanders movement .
I mean , if you remember in the book that she wrote What Happened after 2016 race , she talked about Bernie promising people ponies and how absurd that was and has up until this day maintained a very strong level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Obama at least is smart enough to not denigrate that movement .
To recognize that there ’ s something that is useful and energetic about the movement that Sanders has cohered .
But we shouldn ’ t take that to be lulled into some sense of , oh , the party is listening to the demands of Bernie , that the party is ready to change .
That the party is going to somehow full-heartedly endorse the platform that Bernie was putting forward .
I mean Obama recognizes that this insurgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absorb it into the Democratic Party .
But what made Bernie such a unique candidate for president two times is the fact that he had managed to maintain an independence from that party apparatus , that he kept the Democratic Party at arms length .
He was able to change the political dialogue sometimes throughout American politics , but he never seemed to mistake what he was doing for some kind of permanent reshaping of the Democratic Party .
The Democratic Party is going , from its top levels , is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents big business interests and is not fighting for working class people .
And so I think that going forward , it ’ s important for Sanders supporters to not be lulled into a state of complacency by figures like Biden or like Obama saying , “ We see you and we think that your passion is important.
” Or anything like that .
There needs to be an understanding that this party is going to keep trying to tamp down working class expectations of bigger and bolder left-wing politics .
Speaker 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out of Bernie ’ s endorsement of Biden are these working groups to address key issues ahead of the convention , but I guess the issue raised by progressives throughout this whole election about Biden are the forces funding his campaign , writing his policy , running his campaign , and who he would place in the cabinet .
Do you think that Biden needs to make big concessions on these issues ?
It was weeks ago that he talked about vetoing Medicare For All , if it came to his desk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he wants the support of the left in this election , Biden is going to have to make these concessions .
And is that something that you think realistically will happen ?
Micah Uetricht : Well , just before I even answer that question , I do think it ’ s funny that we ’ re at this point in the election cycle where we heard throughout Bernie ’ s run that Bernie supporters were fringe and represented some… We didn ’ t have a whole lot of power , couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were irresponsible or the average voter wouldn ’ t go for .
And so the emphasis was always on how fringed his campaign was .
And now all of a sudden we ’ re at a point where people are demanding that our so called fringe marginal groups like the DSA should get behind a candidate like Biden .
It ’ s just funny being whipsawed back and forth on those two things .
I ’ m not sure which one is true because they both can ’ t be true at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that for me personally , knowing Joe Biden ’ s political history and how his political instincts in his entire career have always been to move rightward , especially when there are challenges from the right , like when he actually goes up against the Republican Party and the Republican Party attacks him from the right .
His whole political career is one of responding to such attacks and moving far to the right sometimes to the right of the Republicans themselves .
So I don ’ t have a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the goods on the kind of left-wing policies that the Sanders voters were fighting for in this election cycle .
And I think that in order for us to get anything out of Biden , we ’ ll have to maintain that level of intransigence with him .
We ’ ll have to continue calling him out when he inevitably does move rightward in the direction of these corporate interests .
I think that let ’ s say that Biden puts some progressive policy planks into the Democratic Party platform at the DNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at what the Bernie campaign has gotten out of the Biden campaign .
But those policy planks really don ’ t mean much .
There ’ s no enforcement mechanisms of any of them .
So I think that those kinds of moves from Biden and from the party will be designed to try to tamp down the leftist energy and the oppositional spirits against Biden and his center right politics .
And people who have come to the left as part of the movement around Bernie Sanders shouldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bones that are tossed to them .
Speaker 2 : And that ’ s a point that AOC made in that recent interview with the New York Times as well .
So we know that the people in the government , elected officials are also pushing for more from the Democratic Party and from Joe Biden itself .
Well , that wraps up part one of our conversation .
In part two , we ’ ll talk about the lessons from grassroots struggles in places like Brooklyn , Chicago , and the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much for joining us .
Micah Uetricht : Thanks for having me .
Speaker 2 : And thank you for joining us at the Real News Network .

Micah Uetricht, co-author of “Bigger Than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism,” discusses the DSA’s refusal to endorse Joe Biden.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Bernie Sanders: So I’m asking every Democrat. I’m asking every independent. I’m asking a lot of Republicans to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse to make certain that we defeat somebody who I believe, and I’m just speaking just for myself now, is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Real News. I’m [inaudible 00:00:29]. A week after suspending his presidential campaign, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Vice-President Joe Biden. With former President Barack Obama doing the same the next day, and Senator Elizabeth Warren the day after that. Sanders ran two historic campaigns on policy ideas rooted in democratic socialism like taxing the wealthy, universal health care, free access to higher education, and housing access, revitalizing the American left in the process. Here’s a clip of Sanders.
Bernie Sanders: Please also appreciate that not only are we winning the struggle ideologically, we are also winning it generationally. The future of our country rests with young people and in state after state, whether we won or whether we lost, the Democratic primaries or caucuses, we received a significant majority of the votes. Sometimes the overwhelming majority from people not only 30 years of age or under, but 50 years of age or younger.
Speaker 2: The next question is whether the movement Sanders helped mobilize will determine the future of the Democratic Party and take it out of the clutches of the billionaire class. And more broadly, what comes next for the American socialist left? Well, now joining us to discuss this for a three-part interview is the coauthor of a new book that offers a powerful take on these pressing questions. It’s called Bigger Than Bernie: How Do We Go From the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism? That book was coauthored by Meagan Day and we’re joined by Micah Uetricht. He’s the managing editor of Jacobin, host of the Jacobin radio podcast, The Vast Majority, and a member of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America. Thanks so much for joining us.
Micah Uetricht: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: So I wanted to start off by getting your response to Bernie’s endorsement of Biden and then in an interview with the AP, he said, “I believe that it’s irresponsible for anyone to say, well, I disagree with Joe Biden. I disagree with Joe Biden and therefore I am not going to be involved in the campaign to oppose, who he calls the most dangerous president in the history of the United States.” And that AP interview is interesting. We don’t know the full context of it. We just have these few quotes that the AP published, but Bernie is going further than he has before in at least that clip that the AP has published. Give us your response to this moment we’re in right now.
Micah Uetricht: First of all, nobody should be surprised that Bernie has endorsed Joe Biden. He said all along in this campaign that he would endorse whoever was the Democratic nominee for president. He endorsed Hillary Clinton of course in 2016, so this is to be expected. If you weren’t ready for this… If this is hitting you out of the blue, you weren’t paying attention to the campaign so far. And it makes sense that he would make that argument. He is somebody who is, as much as he’s been an independent his entire career, as much as he’s existed outside of the Democratic Party establishment and political establishment generally, he’s also somebody who is a pragmatist fundamentally. And he’s made this argument because he truly does believe that Trump represents a unique threat. And I like I think literally every single person who makes up the reborn socialist left in the United States agrees with wanting to see Trump defeated.
But I would disagree with Bernie in saying that we need to… That it’s somehow irresponsible to now drop everything and then throw yourself behind the campaign of Joe Biden, given that Joe Biden’s career record stands literally against every single major aspect of Bernie’s proposals that he has been putting forward in his two most recent presidential campaigns. And he stands against what a group like the DSA is arguing for, what our basic fundamental principles are. And I think that it’s important to maintain that level of independence. It’s important for a group like DSA to not just cave in to whichever centrist Democrat the Democratic Party decides to run. It’s important to maintain a level of independence from that party, especially when the party is making those kinds of decisions.
If you don’t, then you end up not standing for anything and you end up making moral compromises that will pull you further and further to the right to the point where the next thing you know you’re defending NAFTA or defending the welfare cuts that Bill Clinton made in the 90s were unfortunate but needed at the time.
I mean where does it end? So it’s important for a social movement group in particular, like the DSA, to plant the flag and maintain a level of independence from the Democratic Party and from figures like Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: And so an endorsement of a group like DSA is different than saying that our members are not going to vote for him in swing States where our votes could make a difference in the election.
Micah Uetricht: Yeah, exactly. I mean personally, just speaking for myself, if I lived in a swing state, I would probably vote for Joe Biden. I don’t think that there needs to be a huge level of hand-wringing about this. It’s true that Trump is pretty uniquely awful. And the world would be a better place if he were to hit the road. But yeah, the endorsement of an organization means something qualitatively different. And that is what DSA has done. DSA has not said that none of our members will vote for Joe Biden, and not even say we discourage our members from voting for Joe Biden, but saying that the organization as a whole will not be endorsing Joe Biden, but the values of the organization were uniquely represented in the Sanders campaign and that they were not seen in any other presidential campaigns.
Speaker 2: So President Obama endorsed Joe Biden on Tuesday, and in that video message, he praised the Sanders movement and the Sanders campaign. Here’s a clip.
Barack Obama: Bernie’s an American original, a man who has devoted his life to giving voice to working people’s hopes, dreams, and frustrations. He and I haven’t always agreed on everything, but we’ve always shared a conviction that we have to make America a fairer, more just, more equitable society. We both know that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. And the ideas he’s championed, the energy and enthusiasm he inspired, especially in young people, will be critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope.
Speaker 2: It’s interesting that here’s this praise of Obama. He acknowledged in that speech that he’s differed. He’s had his differences with Bernie in the past and those have been well documented, are actually very interesting and important to talk about. But it’s been widely reported that Obama was a force behind the consolidation of all the centrist candidates behind Joe Biden before Super Tuesday in this historic way that really helped Biden secure this election.
Micah Uetricht: Right. And again, that’s something that nobody should really be surprised at either. I mean Obama has played this role repeatedly as somebody trying to tamp down these kinds of left-wing surges in the party and saying that he doesn’t think that American voters want what he called a revolution, that he thinks that the American voters are a bit more centrist than what… Because they’re so centrist, they wouldn’t go for what Bernie was putting forward.
I mean to me what’s more interesting about this than the fact that Obama played this role, which is to be expected and that he got behind Biden, which is of course to be expected, is the difference between now and in 2016. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and the party apparatus around her maintained this level of intransigence and a hostility towards Sanders and towards the Sanders movement. I mean, if you remember in the book that she wrote What Happened after 2016 race, she talked about Bernie promising people ponies and how absurd that was and has up until this day maintained a very strong level of hostility towards Bernie and his movement.
And Obama at least is smart enough to not denigrate that movement. To recognize that there’s something that is useful and energetic about the movement that Sanders has cohered. But we shouldn’t take that to be lulled into some sense of, oh, the party is listening to the demands of Bernie, that the party is ready to change. That the party is going to somehow full-heartedly endorse the platform that Bernie was putting forward. I mean Obama recognizes that this insurgent energy is here and he wants to absorb it into the Democratic Party.
But what made Bernie such a unique candidate for president two times is the fact that he had managed to maintain an independence from that party apparatus, that he kept the Democratic Party at arms length. He was able to change the political dialogue sometimes throughout American politics, but he never seemed to mistake what he was doing for some kind of permanent reshaping of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is going, from its top levels, is going to continue to be a centrist party that represents big business interests and is not fighting for working class people. And so I think that going forward, it’s important for Sanders supporters to not be lulled into a state of complacency by figures like Biden or like Obama saying, “We see you and we think that your passion is important.” Or anything like that. There needs to be an understanding that this party is going to keep trying to tamp down working class expectations of bigger and bolder left-wing politics.
Speaker 2: One of the interesting things that came out of Bernie’s endorsement of Biden are these working groups to address key issues ahead of the convention, but I guess the issue raised by progressives throughout this whole election about Biden are the forces funding his campaign, writing his policy, running his campaign, and who he would place in the cabinet. Do you think that Biden needs to make big concessions on these issues? It was weeks ago that he talked about vetoing Medicare For All, if it came to his desk under certain conditions. Do you think if he wants the support of the left in this election, Biden is going to have to make these concessions. And is that something that you think realistically will happen?
Micah Uetricht: Well, just before I even answer that question, I do think it’s funny that we’re at this point in the election cycle where we heard throughout Bernie’s run that Bernie supporters were fringe and represented some… We didn’t have a whole lot of power, couldn’t deliver voters. We wanted things that were irresponsible or the average voter wouldn’t go for. And so the emphasis was always on how fringed his campaign was. And now all of a sudden we’re at a point where people are demanding that our so called fringe marginal groups like the DSA should get behind a candidate like Biden. It’s just funny being whipsawed back and forth on those two things. I’m not sure which one is true because they both can’t be true at the same time.
But yeah, I think that for me personally, knowing Joe Biden’s political history and how his political instincts in his entire career have always been to move rightward, especially when there are challenges from the right, like when he actually goes up against the Republican Party and the Republican Party attacks him from the right. His whole political career is one of responding to such attacks and moving far to the right sometimes to the right of the Republicans themselves. So I don’t have a whole lot of hope for him actually delivering the goods on the kind of left-wing policies that the Sanders voters were fighting for in this election cycle. And I think that in order for us to get anything out of Biden, we’ll have to maintain that level of intransigence with him. We’ll have to continue calling him out when he inevitably does move rightward in the direction of these corporate interests.
I think that let’s say that Biden puts some progressive policy planks into the Democratic Party platform at the DNC. That will probably be trumpeted as look at what the Bernie campaign has gotten out of the Biden campaign. But those policy planks really don’t mean much. There’s no enforcement mechanisms of any of them. So I think that those kinds of moves from Biden and from the party will be designed to try to tamp down the leftist energy and the oppositional spirits against Biden and his center right politics. And people who have come to the left as part of the movement around Bernie Sanders shouldn’t be fooled by just a couple of rhetorical bones that are tossed to them.
Speaker 2: And that’s a point that AOC made in that recent interview with the New York Times as well. So we know that the people in the government, elected officials are also pushing for more from the Democratic Party and from Joe Biden itself. Well, that wraps up part one of our conversation. In part two, we’ll talk about the lessons from grassroots struggles in places like Brooklyn, Chicago, and the East Bay. Micah Uetricht, thank you so much for joining us.
Micah Uetricht: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: And thank you for joining us at the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-04-17--Stir Crazy! Episode #16: The Ineptitude of Power


therealnews--2020-04-17--Sanders Is Out, But Socialists Are Still Winning Elections

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jaisal Noor : Welcome to the Real News .
I ’ m Jaisal Noor .
This is part two of our conversation with Micah Uetricht about his new book Bigger Than Bernie : How We Go From The Sanders Campaign To Democratic Socialism , which you coauthored with Megan Day .
And we ’ re joined again by Micah Utrecht .
He ’ s the Managing Editor of Jacobin , host to the Jacobin radio podcast , The Vast Majority , and a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to in this second part talk about the lessons from local struggles .
We know that local politics are the politics that affect us the most , that can have most impact in our day to day lives , and that ’ s some of the places where socialists , where the DSA , have been most active helping vault people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez , not only into elected office , but in a position to change national discourse .
Micah , you wrote about what happened in New York and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had more success perhaps than anywhere else .
Let ’ s start with New York and what you found , what the main lessons of New York are .
And they ’ re ongoing .
There ’ s more Socialists running for office this year as well .
Micah Utrecht : Obviously , the Bernie campaign was principally about electing Bernie as President of the United States , but it ’ s worth remembering that just four years ago , before Bernie ’ s first campaign , there were almost no Socialist elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then we had Kshama Sawant on Seattle ’ s City Council and maybe a few others here and there .
But there has been a pretty impressive number of victories that Socialists have had ranging from the local to the national level .
And we write about New York as a case study in the book , not just to say , “ Oh look , some Socialists won in New York , ” but to actually describe how Socialists can play an important role as part of a bigger working class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in social movements .
And so in New York , the only two Socialists who have so far been elected to any kind of office in the state are of course Alexandra Ocasio Cortez in the House , but also State Senator Julia Salazar .
And those victories were important .
They ’ re there two self identified Socialists .
There was also a broader , a progressive surge in electoral politics that took place in 2018 that ’ s shifted the balance of the New York State Senate and got rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was a block of Democrats in the State Senate who caucus with Republicans and effectively serve to block progressive legislation in the state .
And so Julia Salazar ’ s election was part of that wave of displacing the IDC .
And the two of them in office along with the surge in Socialism , a Socialist activism around things like affordable housing in the state of New York , in New York City helped lead to , again as part of a broader progressive surge from people who do not consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against things like Amazon attempting to move into Long Island city in Queens , which was a huge battle that would have displaced huge numbers of working class New Yorkers and also would have given billions in public dollars to Amazon , one of the wealthiest corporations in the world , of course , it really does not need billions in public money .
And AOC and Julia Salazar and New York City DSA were all key players in this fight that was , just to reiterate , not solely carried out by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broader working class movement were able to successfully stop Amazon from moving to Queens .
Amazon is moving to New York anyway , but not into Long Island City .
They ’ re moving to Manhattan and they ’ re not taking the multi-billion dollar aid package that that was prepared to be given to them .
And so that ’ s a real victory .
That ’ s a significant win that Socialists played a key role in , in New York City .
And that ’ s just with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the house and in their State Senate .
So , I mean , the important issue is that they were there organizing as part of a broader coalition .
There was not just Socialists , it was other progressive working class institutions .
But Socialists in New York City DSA beyond just their elected representatives really played a key role in effecting the sea change around the discourse around affordable housing in New York City .
Obviously , we know that there ’ s a real housing crisis in New York City and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that something be done about that , which culminated in some pretty historic rent control and other provisions protecting renters in the city of New York , far from what is needed of course in New York City , but the strongest affordable housing protections that we ’ ve seen introduced in New York for a long time .
So Socialists played a key role in that and it ’ s something that can point to , to show the kind of tangible victories that Socialists , along with a broader wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jaisal Noor : And you ’ ve been reporting in Chicago for a long time , a place of intense class struggle in the years of Rahm Emanuel .
You had multiple teachers strikes there .
Now , same with New York , you have Amazon workers going on strike .
You have them protesting extreme exploitation and dangerous conditions they ’ re being put in .
Talk about some of the lessons from Chicago and especially you just talked about the role Socialists played in a broader coalition the impact they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the of the City Council are now Socialists .
Micah Utrecht : Yeah , so there are half a dozen members of the Democratic Socialists of America who were elected to Chicago City Council but the way that we got to that point starts way back in 2010 when the Chicago Teachers Union had its leadership taken over by a [ inaudible 00:06:34 ] called the Caucus Of Rank And File Educators , which were a group of teachers and other kinds of educators who we ’ re committed to democratic militant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were fighting austerity in the public education system in Chicago , but also across the board .
And I bring this up because , for one , there were Socialists who before the Bernie Sanders campaign were key players in that effort .
They weren ’ t the only ones who were involved in taking over the union but they played this really critical role alongside other people who had a similar vision of what unionism should look like .
They went on strike in 2012 and have gone on strike several times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that past decades since they took over the union , the CTU has emerged as the anchor of a left wing politics in this city .
And I bring that up just to emphasize how that kind of activism within a union like a teacher ’ s union or another municipal union or in a private sector union can play a role in transforming the politics of a city as a whole .
Because that strike and the way that it changed Chicago politics opened up the space for last year a half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chicago City Council as well as other progressives who are not members of DSA but who are part of that broader left-wing block that has emerged in Chicago politics .
So the case study of Chicago is important to emphasize the interplay between organizing outside of the electoral realm , organizing within a union , in a specific kind of unionism that ’ s a militant and democratic unionism that ’ s fighting for the entire working class , a kind of unionism , which by the way , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved pushing that kind of unionism because that is the kind of unionism that Socialists have long argued for and have been the strongest proponents of within the labor movement .
So Socialists helped play that role in transforming the city through that kind of unionism and then opened the space for half a dozen DSA members to now be fighting for things like a robust response to a COVID-19 , one that includes a new social democratic measures that actually tend to work in class people ’ s needs in Chicago who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having a rent freeze in the city , who are pushing for a whole slew of measures in the city , left-wing measures , that would not exist without this new left wing block .
And , again , as I mentioned with New York , it did so as part of a broader coalition , a coalition that by the way , it ’ s important to mention , it is willing to work with Socialists , that is not scared off by the Socialists label that those DSA members have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example is an example of all of these multiple things coming together to play a role in creating a left wing block that is for the first time in recent memory actually creating a left wing pull in Chicago local politics .
Jaisal Noor : And Micah , isn ’ t it true that you talked about CORE , the Caucus Of Rank And File Educators , didn ’ t that start as a reading group around Shock Doctrine , Naomi Klein ’ s book , which is especially relevant now .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but especially under the Rahm Emanuel years where the teachers went on strike during an election year for Barack Obama , which put a lot of pressure on him as well , but just having that class consciousness and having that historical consciousness and applying that to the classroom conditions and waging these strikes and winning some real victories for the Black and Brown students that are the majority of students in the third biggest school district in the country .
Micah Utrecht : Yeah , all of that is correct .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I mean , as you mentioned , the fact that this group of people just came together around Naomi Klein and her book shows the power of left wing ideas when they ’ re put in the hands of rank and file militants of the union that can take the lessons from that book and really run with them and figure out how to push back against exactly the kind of thing that Naomi Klein discusses in that book , which is the use of crises by the right wing or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s throats in a neo-Liberal agenda down people ’ s throats .
So they took that and they ran with the lessons from that book about how to not just identify that was happening to the city of Chicago and its a public education system , but also how to fight back against it .
Jaisal Noor : So you also talk about East Bay where I believe Megan Day , your coauthor chronicled the failed progressive campaign of Jovanka Beckels , an organizer , a council person in Richmond , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green Party mayor .
They waged a war against Chevron for polluting its communities and it ’ s been a host of other progressive reforms we ’ ve covered here on the Real News , including paying at risk potential offenders money , sort of like a stipend to help them stay out of trouble .
But she ran against Buffy Wicks called the Bernie Slayer , which was a failed campaign , and obviously a lot of these Socialist campaigns aren ’ t going to be victorious , even on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how power for decades .
But talk about the lessons from that , again , a campaign that was based on a widespread coalition of working people unions and the lessons learned from that .
Micah Utrecht : The Jovanka Beckels campaign , I don ’ t live in the East Bay , but I got to see it in motion when I visited once and the East Bay DSA really threw themselves into this State Assembly race for this candidate Jovanka .
And we detail in the book , I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principal player in this campaign , which is different from some of the campaigns like AOC ’ s or some of the Socialist elected officials in Chicago who were DSA members but also came out of unions or community groups or whatever .
Jovanka Beckels ’ campaign was principally an East Bay DSA effort along with folks , like you mentioned , the Richmond Progressive Alliance and it was incredible just to see that this group , DSA , that had just come together after Bernie ’ s 2016 campaign all of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the nuts and bolts of electoral politics , run a real credible campaign .
And they really went all out for this campaign .
You could see it when you were in East Bay at the time , Jovanka Beckels signs were all over Oakland and then in parts of the district she would have covered .
She lost to Buffy Wicks , who was the State Director in California for Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and yes , she did earn that nickname Buffy the Bernie Slayer .
And she lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had thrown their whole lives into that campaign of course .
But the infrastructure that was built from that campaign was then used by East Bay DSA to engage in other kinds of campaigns that were not electorally related .
The most immediate one was support of the Oakland teacher ’ s strike that happened shortly after Jovanka ’ s campaign .
And , again , DSA , East Bay DSA , played this key role in mobilizing support for that teachers ’ strike as well as some members were actually members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were rank and file organizers for the strike .
And so it ’ s an example of , and in the book it features all kinds of fun and inspiring details about DSA members getting up at six in the morning and being in these flying squadrons that would be driving all around Oakland , figuring out where reinforcement on picket lines were needed the most , engaging in our making the signs , the big mass marches that would happen .
I was also there right before the strike and going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs that said that we support Oakland teachers at local businesses and restaurants and stuff .
So it ’ s incredible .
Again , just as they built this enormous apparatus basically from nothing , very few people in East Bay DSA had any experience in electoral politics but they built up this entire electoral campaign to support Jovanka Beckels .
They lost in that campaign , but they then used that infrastructure to support this teacher strike that was part of the teachers ’ strike wave that kicked off in 2018 with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona that we heard so much about , but it also spread to cities like Oakland in I believe January , 2019 .
So it ’ s an example of how electoral politics can be used , not just to try to elect good left wing and Socialist elected officials , but it can also be used to take all of that infrastructure and then support other kinds of grassroots struggles like a union fight , like a teachers ’ strike .
And that kind of interplay between an electoral campaign that talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting the capitalist class .
You can use that infrastructure and sort of seamlessly put it into that kind of worker led a struggle on the job .
That ’ s crucial and we need to be able to do both .
The Socialist movement that ’ s emerging in the United States has been focused on doing both , engaging on both of those tracks , both the electoral realm and the grassroots organizing realm , which is important to talk about because grassroots organizing , bottom up union militancy and and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are often held in contrast somehow to electoral organizing , that you can choose to do one or the other .
And the example of DSA in places like East Bay over the last few years shows that you can actually do both if you go about your organism the right way .
Jaisal Noor : Well that wraps up part two of our conversation .
We ’ ve still got one more part to go .
Thank you so much for joining us Micah Uetricht .
Jaisal Noor : And thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network .
We ’ ll post all three parts of this interview at therealnews.com .
We know that everyone ’ s quarantined at home and you need some good book recommendations so we ’ re going to start interviewing some authors of some great books that ’ ll give you something helpful and hopeful to read while we ’ re all locked down .
Thank you for joining us at the Real News Network .

Micah Uetricht, co-author of “Bigger Than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism,” discusses recent socialist victories in New York and Chicago, and lessons from a failed bid in the East Bay.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jaisal Noor: Welcome to the Real News. I’m Jaisal Noor. This is part two of our conversation with Micah Uetricht about his new book Bigger Than Bernie: How We Go From The Sanders Campaign To Democratic Socialism, which you coauthored with Megan Day. And we’re joined again by Micah Utrecht. He’s the Managing Editor of Jacobin, host to the Jacobin radio podcast, The Vast Majority, and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I wanted to in this second part talk about the lessons from local struggles. We know that local politics are the politics that affect us the most, that can have most impact in our day to day lives, and that’s some of the places where socialists, where the DSA, have been most active helping vault people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, not only into elected office, but in a position to change national discourse. Micah, you wrote about what happened in New York and Chicago, two places where socialists have had more success perhaps than anywhere else. Let’s start with New York and what you found, what the main lessons of New York are. And they’re ongoing. There’s more Socialists running for office this year as well.
Micah Utrecht: Obviously, the Bernie campaign was principally about electing Bernie as President of the United States, but it’s worth remembering that just four years ago, before Bernie’s first campaign, there were almost no Socialist elected officials anywhere in the United States. And then we had Kshama Sawant on Seattle’s City Council and maybe a few others here and there. But there has been a pretty impressive number of victories that Socialists have had ranging from the local to the national level. And we write about New York as a case study in the book, not just to say, “Oh look, some Socialists won in New York,” but to actually describe how Socialists can play an important role as part of a bigger working class coalition in the electoral realm as well as in social movements.
And so in New York, the only two Socialists who have so far been elected to any kind of office in the state are of course Alexandra Ocasio Cortez in the House, but also State Senator Julia Salazar. And those victories were important. They’re there two self identified Socialists. There was also a broader, a progressive surge in electoral politics that took place in 2018 that’s shifted the balance of the New York State Senate and got rid of what was called the IDC, which was a block of Democrats in the State Senate who caucus with Republicans and effectively serve to block progressive legislation in the state. And so Julia Salazar’s election was part of that wave of displacing the IDC.
And the two of them in office along with the surge in Socialism, a Socialist activism around things like affordable housing in the state of New York, in New York City helped lead to, again as part of a broader progressive surge from people who do not consider them as Socialists, the fight back against things like Amazon attempting to move into Long Island city in Queens, which was a huge battle that would have displaced huge numbers of working class New Yorkers and also would have given billions in public dollars to Amazon, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world, of course, it really does not need billions in public money. And AOC and Julia Salazar and New York City DSA were all key players in this fight that was, just to reiterate, not solely carried out by Socialists, but Socialists as part of a broader working class movement were able to successfully stop Amazon from moving to Queens.
Amazon is moving to New York anyway, but not into Long Island City. They’re moving to Manhattan and they’re not taking the multi-billion dollar aid package that that was prepared to be given to them. And so that’s a real victory. That’s a significant win that Socialists played a key role in, in New York City. And that’s just with a small minority of Socialists elected officials in the house and in their State Senate. So, I mean, the important issue is that they were there organizing as part of a broader coalition. There was not just Socialists, it was other progressive working class institutions. But Socialists in New York City DSA beyond just their elected representatives really played a key role in effecting the sea change around the discourse around affordable housing in New York City.
Obviously, we know that there’s a real housing crisis in New York City and DSA helped play the role of demanding that something be done about that, which culminated in some pretty historic rent control and other provisions protecting renters in the city of New York, far from what is needed of course in New York City, but the strongest affordable housing protections that we’ve seen introduced in New York for a long time. So Socialists played a key role in that and it’s something that can point to, to show the kind of tangible victories that Socialists, along with a broader wave of progressive activism, have actually won.
Jaisal Noor: And you’ve been reporting in Chicago for a long time, a place of intense class struggle in the years of Rahm Emanuel. You had multiple teachers strikes there. Now, same with New York, you have Amazon workers going on strike. You have them protesting extreme exploitation and dangerous conditions they’re being put in. Talk about some of the lessons from Chicago and especially you just talked about the role Socialists played in a broader coalition the impact they’re having. Something like 10% of the of the City Council are now Socialists.
Micah Utrecht: Yeah, so there are half a dozen members of the Democratic Socialists of America who were elected to Chicago City Council but the way that we got to that point starts way back in 2010 when the Chicago Teachers Union had its leadership taken over by a [inaudible 00:06:34] called the Caucus Of Rank And File Educators, which were a group of teachers and other kinds of educators who we’re committed to democratic militant unionism that was struggling alongside communities that were fighting austerity in the public education system in Chicago, but also across the board. And I bring this up because, for one, there were Socialists who before the Bernie Sanders campaign were key players in that effort. They weren’t the only ones who were involved in taking over the union but they played this really critical role alongside other people who had a similar vision of what unionism should look like.
They went on strike in 2012 and have gone on strike several times since then and over the course of that past decades since they took over the union, the CTU has emerged as the anchor of a left wing politics in this city. And I bring that up just to emphasize how that kind of activism within a union like a teacher’s union or another municipal union or in a private sector union can play a role in transforming the politics of a city as a whole. Because that strike and the way that it changed Chicago politics opened up the space for last year a half a dozen Socialists to get elected to the Chicago City Council as well as other progressives who are not members of DSA but who are part of that broader left-wing block that has emerged in Chicago politics.
So the case study of Chicago is important to emphasize the interplay between organizing outside of the electoral realm, organizing within a union, in a specific kind of unionism that’s a militant and democratic unionism that’s fighting for the entire working class, a kind of unionism, which by the way, it’s not a mistake that there were Socialists involved pushing that kind of unionism because that is the kind of unionism that Socialists have long argued for and have been the strongest proponents of within the labor movement. So Socialists helped play that role in transforming the city through that kind of unionism and then opened the space for half a dozen DSA members to now be fighting for things like a robust response to a COVID-19, one that includes a new social democratic measures that actually tend to work in class people’s needs in Chicago who are talking about the problems with not having a rent freeze in the city, who are pushing for a whole slew of measures in the city, left-wing measures, that would not exist without this new left wing block.
And, again, as I mentioned with New York, it did so as part of a broader coalition, a coalition that by the way, it’s important to mention, it is willing to work with Socialists, that is not scared off by the Socialists label that those DSA members have it fixed to themselves. So the Chicago example is an example of all of these multiple things coming together to play a role in creating a left wing block that is for the first time in recent memory actually creating a left wing pull in Chicago local politics.
Jaisal Noor: And Micah, isn’t it true that you talked about CORE, the Caucus Of Rank And File Educators, didn’t that start as a reading group around Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein’s book, which is especially relevant now. I mean, it’s been relevant but especially under the Rahm Emanuel years where the teachers went on strike during an election year for Barack Obama, which put a lot of pressure on him as well, but just having that class consciousness and having that historical consciousness and applying that to the classroom conditions and waging these strikes and winning some real victories for the Black and Brown students that are the majority of students in the third biggest school district in the country.
Micah Utrecht: Yeah, all of that is correct. It’s a testament to the power. I mean, as you mentioned, the fact that this group of people just came together around Naomi Klein and her book shows the power of left wing ideas when they’re put in the hands of rank and file militants of the union that can take the lessons from that book and really run with them and figure out how to push back against exactly the kind of thing that Naomi Klein discusses in that book, which is the use of crises by the right wing or by elites to shove austerity down people’s throats in a neo-Liberal agenda down people’s throats. So they took that and they ran with the lessons from that book about how to not just identify that was happening to the city of Chicago and its a public education system, but also how to fight back against it.
Jaisal Noor: So you also talk about East Bay where I believe Megan Day, your coauthor chronicled the failed progressive campaign of Jovanka Beckels, an organizer, a council person in Richmond, which is a fascinating city. They had a Green Party mayor. They waged a war against Chevron for polluting its communities and it’s been a host of other progressive reforms we’ve covered here on the Real News, including paying at risk potential offenders money, sort of like a stipend to help them stay out of trouble. But she ran against Buffy Wicks called the Bernie Slayer, which was a failed campaign, and obviously a lot of these Socialist campaigns aren’t going to be victorious, even on the left, challenging the Democratic machine, which is how power for decades. But talk about the lessons from that, again, a campaign that was based on a widespread coalition of working people unions and the lessons learned from that.
Micah Utrecht: The Jovanka Beckels campaign, I don’t live in the East Bay, but I got to see it in motion when I visited once and the East Bay DSA really threw themselves into this State Assembly race for this candidate Jovanka. And we detail in the book, I mean, the campaign, DSA was the principal player in this campaign, which is different from some of the campaigns like AOC’s or some of the Socialist elected officials in Chicago who were DSA members but also came out of unions or community groups or whatever. Jovanka Beckels’ campaign was principally an East Bay DSA effort along with folks, like you mentioned, the Richmond Progressive Alliance and it was incredible just to see that this group, DSA, that had just come together after Bernie’s 2016 campaign all of a sudden I was figuring out how to do the nuts and bolts of electoral politics, run a real credible campaign.
And they really went all out for this campaign. You could see it when you were in East Bay at the time, Jovanka Beckels signs were all over Oakland and then in parts of the district she would have covered. She lost to Buffy Wicks, who was the State Director in California for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and yes, she did earn that nickname Buffy the Bernie Slayer. And she lost, it was crushing to people who had thrown their whole lives into that campaign of course. But the infrastructure that was built from that campaign was then used by East Bay DSA to engage in other kinds of campaigns that were not electorally related. The most immediate one was support of the Oakland teacher’s strike that happened shortly after Jovanka’s campaign. And, again, DSA, East Bay DSA, played this key role in mobilizing support for that teachers’ strike as well as some members were actually members of the Oakland Education Association, and so they were rank and file organizers for the strike.
And so it’s an example of, and in the book it features all kinds of fun and inspiring details about DSA members getting up at six in the morning and being in these flying squadrons that would be driving all around Oakland, figuring out where reinforcement on picket lines were needed the most, engaging in our making the signs, the big mass marches that would happen. I was also there right before the strike and going a restaurant to restaurant, putting up signs that said that we support Oakland teachers at local businesses and restaurants and stuff. So it’s incredible. Again, just as they built this enormous apparatus basically from nothing, very few people in East Bay DSA had any experience in electoral politics but they built up this entire electoral campaign to support Jovanka Beckels. They lost in that campaign, but they then used that infrastructure to support this teacher strike that was part of the teachers’ strike wave that kicked off in 2018 with the red states like West Virginia and Arizona that we heard so much about, but it also spread to cities like Oakland in I believe January, 2019.
So it’s an example of how electoral politics can be used, not just to try to elect good left wing and Socialist elected officials, but it can also be used to take all of that infrastructure and then support other kinds of grassroots struggles like a union fight, like a teachers’ strike. And that kind of interplay between an electoral campaign that talks about class struggle, that talks about fighting the capitalist class. You can use that infrastructure and sort of seamlessly put it into that kind of worker led a struggle on the job. That’s crucial and we need to be able to do both.
The Socialist movement that’s emerging in the United States has been focused on doing both, engaging on both of those tracks, both the electoral realm and the grassroots organizing realm, which is important to talk about because grassroots organizing, bottom up union militancy and and other kinds of of bottom up organizing are often held in contrast somehow to electoral organizing, that you can choose to do one or the other. And the example of DSA in places like East Bay over the last few years shows that you can actually do both if you go about your organism the right way.
Jaisal Noor: Well that wraps up part two of our conversation. We’ve still got one more part to go. Thank you so much for joining us Micah Uetricht.
Micah Utrecht: Thank you.
Jaisal Noor: And thank you for joining us at the Real News Network. We’ll post all three parts of this interview at therealnews.com. We know that everyone’s quarantined at home and you need some good book recommendations so we’re going to start interviewing some authors of some great books that’ll give you something helpful and hopeful to read while we’re all locked down. Thank you for joining us at the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.