dailykos--2020-02-16--Anti-Capitalist Meetup: What's in a Name?

I don ’ t know what others do early in the morning or late at night , but as a compulsive news junkie with tinnitus , I turn on the news ( background noise is perfect to help with tinnitus ) just in case I missed something important during the day .
This Friday morning ( or , Thursday night for people like me who pretend that the next day does not begin until we rise from bed ) there was an interview with Paul Krugman ( the Nobel Prize winning economist ) .
He was being interviewed on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was talking primarily about the democratic primaries in the US and made some points on economics .
I will not discuss the sloppiness of his economic statements , but I have to be honest , this interview may have caused me to abandon late night news watching – what Krugman said was both intellectually sloppy and inaccurate ; instead of being interested and perhaps learning a few things about the Democratic race for President , I found myself getting angry .
Even more so , what was extremely strange was that the interviewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they are notoriously aggressive and yet there was not even a raised eyebrow at his statements .
Conveniently , Krugman has written an article along these lines in The New York Times on 13th of February .
Essentially , in his “ Hard Talk ” interview ( this is paraphrased ) , but I think correctly summarises his arguments , Paul Krugman argued that “ Bernie Sanders was not a socialist , he is a social democrat.
” Moreover , he said “ He calls himself a socialist to differentiate himself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a smaller left-wing state , he will run into problems in the wider US.
” So , why am I so pissed off ?
Well , quite simply , Paul Krugman is talking out of his arse .
This statement contains three assertions .
The first is simply fallacious .
Social Democrats are socialists ; they certainly identify as such .
The second is an assertion that Bernie Sanders is calling himself a socialist as an affectation , that he is not really a socialist .
This is rather insulting and implies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says he is ; that he is actually something else .
So , either Bernie is lying about his beliefs or Paul Krugman knows more about Sanders than Sanders himself does .
That is extremely improbable .
The third assertion , which may or may not be true , is that American voters will never accept ( or vote for ) a socialist as President .
This may or may not be true , but we will see in time .
I was so irritated at this interview of Krugman that I posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused some very interesting responses .
One of these was from a friend and comrade on the left and the other was from someone who was probably a progressive or a liberal .
My left-wing friend said she didn ’ t realise that social dems are socialists ; do they support the expropriation of means of production ?
The liberal said that “ social democrats were not socialists and that I somehow misunderstood the nuances of how this translates in the US.
” I was not surprised by the former comment ; many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social democrats as socialists for a number of reasons which we will discuss below in the debates of the 2nd International .
However , I did point out that some parties that define as social democratic supported the expropriation of the means of production ; for example there was the original clause IV in the Labour Party ’ s constitution ( which was altered so significantly when Tony Blair was its leader in 1995 ) .
The second comment was as insulting to me as Paul Krugman ’ s comment was to Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nuances of political debate in the US , but what underlies this statement ( and for that matter Krugman ’ s ) was that red-baiting is still so significant that lying to people , practising deception was the only way that a socialist could be elected in the US .
Now , to tell me that I do not understand red-baiting is humorous ; I grew up in the US .
Moreover , red-baiting is so common in the States that you may have noticed that when people red-bait us in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not hr it like we would for racism , sexism and misogyny , homophobia , transphobia and ableism .
I came to the conclusion that what happened would be very instructive to explain what the Anti-Capitalist Meetup ( and for that matter the Anti-Capitalist Chat ) actually is ; why are the members of the ACM from all groupings on the Left ; i.e.
, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists , various forms of Marxists and Anarchists and why this was so important that this group has existed for almost 10 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was created in 2010 by our comrade goinsouth and other members of the left on Daily Kos as a forum for debate among the anti-capitalist left and whose purpose was the “ goal of providing a forum to discuss the history , present day issues , and the future of the Capitalist system and its alternatives .
The Meet-up embraces and encourages intellectual and respectful discussion.
” I realise that part of the problem is how politics is discussed in the mainstream in the US .
Essentially , one is viewed either as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , needless to say , causes extreme problems because there is nothing conservative about either the President or many Republican members of Congress and their supporters .
They range from being reactionary and hard-right to right-wing .
What few “ moderates ” remain in the Republican Party could possibly be viewed as conservatives ; but their support for Trump makes that less and less coherent .
Understanding why real conservatives such as George Will are horrified by Trump and his support in the Republican Party is important .
Moreover , the endpoint on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is grossly inaccurate , of course , there are people in the US that are part of the hard ( er ) left .
Moreover , we can easily argue that liberals are not on the left ; at their best they are centre-left .
Given the rise of neoliberalism ( yes , there are different types of liberals ; after all liberalism is as an ideology which had evolved and changed perspective over time ) .
In its beginnings it was a Laissez Faire economics perspective , this altered given economic crises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which supported state intervention to ameliorate economic crises , and now we are living through its latest incarnation of neoliberalism with its support for free markets and trade and the attack on the public sector .
Social Liberalism maintains that to fight inequality which it certainly recognises is to support equality of opportunity rather than economic equality .
Speaking honestly , economic neoliberalism is essentially a centre-right perspective .
Looking at Democratic Party candidates we can see positions from the centre-right ( moderate Dems ) , centre-left ( progressives ) and amazingly for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party there is actually one socialist seeking the Democratic Party nomination for President .
Unlike in Social Democratic parties , socialists have never really been welcome in the Democratic Party ; the vast majority of liberals hate socialists far more than they probably hate the right ( this was certainly the case for John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes , two pre-eminent Liberals from different traditions in Liberalism ) .
Jeremy Corbyn is a left-wing social democrat , a long established and accepted political position in the Labour Party .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Election , you may have noticed that the Jo Swinson , leader of the Lib Dems , refused to even endorse Jeremy Corbyn in a caretaker role as Prime Minister and ruled out a coalition with Labour after the election .
This is not due to Swinson ’ s fantasy that they would be large enough not to need the LP to form a government ; what is the relevant consideration was their dislike of socialists and socialism .
This is also why the Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ( I found the joint nomination by the New York Times rather humorous , tbh ) rather than face the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning the election , the Dem leadership have even allowed Bloomberg to be a back-up in case their nightmare scenario comes to fruition .
How they can bend their own rules to the point of breaking by allowing Bloomberg to run as a Dem tells a lot ; clearly the idea that candidates must find support through donations means little when you can afford to spend hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel the pinch .
What is a socialist ?
In the broadest and most inclusive sense , a socialist is someone that rejects capitalism as an economic system due to its class nature ( means of production are privately owned ) and production ( both how and what is produced ) is determined according to the needs of the owners of the means of production ( capitalists ) to get profits on their investments rather than the needs of the population .
Exploitation of labour is an essential prerequisite to maintaining the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income and wealth , are also essential requirements to the capitalist system ; you can hardly force ( note the coercive element here ) people to work to survive if all of the resources are owned by all and production decisions are made in the interest of the whole population who have access to not only what they need to survive ( e.g.
, food , clothing , housing , water , energy , healthcare , transport ) but to lead fulfilling lives .
Some socialists believe that the means of production should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ; others believe that they should be held in common ownership .
One big question that has existed for quite some time in debates between socialists relates to the role of the state in a capitalist society and whether state ownership in a capitalist economy can actually mean that the state represents the people .
One way of looking at this question relates historically to the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy ; does this count as common ownership or does the nature of nationalisations in this context still mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is this actually socialism ?
Or is it something different ?
Is it a transitional state or does the working class have a new exploiter ?
In Ken Loach ’ s movie 1945 which discusses the Attlee government and its nationalisations of key sectors ( and building of social housing and provision of state healthcare for all free at the point of demand ) some people interviewed suggested that state ownership of those key industries didn ’ t change their situations truly , “ the new boss , same as the old boss.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that in some instances the managers under the new system were the same as the managers under the old .
Understanding the history of the socialist movement may be useful especially the debates among socialists and how to achieve socialism and what socialism is .
To get an idea of the divisions among the left we can quickly raise the histories of the various internationals of Socialists , Socialist parties , and their point of debates and collapse .
The First International , ( 1864-1876 ) also known as The International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London and was composed of socialists from all existing currents at the time ; political tensions between the various strands of socialists were evident from the beginning .
Differences between mutualists , cooperativists , collectivists , statists and communists ( all of whom were socialists ) were common and there were interesting alliances between factions .
Moreover , as the name suggests , it was made up of only men ; in 1865 , it was agreed that women could be members , but it was not until 1867 that a woman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Council leadership .
Internationalism and international solidarity were founding principles of the First International .
The First International split between the Anarchist and Marxist factions in 1872 at the Hague Conference ; resolutions on whether forming political parties to achieve state power as a prerequisite to achieving socialism was the dividing line to this red and black split in the international .
The Second International ( 1889-1916 ) was established in 1889 and was an organisation of socialist and labour parties tending to exclude from the beginning the Anarchists and Trade Unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates on how to achieve political power continued among members ; there were already broad differences between members some of whom were revolutionary Marxists and others that believed that socialism could be achieved through the election process .
Debates among Social Democrats on the nature of what constituted socialism , and whether it could be achieved through the bourgeois election process see for example , Rosa Luxemburg ’ s attack on Bersteinism and reformism in Social Reform and Revolution ( 1899-1900 ) were taken seriously and while there were widening diver gences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated seriously and debated .
Luxemburg ’ s criticism of Bernstein related to the fact that it was control over production rather than reducing inequalities due to distribution and consumption was the essential goal of socialists ; she argued that Bernsteinism was actually reformist as it reformed the system , it didn ’ t overthrow it and would not bring about socialism .
Even though revolutionary Marxists may not have believed that socialism could be achieved in this manner , participation in the bourgeois democratic process was considered appropriate .
So for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participation in the Third Duma ( 1907 ) established by the Tsar which Lenin called a “ caricature of popular representation ” and discussed tactics for social democrats and the nature of their participation in dealing with the Black Hundreds .
What finally caused the collapse of the Second International was World War I .
The split here came about because some of the social democratic political parties of various countries actually supported an imperialist war and hence their own country ’ s participation in this stupidity .
Note that some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WWI , like the Socialist Party of America led by Eugene V. Debs .
This split lead to the collapse of the German Social Party for example , with the hard left splitting off led by Rosa Luxemburg , Karl Liebknecht and Clara Zetkin to form the Spartacus League which later became the German Communist Party .
The collapse of the 2nd international led to two separate internationals forming .
On the one hand , revolutionary Marxists joined the 3rd International ( Communist International or Comintern ; 1919-1943 ) and on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1951 , the name retained by Social Democratic and Labour Parties ) created the Socialist International after WWII ( that international still exists today .
As an aside , both the Social Democrats US ( SDUSA ) and Democratic Socialists of America ( DSA ) have observer status in that international having been members in the past but now are observers ; it is also important to note that DSA left the Socialist International due to their acceptance of Neoliberalism ; the Socialist Party USA is neither a member or an observer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international called for the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie and the capitalist system by any means necessary including armed force .
This was the international for the revolutionary left until Stalinism became hegemonic and the former Left Opposition split from the Comintern .
The 4th International ( formed in 1938 ) in opposition to Stalinism is composed of revolutionary Marxists following the Trotskyist perspective relating to international socialism ( rejecting socialism in one country ) , permanent revolution and the transitional programme .
You may have noticed if you read the links that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used by all members of the 2nd international to describe themselves irrespective of differences in how they believe socialism could be achieved and the beliefs in what socialism meant to each grouping .
The fact that disagreements were open and debate was possible between those with wide differences ( and this continued until the consolidation of Stalinism ) should tell you that democracy was fundamental to socialists and worthy of debate .
Even modern social democrats consider themselves socialists ; in point of fact , the original name for socialists was social democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2nd international with the rise of the Communist International whereby social democrat became associated with the Socialist and Labour parties .
Many members of the hard left ( that is revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists ) do not believe that social democrats are really socialists ; this relates to whether state ownership of the means of production by a capitalist state is actually socialist ; the main difference between social democrats arguing for nationalisation of key industries from liberal supporting it is not a small one .
For the former , nationalisation or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diluted ) of common ownership rather than the Liberal belief in the idea of natural monopolies run by the state to ensure access .
Additionally , given the acceptance of neoliberalism by many of the modern social democratic parties in Europe that differentiation is not surprising ; but differences existed previously due to how to achieve socialism and whether or not nationalisation of key industries would actually constitute socialism especially in the context of a bourgeois state ( a state where the system of capitalism and private property is supported in law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we should raise is the collapse of many of these social democratic parties into liberalism and their subsequent losses of support among voters .
Their shift to the right led to the creation of parties that represented the broad left like Podemos in Spain , Bloco in Portugal , the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark , and Die Linke in Germany .
Hopefully that is clear ; but probably that is as clear as mud .
So let ’ s return to the original point now that the historical excursion is concluded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are historical precedents to the use of the term socialist and socialism in the US ( and of course in the rest of the world ) .
Socialists are neither unknown in the US and there are also people in the US that are Marxists of various groupings as well as Anarchists .
These are political positions that not only existed historically but still exist today .
There are of course serious political differences between these political positions ; but historically social democrats are socialists .
DSA certainly view themselves as socialists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are not .
In fact , their constitution explicitly says that they are : One thing is DSA , another is Bernie Sanders .
Is he or is he not a member ?
If not a member , is he close to the organisation ?
The issue of whether Bernie Sanders is a socialist or “ very liberal ” or progressive is not a small one ; to deny his right to call himself a socialist is ridiculous .
He may be a right-wing social dem , but he can call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he differ from Jeremy Corbyn who is a left-wing social democrat ?
As Albanius points out in the comments I unfairly criticised Sanders saying that he is insufficiently anti-imperialist ; given his opposition to the Vietnam War , his opposition to both Iraq Wars ( but gave funding to the war ) and his attempt to stop military aid to Saudi Arabia over their intervention in Yemen , I will accept this .
Yet , I will still argue that Bernie is a right-wing social dem ; there are still obvious differences between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic policy specifically to the nationalisation of key sectors advocated in the LP manifesto and the manner in which the Green New Deal is addressed through the understanding of climate change being of a class nature .
These types of arguments are absent from Sander ’ s economic arguments ( but this may be due to US history and the fears of socialism in the US ) ; perhaps this would be insurmountable in the current US .
Irrespective , I would argue that Sanders can not only call himself a socialist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democrats are not socialist is a demonstration of Krugman ’ s lack of fitness to actually discuss that issue .
In fact , I ’ ve been wondering if this is actually a logical fallacy ( specifically an argument from authority ) like an Argumentum ad verecundiam on his part ; just because you have a Nobel Prize in Economics , it doesn ’ t mean that you are qualified to comment on politics , especially on the question of socialism and social democrats as it is evident he hasn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ( as our cursory walk into history has demonstrated ) .
But , appeals to authority notably refers to someone else , they are not self-referential .
Simply put , Krugman is wrong , but it may not be a logical fallacy ; he simply doesn ’ t have enough knowledge to state his position .
Krugman is a liberal , that is fine , but he is not an expert on socialism and the fact that he thinks he is qualified to comment on what Bernie Sanders is or isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logical fallacy where an authority in one thing means you are an authority on all things albeit on a self-referential level ; in which case , it is not a logical fallacy at all , Krugman is wrong .
One additional point that is important to note which is relevant to this discussion relates to Sanders ’ s economic policies that are clearly more Keynesian rather than socialist .
Why do many current Democratic Party leaders think that these policies are beyond the pale ?
Why were some of these policies associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate for the Dems ?
Roosevelt was most certainly not a socialist , he was a Keynesian liberal and while some of those that constructed these policies may have been socialists and institutionalist economists , it does not mean that the policies themselves are socialist .
Wait , does that mean that Bernie is not a socialist ?
Is Sanders advocating policies that can help and which he thinks can be useful to make the lives of the majority better even if they are not socialist ?
Hey , I am a Marxist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s socialism is not what I have been fighting for my whole life .
But I will not tell Sanders that he can not call himself a socialist if he believes that he is one .
Let ’ s zoom in a bit more .
Why is the Green New Deal criticised from the right ( which is to be expected ) as well as the left ( many on the left worry about Greenwashing and their genuine concern that we can not stop it unless we abandon capitalism ) in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policies advocated by the social democratic Labour Party differ from those advocated by the Dems in the US ?
The situation is dire ; we are destroying our planet and the life that depends on it .
Yet , the Green New Deal policies advocated in the Democratic Party do differ from those advocated by the Labour Party ; but there are things that they definitely share .
For example , both contain programmes attempting to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 , state research and investment in renewable energy development , and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just transition for workers is essential to both plans , workers ’ employment is threatened by these changes ( either in job guarantees or retraining workers and creating new public sector jobs ) and if we don ’ t make these changes the whole planet is threatened by climate change .
In both cases , it is recognised that the private sector will not do this on its own and that regulations and rules must be forced on them by national governments .
The political situation in the US makes things far harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or communist under your bed ( weirdly , it is still “ reds under your bed ” even when the Republican party is identified by the colour red ; btw , this confuses the hell out of everyone outside of the US ) and the fear that things like state-provided healthcare could be the first domino to fall bringing socialism to the US ( along with the inevitable red takeover ) .
In many senses , the fears of the reds coming to get you still holds in the US ; this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements “ perhaps if we deny Sanders is socialist then he won ’ t be ?
!
” Or perhaps the US can finally get over its fear of reds and really look at where the dangers are ; the rise and normalisation of hard-right reactionary politics which relies on divide and rule to keep the exploited and oppressed at each other ’ s throats .
We are actually in a situation where we are discussing whether Trump is a proto-fascist ; yet somehow it is whether Bernie is a socialist which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; if Trump gets re-elected racism , misogyny , homophobia and transphobia and ableism will continue to rise .
The dangers of rising violence against people of colour , the hard left and ethnic and religious minorities should be a significant concern .
Fighting an environmental catastrophe without the US participating even in a small way is impossible as the US continues to contribute to the economic catastrophe .
While I believe ecosocialism is essential , even basic reforms ( yes , even under capitalism ; note that I do not think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent and continuous economic growth ) , can help fight ( if not end ) the climate catastrophe we are in .
Now if we can only get the US on board , then we have a chance .

I don’t know what others do early in the morning or late at night, but as a compulsive news junkie with tinnitus, I turn on the news (background noise is perfect to help with tinnitus) just in case I missed something important during the day.
This Friday morning (or, Thursday night for people like me who pretend that the next day does not begin until we rise from bed) there was an interview with Paul Krugman (the Nobel Prize winning economist). He was being interviewed on the news programme “Hard Talk.” Krugman was talking primarily about the democratic primaries in the US and made some points on economics. I will not discuss the sloppiness of his economic statements, but I have to be honest, this interview may have caused me to abandon late night news watching – what Krugman said was both intellectually sloppy and inaccurate; instead of being interested and perhaps learning a few things about the Democratic race for President, I found myself getting angry. Even more so, what was extremely strange was that the interviewer did not disabuse Krugman of his ideas; they are notoriously aggressive and yet there was not even a raised eyebrow at his statements. Conveniently, Krugman has written an article along these lines in The New York Times on 13th of February.
“The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn’t actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn’t want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning; he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He’s basically what Europeans would call a social democrat — and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact, quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own. So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I’d say that it’s mainly about personal branding, with a dash of glee at shocking the bourgeoisie. And this self-indulgence did no harm as long as he was just a senator from a very liberal state.”
Essentially, in his “Hard Talk” interview (this is paraphrased), but I think correctly summarises his arguments, Paul Krugman argued that “Bernie Sanders was not a socialist, he is a social democrat.” Moreover, he said “He calls himself a socialist to differentiate himself and while that is fine for a Senator from a smaller left-wing state, he will run into problems in the wider US.”
So, why am I so pissed off? Well, quite simply, Paul Krugman is talking out of his arse. This statement contains three assertions. The first is simply fallacious. Social Democrats are socialists; they certainly identify as such. The second is an assertion that Bernie Sanders is calling himself a socialist as an affectation, that he is not really a socialist. This is rather insulting and implies that Bernie Sanders is not what he says he is; that he is actually something else. So, either Bernie is lying about his beliefs or Paul Krugman knows more about Sanders than Sanders himself does. That is extremely improbable. The third assertion, which may or may not be true, is that American voters will never accept (or vote for) a socialist as President. This may or may not be true, but we will see in time.
I was so irritated at this interview of Krugman that I posted my frustration with it on facebook which caused some very interesting responses. One of these was from a friend and comrade on the left and the other was from someone who was probably a progressive or a liberal. My left-wing friend said she didn’t realise that social dems are socialists; do they support the expropriation of means of production? The liberal said that “social democrats were not socialists and that I somehow misunderstood the nuances of how this translates in the US.”
I was not surprised by the former comment; many on the hard left do not view social democrats as socialists for a number of reasons which we will discuss below in the debates of the 2nd International. However, I did point out that some parties that define as social democratic supported the expropriation of the means of production; for example there was the original clause IV in the Labour Party’s constitution (which was altered so significantly when Tony Blair was its leader in 1995).
Here is the original clause IV from the LP’s constitution agreed in 1918:
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
The second comment was as insulting to me as Paul Krugman’s comment was to Bernie Sanders. Not only do I know the nuances of political debate in the US, but what underlies this statement (and for that matter Krugman’s) was that red-baiting is still so significant that lying to people, practising deception was the only way that a socialist could be elected in the US. Now, to tell me that I do not understand red-baiting is humorous; I grew up in the US. Moreover, red-baiting is so common in the States that you may have noticed that when people red-bait us in the ACM we simply point it out and do not hr it like we would for racism, sexism and misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and ableism.
I came to the conclusion that what happened would be very instructive to explain what the Anti-Capitalist Meetup (and for that matter the Anti-Capitalist Chat) actually is; why are the members of the ACM from all groupings on the Left; i.e., Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, various forms of Marxists and Anarchists and why this was so important that this group has existed for almost 10 years on the Daily Kos. The ACM was created in 2010 by our comrade goinsouth and other members of the left on Daily Kos as a forum for debate among the anti-capitalist left and whose purpose was the “goal of providing a forum to discuss the history, present day issues, and the future of the Capitalist system and its alternatives. The Meet-up embraces and encourages intellectual and respectful discussion.”
I realise that part of the problem is how politics is discussed in the mainstream in the US. Essentially, one is viewed either as a liberal or a conservative. That, needless to say, causes extreme problems because there is nothing conservative about either the President or many Republican members of Congress and their supporters. They range from being reactionary and hard-right to right-wing. What few “moderates” remain in the Republican Party could possibly be viewed as conservatives; but their support for Trump makes that less and less coherent. Understanding why real conservatives such as George Will are horrified by Trump and his support in the Republican Party is important.
Moreover, the endpoint on the left is not liberal; that is grossly inaccurate, of course, there are people in the US that are part of the hard(er) left. Moreover, we can easily argue that liberals are not on the left; at their best they are centre-left. Given the rise of neoliberalism (yes, there are different types of liberals; after all liberalism is as an ideology which had evolved and changed perspective over time). In its beginnings it was a Laissez Faire economics perspective, this altered given economic crises and depression to embrace Keynesian economic liberalism which supported state intervention to ameliorate economic crises, and now we are living through its latest incarnation of neoliberalism with its support for free markets and trade and the attack on the public sector. Social Liberalism maintains that to fight inequality which it certainly recognises is to support equality of opportunity rather than economic equality. Speaking honestly, economic neoliberalism is essentially a centre-right perspective.
Looking at Democratic Party candidates we can see positions from the centre-right (moderate Dems), centre-left (progressives) and amazingly for those that know the history of the Democratic Party there is actually one socialist seeking the Democratic Party nomination for President. Unlike in Social Democratic parties, socialists have never really been welcome in the Democratic Party; the vast majority of liberals hate socialists far more than they probably hate the right (this was certainly the case for John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes, two pre-eminent Liberals from different traditions in Liberalism).
Jeremy Corbyn is a left-wing social democrat, a long established and accepted political position in the Labour Party. Moreover, if you were watching the British General Election, you may have noticed that the Jo Swinson, leader of the Lib Dems, refused to even endorse Jeremy Corbyn in a caretaker role as Prime Minister and ruled out a coalition with Labour after the election. This is not due to Swinson’s fantasy that they would be large enough not to need the LP to form a government; what is the relevant consideration was their dislike of socialists and socialism. This is also why the Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Biden, now Klobuchar and Buttigieg and even Elizabeth Warren (I found the joint nomination by the New York Times rather humorous, tbh) rather than face the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning the election, the Dem leadership have even allowed Bloomberg to be a back-up in case their nightmare scenario comes to fruition. How they can bend their own rules to the point of breaking by allowing Bloomberg to run as a Dem tells a lot; clearly the idea that candidates must find support through donations means little when you can afford to spend hundreds of millions of your own money and not feel the pinch.
Socialism and Socialists
What is a socialist? In the broadest and most inclusive sense, a socialist is someone that rejects capitalism as an economic system due to its class nature (means of production are privately owned) and production (both how and what is produced) is determined according to the needs of the owners of the means of production (capitalists) to get profits on their investments rather than the needs of the population. Exploitation of labour is an essential prerequisite to maintaining the system. Inequality, both in terms of income and wealth, are also essential requirements to the capitalist system; you can hardly force (note the coercive element here) people to work to survive if all of the resources are owned by all and production decisions are made in the interest of the whole population who have access to not only what they need to survive (e.g., food, clothing, housing, water, energy, healthcare, transport) but to lead fulfilling lives. Some socialists believe that the means of production should be owned by the state representing the people; others believe that they should be held in common ownership.
Eugene V Debs was a socialist … at least he was the leader of the Socialist Party of America
One big question that has existed for quite some time in debates between socialists relates to the role of the state in a capitalist society and whether state ownership in a capitalist economy can actually mean that the state represents the people. One way of looking at this question relates historically to the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy; does this count as common ownership or does the nature of nationalisations in this context still mean that workers are exploited by the state. Is this actually socialism? Or is it something different? Is it a transitional state or does the working class have a new exploiter?
In Ken Loach’s movie 1945 which discusses the Attlee government and its nationalisations of key sectors (and building of social housing and provision of state healthcare for all free at the point of demand) some people interviewed suggested that state ownership of those key industries didn’t change their situations truly, “the new boss, same as the old boss.” That perception was not helped by the fact that in some instances the managers under the new system were the same as the managers under the old.
A Brief Historical Excursion
Understanding the history of the socialist movement may be useful especially the debates among socialists and how to achieve socialism and what socialism is. To get an idea of the divisions among the left we can quickly raise the histories of the various internationals of Socialists, Socialist parties, and their point of debates and collapse.
The First International, (1864-1876) also known as The International Workingmen’s Association, met in London and was composed of socialists from all existing currents at the time; political tensions between the various strands of socialists were evident from the beginning. Differences between mutualists, cooperativists, collectivists, statists and communists (all of whom were socialists) were common and there were interesting alliances between factions. Moreover, as the name suggests, it was made up of only men; in 1865, it was agreed that women could be members, but it was not until 1867 that a woman, Harriet Law, was elected to the General Council leadership. Internationalism and international solidarity were founding principles of the First International.
Mikhail Bakunin
The First International split between the Anarchist and Marxist factions in 1872 at the Hague Conference; resolutions on whether forming political parties to achieve state power as a prerequisite to achieving socialism was the dividing line to this red and black split in the international.
Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg, were they socialists … yes ...
The Second International (1889-1916) was established in 1889 and was an organisation of socialist and labour parties tending to exclude from the beginning the Anarchists and Trade Unions. The development of socialist ideas and debates on how to achieve political power continued among members; there were already broad differences between members some of whom were revolutionary Marxists and others that believed that socialism could be achieved through the election process.
Debates among Social Democrats on the nature of what constituted socialism, and whether it could be achieved through the bourgeois election process see for example, Rosa Luxemburg’s attack on Bersteinism and reformism in Social Reform and Revolution (1899-1900) were taken seriously and while there were widening diver
What about Lenin?
gences, differences among members and political parties were treated seriously and debated. Luxemburg’s criticism of Bernstein related to the fact that it was control over production rather than reducing inequalities due to distribution and consumption was the essential goal of socialists; she argued that Bernsteinism was actually reformist as it reformed the system, it didn’t overthrow it and would not bring about socialism.
Eduard Bernstein … was he a socialist?
Even though revolutionary Marxists may not have believed that socialism could be achieved in this manner, participation in the bourgeois democratic process was considered appropriate. So for example, Lenin and the Bolsheviks called for participation in the Third Duma (1907) established by the Tsar which Lenin called a “caricature of popular representation” and discussed tactics for social democrats and the nature of their participation in dealing with the Black Hundreds.
What finally caused the collapse of the Second International was World War I. The split here came about because some of the social democratic political parties of various countries actually supported an imperialist war and hence their own country’s participation in this stupidity. Note that some of the socialist parties did not support participation in WWI, like the Socialist Party of America led by Eugene V. Debs. This split lead to the collapse of the German Social Party for example, with the hard left splitting off led by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Clara Zetkin to form the Spartacus League which later became the German Communist Party.
The collapse of the 2nd international led to two separate internationals forming. On the one hand, revolutionary Marxists joined the 3rd International (Communist International or Comintern; 1919-1943) and on the other hand, social democrats (formed in 1951, the name retained by Social Democratic and Labour Parties) created the Socialist International after WWII (that international still exists today.
As an aside, both the Social Democrats US (SDUSA) and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have observer status in that international having been members in the past but now are observers; it is also important to note that DSA left the Socialist International due to their acceptance of Neoliberalism; the Socialist Party USA is neither a member or an observer in the Socialist International).
The 3rd international called for the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie and the capitalist system by any means necessary including armed force. This was the international for the revolutionary left until Stalinism became hegemonic and the former Left Opposition split from the Comintern. The 4th International (formed in 1938) in opposition to Stalinism is composed of revolutionary Marxists following the Trotskyist perspective relating to international socialism (rejecting socialism in one country), permanent revolution and the transitional programme.
You may have noticed if you read the links that the term social democrats and social democracy were used by all members of the 2nd international to describe themselves irrespective of differences in how they believe socialism could be achieved and the beliefs in what socialism meant to each grouping. The fact that disagreements were open and debate was possible between those with wide differences (and this continued until the consolidation of Stalinism) should tell you that democracy was fundamental to socialists and worthy of debate. Even modern social democrats consider themselves socialists; in point of fact, the original name for socialists was social democrats. This changed after the split in the 2nd international with the rise of the Communist International whereby social democrat became associated with the Socialist and Labour parties.
Many members of the hard left (that is revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists) do not believe that social democrats are really socialists; this relates to whether state ownership of the means of production by a capitalist state is actually socialist; the main difference between social democrats arguing for nationalisation of key industries from liberal supporting it is not a small one. For the former, nationalisation or socialisation relates to an idea (however diluted) of common ownership rather than the Liberal belief in the idea of natural monopolies run by the state to ensure access.
Additionally, given the acceptance of neoliberalism by many of the modern social democratic parties in Europe that differentiation is not surprising; but differences existed previously due to how to achieve socialism and whether or not nationalisation of key industries would actually constitute socialism especially in the context of a bourgeois state (a state where the system of capitalism and private property is supported in law and practice). One very interesting point that we should raise is the collapse of many of these social democratic parties into liberalism and their subsequent losses of support among voters. Their shift to the right led to the creation of parties that represented the broad left like Podemos in Spain, Bloco in Portugal, the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, and Die Linke in Germany.
Onwards and Upwards
Hopefully that is clear; but probably that is as clear as mud. So let’s return to the original point now that the historical excursion is concluded. What hopefully is clear is that there are historical precedents to the use of the term socialist and socialism in the US (and of course in the rest of the world). Socialists are neither unknown in the US and there are also people in the US that are Marxists of various groupings as well as Anarchists. These are political positions that not only existed historically but still exist today. There are of course serious political differences between these political positions; but historically social democrats are socialists. DSA certainly view themselves as socialists and would be rather surprised to be told that they are not. In fact, their constitution explicitly says that they are:
“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.”
One thing is DSA, another is Bernie Sanders. Is he or is he not a member? If not a member, is he close to the organisation? The issue of whether Bernie Sanders is a socialist or “very liberal” or progressive is not a small one; to deny his right to call himself a socialist is ridiculous. He may be a right-wing social dem, but he can call himself a socialist. So how does he differ from Jeremy Corbyn who is a left-wing social democrat? As Albanius points out in the comments I unfairly criticised Sanders saying that he is insufficiently anti-imperialist; given his opposition to the Vietnam War, his opposition to both Iraq Wars (but gave funding to the war) and his attempt to stop military aid to Saudi Arabia over their intervention in Yemen, I will accept this. Yet, I will still argue that Bernie is a right-wing social dem; there are still obvious differences between him and Corbyn primarily relating to their economic policy specifically to the nationalisation of key sectors advocated in the LP manifesto and the manner in which the Green New Deal is addressed through the understanding of climate change being of a class nature. These types of arguments are absent from Sander’s economic arguments (but this may be due to US history and the fears of socialism in the US); perhaps this would be insurmountable in the current US.
Is Michael Harrington a socialist?
Irrespective, I would argue that Sanders can not only call himself a socialist, but Krugman’s insistence that social democrats are not socialist is a demonstration of Krugman’s lack of fitness to actually discuss that issue. In fact, I’ve been wondering if this is actually a logical fallacy (specifically an argument from authority) like an Argumentum ad verecundiam on his part; just because you have a Nobel Prize in Economics, it doesn’t mean that you are qualified to comment on politics, especially on the question of socialism and social democrats as it is evident he hasn’t the slightest idea of what he is talking about (as our cursory walk into history has demonstrated). But, appeals to authority notably refers to someone else, they are not self-referential. Simply put, Krugman is wrong, but it may not be a logical fallacy; he simply doesn’t have enough knowledge to state his position. Krugman is a liberal, that is fine, but he is not an expert on socialism and the fact that he thinks he is qualified to comment on what Bernie Sanders is or isn’t seems to be bordering on a logical fallacy where an authority in one thing means you are an authority on all things albeit on a self-referential level; in which case, it is not a logical fallacy at all, Krugman is wrong.
One additional point that is important to note which is relevant to this discussion relates to Sanders’s economic policies that are clearly more Keynesian rather than socialist. Why do many current Democratic Party leaders think that these policies are beyond the pale? Why were some of these policies associated with FDR’s New Deal no longer appropriate for the Dems? Roosevelt was most certainly not a socialist, he was a Keynesian liberal and while some of those that constructed these policies may have been socialists and institutionalist economists, it does not mean that the policies themselves are socialist.
What about Cornel West?
Wait, does that mean that Bernie is not a socialist? Is Sanders advocating policies that can help and which he thinks can be useful to make the lives of the majority better even if they are not socialist? Hey, I am a Marxist, I can say that Bernie’s socialism is not what I have been fighting for my whole life. But I will not tell Sanders that he cannot call himself a socialist if he believes that he is one.
Let’s zoom in a bit more. Why is the Green New Deal criticised from the right (which is to be expected) as well as the left (many on the left worry about Greenwashing and their genuine concern that we cannot stop it unless we abandon capitalism) in the US? How do the Green New Deal Policies advocated by the social democratic Labour Party differ from those advocated by the Dems in the US? The situation is dire; we are destroying our planet and the life that depends on it. Yet, the Green New Deal policies advocated in the Democratic Party do differ from those advocated by the Labour Party; but there are things that they definitely share. For example, both contain programmes attempting to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, state research and investment in renewable energy development, and public transport solutions. The issue of a just transition for workers is essential to both plans, workers’ employment is threatened by these changes (either in job guarantees or retraining workers and creating new public sector jobs) and if we don’t make these changes the whole planet is threatened by climate change. In both cases, it is recognised that the private sector will not do this on its own and that regulations and rules must be forced on them by national governments.
The political situation in the US makes things far harder due to the fear of the socialist or communist under your bed (weirdly, it is still “reds under your bed” even when the Republican party is identified by the colour red; btw, this confuses the hell out of everyone outside of the US) and the fear that things like state-provided healthcare could be the first domino to fall bringing socialism to the US (along with the inevitable red takeover). In many senses, the fears of the reds coming to get you still holds in the US; this is what is reflected in Krugman’s statements “perhaps if we deny Sanders is socialist then he won’t be?!” Or perhaps the US can finally get over its fear of reds and really look at where the dangers are; the rise and normalisation of hard-right reactionary politics which relies on divide and rule to keep the exploited and oppressed at each other’s throats. We are actually in a situation where we are discussing whether Trump is a proto-fascist; yet somehow it is whether Bernie is a socialist which is important.
Time is honestly running out; if Trump gets re-elected racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia and ableism will continue to rise. The dangers of rising violence against people of colour, the hard left and ethnic and religious minorities should be a significant concern. Fighting an environmental catastrophe without the US participating even in a small way is impossible as the US continues to contribute to the economic catastrophe. While I believe ecosocialism is essential, even basic reforms (yes, even under capitalism; note that I do not think that capitalism can continue to be based on permanent and continuous economic growth), can help fight (if not end) the climate catastrophe we are in. Now if we can only get the US on board, then we have a chance.


dailykos--2020-02-16--Trump and the GOP have Sabotaged our Response to Biothreats like Coronavirus

USA ’ s ability to respond to biothreats like the Wuhan Coronavirus needs to become a larger part of the 2020 Election discussion — because it allows us to highlight how Trump and the GOP have sabotaged our country ’ s abilities to respond .
A good example is the Republican Party ’ s ongoing efforts to repeal and otherwise weaken Obamacare , a.k.a .
the Affordable Care Act .
One of the aspects of Obamacare that would be gutted by GOP repeal efforts is called the Prevention and Public Health Fund .
Through the ACA , the Prevention and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — approximately $ 1 billion a year .
The Prevention and Public Health Fund currently provides nearly half of the funding for the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity program .
It supports the efforts of state and local health departments to track outbreaks for conditions like meningitis and foodborne illness .
It also helps develop rapid responses to evolving threats such as Ebola and the West Nile virus .
In Trump ’ s most recent Presidential budget proposal , the Prevention and Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw massive funding cuts .
I think this issue is a great example to use to highlight how much better a Democratic Party candidate would address and take seriously these threats .
Elizabeth Warren , for example , includes a significant portion of her primary campaign website to highlight a better response .
It ’ s essential that we continue pushing for medical advances -- both to treat those who contract diseases and vaccinate against those we can prevent .
Invest in basic science .
I have committed to invest $ 100 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion of that will fund basic science research .
And when drug companies break the law , I ’ ll create a “ swear jar ” where companies will pay a portion of their profits from publicly-funded research back to the NIH .
This funding will expand the research we need to develop vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases we know and novel diseases that have not yet emerged .
Invest and incentivize development of new medical countermeasures .
To ensure we are able to effectively surge development during a pandemic , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical countermeasure development .
As President , I will ensure that small biotechnology innovators get ongoing support from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) , and we will leverage the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ’ s ) expertise in manufacturing and clinical trials to help larger drug manufacturers bring these countermeasures to market at scale .
Ensure treatments can reach patients quickly .
Time is critical when you ’ re combating infectious diseases .
We must make sure that our system is ready to “ turn on ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means we must constantly evaluate our medical countermeasure stockpiles and prepare annual updated biological threat assessments .
And during an outbreak , we must quickly distribute medical countermeasures , with proper protections for equitable distribution across communities .
Ensure safety of high security labs .
My administration will not allow labs to generate novel viruses with epidemic or pandemic potential , or to perform field testing of such viruses and will closely monitor dual-use research on biological threats and update policies as needed .
This knowledge is incredibly important to protect our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used as a weapon .
And we must be vigilant about lab safety standards and avoid accidentally mailing anthrax or forgetting about smallpox specimens for 50 years .
And although I am sure Warren is not the only major Democratic candidate who speaks well on the issue , her page so far is the most impressive that I have come across .
If the issue of how to prepare and respond to threats like the novel coronavirus becomes a more important discussion topic such as during the debates , I am sure we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidates before long , and would be a great benefit towards the run to the General election .
On the other hand , a lot of Trump and the rest of the Republican Party ’ s efforts have largely made it harder for the US to prepare and respond to outbreaks .
In the spring of 2018 , the White House pushed Congress to cut funding for Obama-era disease security programs , proposing to eliminate $ 252 million in previously committed resources for rebuilding health systems in Ebola-ravaged Liberia , Sierra Leone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides of the aisle , President Donald Trump dropped the proposal to eliminate Ebola funds a month later .
But other White House efforts included reducing $ 15 billion in national health spending and cutting the global disease-fighting operational budgets of the CDC , NSC , DHS , and HHS .
And the government ’ s $ 30 million Complex Crises Fund was eliminated .
In May 2018 , Trump ordered the NSC ’ s entire global health security unit shut down , calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The month before , then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer ’ s DHS counterpart , Tom Bossert , to resign along with his team .
Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced .
The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10 .
Meanwhile , throughout 2018 , the U.S. Agency for International Development and its director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from both the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
And though Congress has so far managed to block Trump administration plans to cut the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40 percent , the disease-fighting cadres have steadily eroded as retiring officers go unreplaced .
So it would be great if it became more of a discussion topic in things like the televised Democratic debates , as I trust that most of the primary candidates would do well speaking on how they plan to address the issue .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great opportunity to point out to the entire country , how badly Trump and the GOP have left us weak and vulnerable .
Even though the story of the Wuhan Coronavirus is still unfolding , and we do not yet know if the outbreak will be largely contained or become a true global crisis .
But even if not coronavirus , another global pandemic will almost undoubtedly come before too long .
And because the Trump and the Republican Party have largely set back America ’ s healthcare reforms because of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systematic reforms such as the Affordable Care Act , it has also in the process , left us largely vulnerable to these real biological threats .
While it is true that Trump can point to his idea of a response to coronavirus , such as the travel bans , to claim that he is addressing the issue after all .
But compared to the system that country could be utilizing , his policies are largely a worse response than the USA is truly capable of .
Trump and the GOP ’ s policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as climate change and seasonal predictable emergencies like wildfires and hurricanes .
Slash funding to the agencies and programs that could help us prevent , mitigate , monitor , and alert on these issues , then when disaster truly does strike , force our government to rush through exorbitantly more costly emergency aid packages — all in the name of their so-called “ fiscal responsibility.
” However , what their response could best be compared to , is the used car salesmen , who tell you that routine preventive maintenance like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money , and it ’ s better to instead let things inevitably fail , and then buy a whole new car a few years down the line .
While I understand this is not the main priority for many in the Democratic Primaries , it is also a valuable opportunity to highlight just how bad and predatory the used car salesmen of Trump and the Republican Party truly are .
And since we are talking about threats of a global nature such as an epidemic , the stakes are far higher than @ @ @ @ @ @ @

USA’s ability to respond to biothreats like the Wuhan Coronavirus needs to become a larger part of the 2020 Election discussion — because it allows us to highlight how Trump and the GOP have sabotaged our country’s abilities to respond.
A good example is the Republican Party’s ongoing efforts to repeal and otherwise weaken Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act. One of the aspects of Obamacare that would be gutted by GOP repeal efforts is called the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Through the ACA, the Prevention and Public Health Fund accounts for nearly one-seventh of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — approximately $1 billion a year. The Prevention and Public Health Fund currently provides nearly half of the funding for the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity program. It supports the efforts of state and local health departments to track outbreaks for conditions like meningitis and foodborne illness. It also helps develop rapid responses to evolving threats such as Ebola and the West Nile virus.
In Trump’s most recent Presidential budget proposal, the Prevention and Public Health Fund and other infectious disease programs saw massive funding cuts.
As the US health care system watches the ongoing coronavirus epidemic in China and braces for a potential local outbreak, President Trump is looking to cut funding for public health preparedness programs. The administration’s proposed 2021 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cuts $25 million from the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response and $18 million from the Hospital Preparedness Program. The administration also asked for over $85 million in cuts to the Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases program.
I think this issue is a great example to use to highlight how much better a Democratic Party candidate would address and take seriously these threats.
Elizabeth Warren, for example, includes a significant portion of her primary campaign website to highlight a better response.
TREATING EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES It’s essential that we continue pushing for medical advances -- both to treat those who contract diseases and vaccinate against those we can prevent. Invest in basic science. I have committed to invest $100 billion in the NIH -- and $60 billion of that will fund basic science research. And when drug companies break the law, I’ll create a “swear jar” where companies will pay a portion of their profits from publicly-funded research back to the NIH. This funding will expand the research we need to develop vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases we know and novel diseases that have not yet emerged. Invest and incentivize development of new medical countermeasures. To ensure we are able to effectively surge development during a pandemic, we must build and maintain strong infrastructure for medical countermeasure development. As President, I will ensure that small biotechnology innovators get ongoing support from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and we will leverage the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) expertise in manufacturing and clinical trials to help larger drug manufacturers bring these countermeasures to market at scale. Ensure treatments can reach patients quickly. Time is critical when you’re combating infectious diseases. We must make sure that our system is ready to “turn on” at a moment’s notice. That means we must constantly evaluate our medical countermeasure stockpiles and prepare annual updated biological threat assessments. And during an outbreak, we must quickly distribute medical countermeasures, with proper protections for equitable distribution across communities. Ensure safety of high security labs. My administration will not allow labs to generate novel viruses with epidemic or pandemic potential, or to perform field testing of such viruses and will closely monitor dual-use research on biological threats and update policies as needed. This knowledge is incredibly important to protect our health, but could be harmful if used as a weapon. And we must be vigilant about lab safety standards and avoid accidentally mailing anthrax or forgetting about smallpox specimens for 50 years.
And although I am sure Warren is not the only major Democratic candidate who speaks well on the issue, her page so far is the most impressive that I have come across. If the issue of how to prepare and respond to threats like the novel coronavirus becomes a more important discussion topic such as during the debates, I am sure we would see similar initiatives proposed by all the candidates before long, and would be a great benefit towards the run to the General election.
On the other hand, a lot of Trump and the rest of the Republican Party’s efforts have largely made it harder for the US to prepare and respond to outbreaks.
In the spring of 2018, the White House pushed Congress to cut funding for Obama-era disease security programs, proposing to eliminate $252 million in previously committed resources for rebuilding health systems in Ebola-ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Under fire from both sides of the aisle, President Donald Trump dropped the proposal to eliminate Ebola funds a month later. But other White House efforts included reducing $15 billion in national health spending and cutting the global disease-fighting operational budgets of the CDC, NSC, DHS, and HHS. And the government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund was eliminated. In May 2018, Trump ordered the NSC’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency. The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced. The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10. Meanwhile, throughout 2018, the U.S. Agency for International Development and its director, Mark Green, came repeatedly under fire from both the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And though Congress has so far managed to block Trump administration plans to cut the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40 percent, the disease-fighting cadres have steadily eroded as retiring officers go unreplaced.
So it would be great if it became more of a discussion topic in things like the televised Democratic debates, as I trust that most of the primary candidates would do well speaking on how they plan to address the issue. But more importantly, because it would be a great opportunity to point out to the entire country, how badly Trump and the GOP have left us weak and vulnerable.
Even though the story of the Wuhan Coronavirus is still unfolding, and we do not yet know if the outbreak will be largely contained or become a true global crisis. But even if not coronavirus, another global pandemic will almost undoubtedly come before too long. And because the Trump and the Republican Party have largely set back America’s healthcare reforms because of their defense of private healthcare and attacks on systematic reforms such as the Affordable Care Act, it has also in the process, left us largely vulnerable to these real biological threats.
While it is true that Trump can point to his idea of a response to coronavirus, such as the travel bans, to claim that he is addressing the issue after all. But compared to the system that country could be utilizing, his policies are largely a worse response than the USA is truly capable of.
Trump and the GOP’s policies are mirrored in other serious national threats, such as climate change and seasonal predictable emergencies like wildfires and hurricanes. Slash funding to the agencies and programs that could help us prevent, mitigate, monitor, and alert on these issues, then when disaster truly does strike, force our government to rush through exorbitantly more costly emergency aid packages — all in the name of their so-called “fiscal responsibility.”
However, what their response could best be compared to, is the used car salesmen, who tell you that routine preventive maintenance like oil changes for your car are wastes of money, and it’s better to instead let things inevitably fail, and then buy a whole new car a few years down the line.
While I understand this is not the main priority for many in the Democratic Primaries, it is also a valuable opportunity to highlight just how bad and predatory the used car salesmen of Trump and the Republican Party truly are.
And since we are talking about threats of a global nature such as an epidemic, the stakes are far higher than just letting a car break down.


dailykos--2020-02-16--Trump and Bloomberg are Two Sides of the Same Racist Coin

Michael Bloomberg would be an even greater disaster than Donald Trump for black people should he ever become president of the United States .
So says Charles M. Blow , arguably , the leading black newspaper columnist in the US .
Blow is not alone in his opposition to Bloomberg , of course .
In a series of recent tweets and several columns stretching all the way back to 2009 , Blow chronicles and condemns Bloomberg ’ s racist proclivities and practices in such a way that leaves no doubt whatever as to this now wannabe billionaire-president ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and black men particularly .
Blow ’ s most cogent observation is not about Bloomberg directly , but about those people , black , white and otherwise , who support him .
Blow allows that such people all to often and all too easily simply ignore , rationalize or refuse to even acknowledge black peoples ’ pain .
Here , he refers to Sam Donaldson , the former newsman for ABC News who recently endorsed Bloomberg .
Donaldson supports Bloomberg because , like so many others , he believes that Bloomberg has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without calling his name , Donaldson actually tries to answer Charles Blow ’ s critique of Bloomberg here : To Bloomberg enthusiasts it does not seem to matter that Trump and Bloomberg represent “ two sides of the same sinister [ white supremacist billionaire ] coin , ” says Derecka Purnell , a social movement lawyer writing for The Guardian .
Or , as Pitts puts it : “ Still , one can ’ t help noting the way many white voters seem to regard racism as something that , while a character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The “ heads ” side of Purnell ’ s coin ( Trump ) calls for and enforces a national Muslim ban , and an unrelenting spying regime on thousands of Muslims nationwide , but especially in New Jersey and New York .
Trump ’ s long record of discrimination against , even hatred of black people is well known and documented , and will not be recounted here .
The “ tails ” side of this coin , of course , is Michael Bloomberg ’ s long-held belief and practice of siccing New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and boys…because and only because they are young black men and boys .
Benjamin Dixon , another well regarded black writer and thinker , recently posted a now-viral and eye-and-ear-opening audio clip of Michael Bloomberg ’ s 2015 speech at the Aspen Institute : 95 % … murderers and murder victims fit one MO .
You can just take the description , Xerox it , and pass it out to all the cops .
They are male , minorities , 16 to 25 .
That ’ s true in New York , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that ’ s where the real crime is .
You ’ ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed .
You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets .
Put the cops where the crime is , which means in minority neighborhoods .
So one of the unintended consequences is people say , ‘ Oh my God , you ’ re arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities !
’ Yes , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the cops in minority neighborhoods .
Yes , that ’ s true .
Why we do it ?
Because that ’ s where all the crime is .
And the way you get the guns out of the kids ’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them .
And then they start , ‘ Oh , I don ’ t want to get caught.
’ So they don ’ t bring the gun .
They still have a gun , but they leave it at home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the cops is apparently only the tip of a humongous iceberg .
That is , his white supremacist vibes run much , much deeper than mere retrograde policing strategies .
Since the release of the stop and frisk nugget , yet another video clip has surfaced of Bloomberg extolling the virtues of isolating and corralling and keeping — redlining — black people in dilapidated , under-served , crime-infested and poverty-stricken neighborhoods and enclaves , all while denying them mortgages and loans in order to “ protect ” white suburbia and beyond from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg says out loud what the rightest of right-wing conservatives ( and not a few so-called “ white liberals ” ) have been arguing since the 2008 collapse of the US economy — it was poor and black peoples ’ fault — mainly black people , to be sure , for taking out home mortgage loans which anybody with a lick sense just knew they could not afford .
However , even comedian Trevor Noah , host of The Daily Show , has weighed in on Bloomberg ’ s racism : Thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and only until his entrance into the presidential sweepstakes ) always has been front and center in his thinking , in his attitude , in his beliefs , in his opinions…and in his actions .
Bloomberg was mayor of New York from 2002 until 2013 .
In all of New York state from 2008–2018 , people reported for murder were 26 % white , 44 % black and 29 % unknown .
And 60 % of the victims were black and more than 30 % were white .
Under Bloomberg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they are “ white ” — were and are simply not viewed by the police and/or the general public ( read : white people ) as “ suspect ” as are all “ minority ” group individuals , but especially black people .
Put another way , black people as a whole are automatically suspicious , while white people are looked upon as “ individuals.
” This attitude , and more importantly , this practice ignores or disavows altogether the documented facts that black boys and men are disproportionately the victims of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase violence , rather than decrease it .
And , what white people generally and Bloomberg specifically refuse to accept is that the best indicator and predictor of violence is now and always has been socio-economic advantage or disadvantage , not race .
Indeed , on the same side of Purnell ’ s coin , countless studies show that “ violent crime rates for extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods are more similar to rates for extremely disadvantaged black areas than to rates for other types of white neighborhoods.
” The way , then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever-more cops on the streets .
Rather , it is flooding these neighborhoods with community development programs , including small , medium-sized , and large businesses , jobs , and state-of-the-art schools — that is , wholesale and unbiased investment in black and poor neighborhoods .
Thus , Bloomberg ’ s cops-first and cops-only approach aligns nicely with Michelle Alexander ’ s argument in her seminal work , The New Jim Crow , that “ politicians exploit real concerns and fears about violent crime to push racially biased and punitive approaches to harass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of harm.
” And other jurisdictions , most jurisdictions — local , state and federal — followed Bloomberg ’ s lead , doggedly pouring much-needed social welfare funds , resources and energy into policing and prisons in order to solve problems that do not exist .
And so , why is this happening ?
Stop and frisk practices , and police brutality , sui generis , against black people , provide a feel-good feeling for and confirmation of “ conservative ” and/or white racists ’ cardinal belief that blackness itself is “ criminal @ @

Michael Bloomberg would be an even greater disaster than Donald Trump for black people should he ever become president of the United States. So says Charles M. Blow, arguably, the leading black newspaper columnist in the US. Blow is not alone in his opposition to Bloomberg, of course. In a series of recent tweets and several columns stretching all the way back to 2009, Blow chronicles and condemns Bloomberg’s racist proclivities and practices in such a way that leaves no doubt whatever as to this now wannabe billionaire-president’s “animus” toward black people generally, and black men particularly.
Blow’s most cogent observation is not about Bloomberg directly, but about those people, black, white and otherwise, who support him. Blow allows that such people all to often and all too easily simply ignore, rationalize or refuse to even acknowledge black peoples’ pain. Here, he refers to Sam Donaldson, the former newsman for ABC News who recently endorsed Bloomberg. Donaldson supports Bloomberg because, like so many others, he believes that Bloomberg has the best chance to beat Donald Trump. Without calling his name, Donaldson actually tries to answer Charles Blow’s critique of Bloomberg here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCpXTDgUWSk And then there is the Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts, Jr., who asks the pointed question: “Shall we vote blue if all it offers is the chance to replace a stupid racist with a smarter one?”
To Bloomberg enthusiasts it does not seem to matter that Trump and Bloomberg represent “two sides of the same sinister [white supremacist billionaire] coin,” says Derecka Purnell, a social movement lawyer writing for The Guardian.
Or, as Pitts puts it: “Still, one can’t help noting the way many white voters seem to regard racism as something that, while a character flaw, is not a deal-breaker.”
The “heads” side of Purnell’s coin (Trump) calls for and enforces a national Muslim ban, and an unrelenting spying regime on thousands of Muslims nationwide, but especially in New Jersey and New York. Trump’s long record of discrimination against, even hatred of black people is well known and documented, and will not be recounted here.
The “tails” side of this coin, of course, is Michael Bloomberg’s long-held belief and practice of siccing New York City cops on young black men and boys…because and only because they are young black men and boys.
Benjamin Dixon, another well regarded black writer and thinker, recently posted a now-viral and eye-and-ear-opening audio clip of Michael Bloomberg’s 2015 speech at the Aspen Institute:
95% … murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed. You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets. Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods. So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you’re arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities!’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them. And then they start, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.
Bloomberg’s racism vis-a-vis black people and the cops is apparently only the tip of a humongous iceberg. That is, his white supremacist vibes run much, much deeper than mere retrograde policing strategies. Since the release of the stop and frisk nugget, yet another video clip has surfaced of Bloomberg extolling the virtues of isolating and corralling and keeping — redlining — black people in dilapidated, under-served, crime-infested and poverty-stricken neighborhoods and enclaves, all while denying them mortgages and loans in order to “protect” white suburbia and beyond from the ravages of blackness. There, Bloomberg says out loud what the rightest of right-wing conservatives (and not a few so-called “white liberals”) have been arguing since the 2008 collapse of the US economy — it was poor and black peoples’ fault — mainly black people, to be sure, for taking out home mortgage loans which anybody with a lick sense just knew they could not afford.
However, even comedian Trevor Noah, host of The Daily Show, has weighed in on Bloomberg’s racism:
Thus, Bloomberg’s white racism/white supremacy is (and only until his entrance into the presidential sweepstakes) always has been front and center in his thinking, in his attitude, in his beliefs, in his opinions…and in his actions.
Bloomberg was mayor of New York from 2002 until 2013. In all of New York state from 2008–2018, people reported for murder were 26% white, 44% black and 29% unknown. And 60% of the victims were black and more than 30% were white. Under Bloomberg’s “policy,” white people — because they are “white” — were and are simply not viewed by the police and/or the general public (read: white people) as “suspect” as are all “minority” group individuals, but especially black people. Put another way, black people as a whole are automatically suspicious, while white people are looked upon as “individuals.”
This attitude, and more importantly, this practice ignores or disavows altogether the documented facts that black boys and men are disproportionately the victims of homicides; and that jails and prisons increase violence, rather than decrease it.
And, what white people generally and Bloomberg specifically refuse to accept is that the best indicator and predictor of violence is now and always has been socio-economic advantage or disadvantage, not race.
Indeed, on the same side of Purnell’s coin, countless studies show that “violent crime rates for extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods are more similar to rates for extremely disadvantaged black areas than to rates for other types of white neighborhoods.”
The way, then, to stop crime is not by putting ever-more cops on the streets. Rather, it is flooding these neighborhoods with community development programs, including small, medium-sized, and large businesses, jobs, and state-of-the-art schools — that is, wholesale and unbiased investment in black and poor neighborhoods.
Thus, Bloomberg’s cops-first and cops-only approach aligns nicely with Michelle Alexander’s argument in her seminal work, The New Jim Crow, that “politicians exploit real concerns and fears about violent crime to push racially biased and punitive approaches to harass and incarcerate black people for all types of harm.”
And other jurisdictions, most jurisdictions — local, state and federal — followed Bloomberg’s lead, doggedly pouring much-needed social welfare funds, resources and energy into policing and prisons in order to solve problems that do not exist.
And so, why is this happening? Stop and frisk practices, and police brutality, sui generis, against black people, provide a feel-good feeling for and confirmation of “conservative” and/or white racists’ cardinal belief that blackness itself is “criminal.”