The Coming Storm

With an average of three mass shootings per year in the US since the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, CO in April of 1999—and five mass shootings in the first nine months of 2013 alone—many are justifiably concerned and frustrated.  Mainstream politicians dither, debating how best to treat the symptoms of the problem without overly upsetting the arms manufacturers who fund their campaigns.  Increased background checks and bans on certain types of weapons are discussed, but little concrete action is taken and few Americans believe that the limited palette of solutions considered by Congress would do much to staunch the bloodshed. After all, the manufacture of new assault weapons was temporarily banned by federal law from 1994 to 2004, but it’s not clear this had any impact on reducing gun violence.  The National Rifle Association reliably rails against any gun control legislation, ostensibly out of reverence for the Second Amendment, but more...

Something important is happening on the upper-left coast.  On August 6, socialist Kshama Sawant garnered 35% of the vote in a “top two” primary for Seattle City Council.  This allows Sawant to advance to the general election on November 5 where she will face Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin who received 48% of the vote. Considering that working people from coast to coast have been beaten and battered both economically and politically for more than a generation, and that we have been playing a losing game of defense for as long as most of us can remember; considering that one of the chief reasons for labor’s losses has been a tragic reliance on and obsequious deference to so-called “friends of labor” in the form of representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties, it is highly significant when an avowedly working-class campaign makes headlines. And the Sawant campaign has not been the least bit shy about stating the case for the millions of folks wh...

There’s an elephant in the room.  We all know it.  But we need the audacity to proclaim it openly.  The litany of urgent problems grows ever longer: endless war; executive assassinations; climate change; savage economic inequality; racial, gender, religious and national discrimination; poverty; unequal justice; shredded civil liberties; unemployment; lower pay and more harsh conditions for those lucky enough to have jobs; poisoned food, air and water; attacks on public education, Social Security and Medicare; a deadly, dysfunctional, profit-driven healthcare system; crumbling infrastructure; and the oft-forgotten but ever-present nuclear threat. All of these problems have one, common, overarching cause: an economic system that puts profits before people; a system that rewards the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, by any and all means, regardless of the consequences.  The system has a name.  It is capitalism . Capitalism has got to go....

The Real Harm in the Lesser-Evil Approach “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”  This insight by Albert Einstein reminds us that in life, certain choices and actions can undermine goals we ostensibly hold dear.  But when it comes to elections, such reasoning is suppressed.  Whenever the quadrennial presidential horse race heats up, spokespersons for the liberal left outdo each other rationalizing why “responsible” opponents of the status quo must buck up, be “practical” and, above all, never stray from the narrow, contrived choice allotted to us by those currently pulling the strings. Each race is different.  Sometimes, progressives will argue that the Democratic candidate is so meritorious that he/she has earned our support outright, based on the balance sheet of the candidate’s actual efforts and accomplishments.  Remarkably, there are those who try to make this case for Barack Obama today—a position that can only be defen...

In a classically hilarious cartoon , Bugs Bunny gets Daffy Duck twisted in logical knots, arguing whether Elmer Fudd should shoot the duck now, or wait until he gets home—a wretched choice if ever there was one.  Phony debates are a bit like that.  In this election season, Americans are given a “choice”: shoot us now or shoot us later.  There is no other imaginable possibility.  Or is there?  Cutting through the airwaves so replete with empty words and false choices, we present part two of the real debate: socialist, Sydney Solidarity, representing the interests of working people and the 99%, vs. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney of the Democratic and Republican parties, standing up for corporate America and the 1%. The second presidential debate took place October 16, moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN.  The questions, screened in advance, were posed by audience members.  Below are Solidarity’s responses to each of the debate questions. A tra...

As everyone knows, the Democratic and Republican parties have limited and controlled the political narrative for generations.  In this way, they hope to convince people that the only “realistic” choice is between one or another party of the 1%.  At no time is this political censorship more pronounced than during the presidential election season.  However, through the magic of the Internet, we bring you the real debate: the debate between socialist candidate, Sydney Solidarity, representing the interests of working people—the 99%—versus the stale, stilted defense of the status quo as presented by the two corporate parties. The first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign took place October 3, moderated by Jim Lehrer.  Below are Solidarity’s responses to each of the debate questions.  Jim Lehrer’s comments are edited for flow. A transcript of the actual, limited debate between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney can be found here . *   * ...

The following debate was conducted in writing, from September 29 to October 5, 2012,   by Mark Linsey and Bruce Lesnick.  The debate was triggered by the publication of This Progressive Will not Vote For Obama , by Carol Dansereau, which should be read first to fully appreciate the context. Mark Linsey is a liberal activist and Obama supporter. Bruce Lesnick is a socialist and long-time political activist.                                     *  *  * Mark Linsey: As a progressive, I both like and don't like [Dansereau’s] essay because I share [her] point of view but not [her] conclusion. I find it interesting and provocative but unhelpful. [She] bring[s] up many different issues which are very important and truly do deserve public discourse. Where [she] lose[s] me is the no...