For the US, Right Wing Dictatorships (Haiti etc.) Si, No to Left wing (Venezuela, Cuba) attacked over lack of democracy, which really means right to profit

“He may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch,” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt supposedly said of one of them (though accounts vary about whether the president was referring to American-backed dictators in Nicaragua or in the Dominican Republic). Two generations of brutal Haitian dictators from the Duvalier family were among a long list of strongmen around the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere who received resolute American support, particularly as allies against Communism.

U.S. Habit of Backing Strongman Allies Fed Turmoil in Haiti

Washington dismissed warnings that democracy was unraveling under President Jovenel Moïse, leaving a gaping leadership void after his assassination.... Critics say the American approach to Mr. Moïse followed a playbook the United States has used around the world for decades, often with major consequences for democracy and human rights: reflexively siding with or tolerating leaders accused of authoritarian rule because they advance American interests, or because officials fear instability in their absence.... Mr. Moïse’s grip on power tightened notably under Mr. Trump, who spoke admiringly of a range of foreign autocrats. Mr. Trump was also bent on keeping Haitian migrants out of the United States (they “all have AIDS,” American officials recounted him saying). To the extent that Trump officials focused on Haitian politics at all, officials say, it was mainly to enlist the country in Mr. Trump’s campaign to oust his nemesis in the region: Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro... NYT

At Least Seven Colombians in Haiti Assassination Received U.S. Training

Trainings for the Colombian mercenaries accused of killing Haitian President Jovenel Moïse were conducted in both the U.S. and Colombia, some as recently as 2015.

READ MORE →

You get it? Maduro is an undemocratic dictator, so promote other right wing dictators to try to bring them down. Let's end the fiction about democracy as the issue in trying to bring regime change, especially to communist or socialist nations. Not that even elected leftists have been immune -- see Chile, Iran, and Europe post WWII. I'm particularly sensitive after reading George Schmidt's The AFT and the CIA for John Lawhead's study group --- yes, our own beloved union has been tied up with undermining these nations. https://uftrg.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/the-american-federation-of-teachers-and-the-cia.pdf

Democracy defined: the ability to profit

 The key to understand is that when they talk about  democracy they don't mean the people but the ability of capitalists to control and profit from the resources of the nations that have removed that ability by taking control of resources. Thus it is not that Cubans can't vote but that the tourist industry can't profit. That the mob can't run hotels like they did before Castro. Or that the oil in Venezuela is not available for profit. The same for Iraq - it's about the oil baby. Iran too -- the biggie when the Shah was overthrown was not that suddenly an undemocratic dictator was lost to us -- but the oil went along with him.

Finally, we are seeing the Haiti story expose the hypocrisy of those calling communist countries undemocratic (true) while supporting dictators who are often even worse. I hadn't even realized until recently that the former slaves who overthrew the French in 1800 had to pay reparations to the deposed slave holders until 1947, which bankrupted the country - and the brand new United States democracy supported that and then throughout the 20th century repeatedly interfered in the affairs of Haiti -- and of course went nuts when the Soviets did similar acts on other nations.

Below the fold are more excerpts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/18/world/americas/haiti-united-states-jovenel-moise.html 

School Scope: The Debates: On Busing, Capitalism, and Socialism

Submitted to The WAVE for publication, July 5, 2019

School Scope:  The Debates: On Busing, Capitalism, and Socialism

By Norm Scott

The initial debates, while shallow in terms of drilling down, touched on a number of essential issues, at times raising more questions than answers. Headlines stressed the Biden/Harris confrontation on race and busing. I remember the contentious battles over busing back in the 60s and 70s and the consequential racial divides. Biden, as he often does, danced and obfuscated a bit by saying he opposed forced busing imposed by the federal government and we should leave it to the local communities. Harris pushed back about local communities run by people who are anti-segregation. We know there is a history of federal involvement in forcing integration in the schools from both parties – you know, when the Republicans were still a rational party – Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and Kennedy to Alabama and Mississippi.

I found Harris’ raising the issue, while legitimate, somewhat artificial – especially when those tee-shirts of her as a little girl started appearing the next morning. I would like to have all candidates raise their hands if they support busing as a solution to segregation today. I wonder if Harris would have raised her hand. When Bernie was asked specifically about the issue on Sunday, he gave a rational response that we rarely see from politicians: Is it a good idea to put kids on buses takes them out of their neighborhood for up to an hour ride each way? It is a surface tool that should ideally only be used when absolutely necessary. Real solutions call for housing and economic reforms. By the way, look at the streets on school days and count the buses.

The debate also focused open attacks on Bernie for being a socialist, with loaded questions from the NBC panel  - the right always points to them as liberals but they are as opposed to socialist oriented ideas as is the right. Hickenlooper who apparently sees Bernie’s ideas as a real threat, never missed an opportunity to attack Bernie indirectly by talking about socialism. (The July 1 New Yorker has an article: John Hickenlooper’s War on Socialism.)

 I was disappointed in some of Bernie’s responses which were stock and repetitive, but he did hammer the point that many of our problems are due to outrageous profits on health care. Yes, he said we would raise taxes but at the same time cut the costs of health care which is also a tax of sorts. Get rid of insurance companies and the cost of their profit disappears. He pointed to our high costs compared to universal health care nations with much lower costs (see Germany).

Bernie’s policies align with social democratic parties in capitalist Europe, many of whom have run the governments at times. Not to be confused with Democratic Socialists (DSA) who are closer to traditional anti-capitalist ideologies. DSA is a broad socialist tent and the majority seem to believe that socialism can be achieved by democratic means. But there are also people who do not support liberal democratic norms, like a multi-party system. Confusion around these terms should be cleaned up

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, a voice representing a vision of left-leaning economic analysis, was often ignored – until the 2008 crash and the crisis it created within capitalism and its structure. He has a new book, People, Power, And Profits which makes a case not for socialism but for progressive capitalism, sort of where Elizabeth Warren is coming from. He argues that we don’t have really free markets, a faux bedrock of capitalism, but an economic system concentrated in the hands of the few who in turn exercise control over the political system, thus leading to an increasing economic gap which has spurred populism on the right and the left. I know revolutionary socialists who believe in overthrowing capitalism who are cheered by this news since they feel it is pretty much what Marx predicted would happen. What he didn’t predict was that the right populists could defeat the left, as it did in Germany under Hitler.

A closing note on free markets. Trump Dept of Ed. appointee Betsy DeVos’s has rolled back Obama-era regulations, intended to protect students against predatory for-profit colleges, which trap students into high debt they can never repay, guaranteed by the federal government which funnels money into their hands. People who ask when Bernie of Warren talk about free college how are we paying for it don’t ask the same question about those tax payer funded profits.

Norm blogs for no profit at ednotesonline.com.

Comment from a parent activist:

A good article on busing by Matthew Delmont. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-and-busing-debate/593047/

"Buses had long been used in the South—as well as in New York, Boston, and many other northern cities—to maintain segregation. This form of transportation was not controversial for white parents. Put more starkly, school buses were fine for the majority of white families; busing was not."

Plenty of parents are willing to make their kids travel out of their neighborhood to attend G&T programs.  

 

-->

School Scope: Socialism and Confusion

I'm continuing my series of posts in The WAVE trying to sort out "the left" for myself - and maybe others who are as confused as I am. I have begun reading more deeply from current and historical sources to gain more clarity. And I am talking to people on the left. Some of my closest friends lie within the "socialist" spectrum. How can we not have doubts about the problems with capitalism when we see what is going on in this country and others as power and money accumulates in fewer hands? On the other hand, the prediction that as capitalism fails -- or succeeds too well until one person or syndicate owns everything -- it will be followed by a form of socialism which will be a better system for most - seems to be a fantasy especially as we've seen how easy it is for massive numbers of people to be manipulated through propaganda. There are too many examples to name going back to the dawn of civilization where we can see how a small  number of people always seem to gain power under any system. I bet they had many similar problems in the caves.


School Scope: Socialism and Confusion
By Norm Scott
Published in The WAVE, Friday, August 17, 2018
www.rockawave.com

The UFT was founded by social democrats who were members of a party called Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). Albert Shanker and most of the early UFT leadership were members. They were virulent anti-communists who came out of the Trotskyite wing of socialism, which had been the main enemy of Stalinism. In the early 70s’ the almost 100 year old Socialist Party of America split into right and left factions and the UFT was a key player in the right wing faction.

There are so many brands of socialism, when I finish counting on both hands, I have to take my shoes off. When discussing politics with a right winger at a recent dinner, in the midst of disparaging the very idea of socialism, he said the idea of socialism and democracy were contradictory, so how can people call themselves Democratic Socialists? Even among Democrats and people who view themselves as “progressive”, there seems to be confusion about socialism. If you don’t follow the left, you wouldn’t be aware of the differences between Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and too many more to name here.

Does being a socialist mean you favor Soviet communism, a system that lasted for 75 years and has been viewed as a failure? Consider the past 25 years of post-communist Russia under Putin. A bit more democracy, though basically a one party system under Putin’s control and if you speak too loud you get bumped off. A very nice deal for kleptocrat billionaires who were handed most of the entire state owned industry on the cheap. But most people in Russia would still vote for Putin over the old system - at this point. (Def. of kleptocracy - a form of corrupt government that allows the ruling class to accumulate great wealth and power while neglecting the mass of citizens – sound familiar?)

How about China? Not much democracy but with more than a touch of capitalism, though the state can dictate a lot. China was a massively devastated nation in 1949 when Mao’s revolution began. On the timeline of less than 70 years of history, the outcomes have been impressive, though with great human costs. There were liberalization, but the current leader has been wringing signs of democracy out of the system. Most people in China seem content with a deal that allows them to do well economically. But if that changes, watch out.

Moving on to democratic socialism - a multi-party system, more economic leeway, including various levels of capitalism, though highly regulated to avoid exploitation of the workers – and the consumer. There are often very high tax rates but people do get a lot more for their money, i.e. most of the Scandinavian nations which provide very generous social services. European nations have versions of social democratic parties, but outside Scandinavia they have been struggling of late.

Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a social democrat. Since Trump’s win, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown tenfold. DSA is a big tent socialist organization, founded in 1982 as a remnant of the old socialist party of Norman Thomas and founder Eugene Debs, who got 6% of the presidential vote in 2012. They are not a political party and do not run candidates under their party banner on separate lines like the Green Party, but back think-alike candidates running in Democratic Party primaries and in the general election. DSA received a lot of main stream press publicity after socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her recent primary. Our mayor has jumped on the socialist bandwagon, as has Cuomo primary opponent Cynthia Nixon. In last week’s primary a DSA endorsed Michigan Muslim woman won a primary, which may give DSA endorsees at least two seats in Congress plus other seats in local races.

The very idea has right wingers in a frenzy, a frenzy which even infects many Democrats who despise Bernie Sanders and blame him for Trump’s win. The so-called coming blue wave of victories by Democrats in the 2018 mid-term elections may just include a small wavelet of social democrats.

Norm promotes his own version of kleptocracy at ednotesonline.com

It's Capitalism, Stupid

David Leonhardt's column in today's business section of the Times discusses how so many people in the middle and at the bottom were left out of the boom years. We all know the gap between rich and the rest of us has grown astronomical since the early 70's, the first time in US history this has happened.

So what are reasons according to Leonhardt? I'll let you read his theories here. But one word is missing from the entire article, not surprising given the bias at the Times: UNIONS.

Could it be that the attack on unions spurred on by Ronald Reagan's firing the air traffic controllers 25 years ago has weakened them so much that they can no longer win fights for the higher wages needed to sustain our economy? Add the Democratic Party support for NAFTA and other anti-union breaking rules under Bush and we have the roots undermining the economy in the long run.

As Leonhardt searches for solutions, he neglects the basic rule of capitalism: maximize profits for your company, the rest of the nation and the world be damned. That means the lowest wages you can get away with. If you can get 8 year-olds for 50 cents a day abroad, then bye.

The economy will only be robust when there's a strong union movement to fight it out with the corporations.

Note: I still consider myself a capitalist – a laissez faire capitalist – where there are rules that force a balanced playing field for people to compete. That is NOT what we have. Instead, we have a government, the theoretical arbiter, clearly aligned with the big business interests. And the press, the 4th estate that should also be an arbiter, also pro-business and anti-union. The "paper of record," whether covering business or education, is a prime example.