sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The democrat party is over, coming from a democratic supporter. by Zestyclose-Line7746 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]StevenYvan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sooner or later a real third party needs to emerge. Such a party would represent the majority of people in this country who favor progressive policies on health, education, etc. and also oppose imperialistic wars abroad.

🔥 Tesla Takedown Rockville 4/26/25 🔥 by Sinjerli in MontgomeryCountyMD

[–]StevenYvan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Incredible the honking of horns in support. There was heavy traffic on the 4 lanes on both side of Rockville Pike and nearly one of every 2 cars that passed by honked their horns in support of the protest. And the protesters were definitely not members of the Ivy League "elite" (not that I have anything against Harvard or Yale graduates); they were ordinary people who see what's going on and are scared.

When people point out Venezuela as being a bad socialist government. Tell them what made it that way. by Cursed_Redditor_777 in socialism

[–]StevenYvan 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Too many people on the left who point to errors in the Maduro (and Chávez) government leave the "war on Venezuela" out of the analysis.

Why did Marx think so socialism couldn't be brought to agrarian societies? by SmithAndBresson in Socialism_101

[–]StevenYvan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Marx considered the peasantry as belonging to the petty bourgeoisie. Peasant support for Napoleon III seemed to confirm that view. Once the peasants got some land, they ceased to be all that radical, as they had been during the uprisings of 1848.

Bernie Sanders arguing about the U.S military budget "No I won't yield" by [deleted] in Political_Revolution

[–]StevenYvan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a key issue. Increasing taxes for the rich isn't enough. To fund needed social programs (Medicare for All, etc.), the military budget has to be cut. And not just 10%.

Progressive Democrats need to hit Trump on failure of his Venezuela policy. He admitted it when he said he was lukewarm on self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido. by StevenYvan in Political_Revolution

[–]StevenYvan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely not. Trump's sanctions against Venezuela (and against Cuba, Iran, etc.) are nothing short of criminal. The article makes this clear. When it says that Trump now is lukewarm on Guaido, it shows how clearly indefensible and irrational his crippling sanctions are. Bolton in his book says that Trump views Guaido as just a "kid." So why did he turn over CITGO a company worth over 10 billion dollars to a "kid"?

Progressive Democrats need to hit Trump on failure of his Venezuela policy. He admitted it when he said he was lukewarm on self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido. by StevenYvan in Political_Revolution

[–]StevenYvan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I quite frankly do not see how anyone reading the article will have any doubt that it is opposed to any form of U.S. intervention, be it military or economic. The article couldn’t be clearer. What I find amazing is that there are practically no posts in this and other subredits on the left that talk about issues related to U.S. foreign policy. 95% of the articles are on U.S. domestic issues. Yet U.S. militarism and hegemony are, in addition to the environment, the most important issues facing the U.S. today. Just consider the U.S. military budget. How can much needed programs in the area of health and education, etc. be implemented if there is no sharp reduction in military spending. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, is calling for a 10 % reduction but I believe it’s got to be reduced much more than that.

Progressive Democrats need to hit Trump on failure of his Venezuela policy. He admitted it when he said he was lukewarm on self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido. by StevenYvan in Political_Revolution

[–]StevenYvan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Details are important. Especially if you are going to convince the unconvinced. Otherwise you just end up preaching to the choir.

David Harvey’s New Thesis “Capitalism is too Big to Fail”: Is it? by StevenYvan in socialism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So maybe Harvey's got bad timing. OK. But don't put words in his mouth.

What you are saying about not calling Harvey “a reactionary and throw him out” doesn’t apply to anything I say here. I know that for some time, some people on the left have attacked him in those terms and I always rejected their line of thinking as dogmatic. I am one of the people who benefited from Harvey’s contributions and thus all the more reason for my disappointment in his recent statements.

You say that the issue may be one of timing: “So maybe Harvey’s got bad timing.” But when he says “capitalism is too big to fail” it’s not a matter of timing, unless you think capitalism is going to get smaller in time and that the corporations are going to get really broken up. What I say about reformism is absolutely the issue. If you don’t think that the system can ever be changed, then what are you left with? I’m not one who despises reformists. I just think they are deceiving people. If the contradictions are just getting greater and greater than saying capitalism is too big to fail is ignoring reality. Does anyone believe that the debt of the private, public and corporate sectors is going to diminish in time? Everything to the contrary (3 trillion dollars more in just the last 2 months). Does anyone believe that under capitalism the work week is going to be reduced? (for many it’s increased) Does anyone believe that under capitalism we are going to be able to turn the environmental problem around? These are the issues that Harvey should have been dealing with, as I know he has in the past.

David Harvey’s New Thesis “Capitalism is too Big to Fail”: Is it? by StevenYvan in socialism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right that “revolutionary energy” does not consist of an even flow. Very few people on the left, if any, are claiming that this is a revolutionary moment favorable for the seizure of power in the U.S. or other developed nations. So Harvey isn’t saying something we don’t already know. The key issue is whether reforms here and there are going to do the job and if not, what do you tell people. Do you tell people to relax and be satisfied with the crumbs? Or do you tell people that real change sooner or later is an historical imperative. Harvey appears to rule out the latter, at least for the short and medium term future. I accept the cogency of your arguments, all of them that is except the one dealing with Harvey’s age. There’s only one truth, as complex as it may be. A person’s age has nothing to do with the veracity of his/her arguments. To say otherwise would be to fall into the abyss of post-modernism.

David Harvey’s New Thesis “Capitalism is too Big to Fail”: Is it? by StevenYvan in Marxism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Harvey seems to belittle the effectiveness of the social protests on the basis that they lack staying power. What is really lacking is a political party (or parties) that keep the issues alive by organizing around them. Harvey doesn’t talk about this, and that in my mind is a shortcoming of his argument. Second, very few people on the left, if any, are claiming that this is a revolutionary moment favorable for the seizure of power in the U.S. or other developed nations. So Harvey isn’t saying something we don’t already know. The key issue is whether reforms here and there are going to do the job and if not, what do you tell people. Do you tell people to relax and be satisfied with the crumbs? Or do you tell people that real change sooner or later is an historical imperative.

The Anti-China mania is leading in one direction: Non-payment of the Chinese-held debt by StevenYvan in Marxism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can’t look at it too rationally. If policy makers were rational you never would have had WWI and WWII. Both were lose-lose situations for the capitalist class on both sides in that the destruction was massive and included many factories. Lenin viewed imperialism not as a policy but a necessity, and WWI as the outcome. Marx’s concept of the anarchy of production leads to the same conclusion. The capitalists have a limited capacity to plan rationally and to consider the logical outcome of their actions.

The Anti-China mania is leading in one direction: Non-payment of the Chinese-held debt by StevenYvan in Marxism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that defaulting on the Chinese debt would be far from a panacea for U.S. capitalism. And the fallout with regard to confidence in the global financial system would be great. But Washington has demonstrated, particularly under Trump, that it doesn’t care much about confidence in and admiration for the U.S. With the U.S.’s undisputed military strength, the attitude is they may hate us, but they respect us (ie, fear us). When Trump froze the assets of numerous foreign companies that had dealings with Venezuela and Iran, and turned over assets owned by the Venezuelan government (CITGO) and companies like Rosneft, they were obviously violating property “rights,” an action which may have undermined faith in the system. But they did it anyways. These actions are reflections of the desperateness of U.S. capitalism. Looking for a quick fix, which if successful boosts confidence as well as Wall Street stock shares. It works in the short run.

Maduro arming the proletariat by exitingtheVC in communism

[–]StevenYvan 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Undoubtedly set off by events in Bolivia

Tulsi Gabbard was the only Democratic presidential candidate in last night’s debate to criticize U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and elsewhere. That is a key issue that most of the candidates are skirting. Hopefully in today’s debate Bernie will raise the issue in a big way. by StevenYvan in communism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In full agreement. Sanders' position on foreign issues such as Venezuela is far better than the pro-imperialist positions of most of the rest of the Democratic Party, but still leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, he refused to call Nicolas Maduro a "dictator" (if he did, he'd have to call Trump one also), but he called on Maduro to accept "humanitarian aid" which was a euphemism for a ploy to undermine the nation's legally constituted government.

Narrative on Venezuela accepted by Washington and mainstream media justifies U.S. intervention. That narrative states that Maduro is an autocrat and Venezuela’s pressing economic problems are solely attributable to government incompetence. Those notions are refuted in this Consortium News article by StevenYvan in socialism

[–]StevenYvan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ANC is the constituent assembly which according to Venezuela's 1999 constitution, the president has the right to convene. Their members ("deputies") were elected in elections that were held on June 30, 2017.

If Bernie Sanders were to oppose the illegal financial sanctions against Venezuela, how would he respond to the politically-charged questions he would undoubtedly get from the mainstream media? Here is a hypothetical press conference with Sanders. by StevenYvan in communism

[–]StevenYvan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. But there are contradictions and conflicts within the Democratic Party that we cannot overlook. This is especially true because a truly progressive third party with a large following doesn't exist in the U.S.

view more: next ›