Thursday, June 2, 2016

The Trump Tax Plan and National Priorities [feedly]

----
The Trump Tax Plan and National Priorities
// Center on Budget: Comprehensive News Feed

Trump's tax plan would benefit households making over $1 million to an unprecedented degree, and do so almost certainly at the expense of low- and middle-income people.

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

170 Economists endorse Sanders Wall Steet Plan

170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders' Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

By  on Thu, Jan 14th, 2016 at 2:23 pm

170 of the nation's top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders's plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders' plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another 'too-big-to-fail' financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street's largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks' potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient "living wills" for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton's more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street's excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can't be watered down. That's why we support Senator Sanders's plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.

Both campaigns are rolling out endorsements on a daily basis, but the anger over Wall Street crashing the US economy and walking away with a slap on the wrist is one of the main drivers behind the popularity of Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders has been on a crusade for years to reform Wall Street, and the success of his campaign is the worst nightmare of the country's greedy big banks. The reality is that little has changed since the Great Recession. The big banks got bailed out and learned the wrong lesson from the recession. Wall Street feels bulletproof.

If the American people want to protect themselves from another economic collapse, it will take real reforms like those that are being proposed by Sen. Sanders.

170 economists agree that Bernie Sanders is the candidate who will hold Wall Street accountable.

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Led By Solar And Wind, Renewable Energy Grew Like Never Before Last Year [feedly]

----
Led By Solar And Wind, Renewable Energy Grew Like Never Before Last Year
// Wonk Room

An estimated 147 gigawatts of renewable power capacity was added in 2015, the largest annual increase ever.

The post Led By Solar And Wind, Renewable Energy Grew Like Never Before Last Year appeared first on ThinkProgress.

----

Shared via my feedly reader

Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession [feedly]

----
Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession
// Portside

The term "race riot" does not adequately describe the events of May 31—June 1, 1921 in Greenwood, a black neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma. On the 96th anniversary, it is worth remembering the legacy of Tulsa.

None of my mostly African American 11th graders in Portland had ever heard of the so-called Tulsa Race Riot, even though it stands as one of the most violent episodes of dispossession in U.S. history.

The term "race riot" does not adequately describe the events of May 31—June 1, 1921 in Greenwood, a black neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In fact, the term itself implies that both blacks and whites might be equally to blame for the lawlessness and violence. The historical record documents a sustained and murderous assault on black lives and property. This assault was met by a brave but unsuccessful armed defense of their community by some black World War I veterans and others.

During the night and day of the riot, deputized whites killed more than 300 African Americans. They looted and burned to the ground 40 square blocks of 1,265 African American homes, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and destroyed 150 businesses. White deputies and members of the National Guard arrested and detained 6,000 black Tulsans who were released only upon being vouched for by a white employer or other white citizen. Nine thousand African Americans were left homeless and lived in tents well into the winter of 1921.

Like pearls on a string, we can finger the beads of violent and "legal" expulsions of people of color from their land in the nation: The Cherokee Removal and multiple wars against indigenous people, the 1846-48 U.S. war against Mexico, the Dawes Act, government-sanctioned attacks on Chinese throughout the West, the "race riots" that swept the country starting in 1919, Japanese American internment, and the later use of eminent domain for "urban removal." The list is long.

I tell students in the English language arts class I co-teach:

I want you to think about wealth in this country. Who has it? Who doesn't? A study by the Pew Research Center found that, on average, whites have 20 times the wealth of blacks. Why is that? When there's a question that puzzles you, you must investigate.

It's a nontraditional curriculum for a language arts teacher, but I aim to teach students to connect the dots about big ideas that matter in their lives—and I use both history and literature to explore injustice.

This year, Tulsa was one of the instances we studied to probe the legacy of racism and wealth inequality. To stimulate students' interest in resurrecting this silenced history, I created a mystery about the night of the invasion of Greenwood. I wrote roles for students based on the work of scholars like John Hope Franklin and Scott Ellsworth that gave them each a slice of what happened the night of the "riot." There's a jumble of events they learn: the arrest of Dick Rowland, a young African American shoe shiner, who allegedly raped Sarah Page, a white elevator operator (later, students learn that authorities dropped all charges); the newspaper article that incited whites and blacks to gather at the courthouse; the assembly of armed black WWI veterans to stop any lynching attempt—26 black men had been lynched in Oklahoma in the previous two decades; the deputizing and arming of whites, many of them KKK members; the internment of blacks; the death of more than 300 African American men, women, and children; the burning and looting of homes and businesses.Because not all white Tulsans shared the racial views of the white rioters, I included roles of a few whites and a recent immigrant from Mexico who provided refuge in the midst of death and chaos. I wanted students to understand that even in moments of violence, people stood up and reached across race and class borders to help.

Our students' history textbook, History Alive!, is silent about the events of Tulsa, but more significantly, the book fails to help students search for patterns in our nation's history of race-based dispossession. Textbooks like this one help keep students ignorant about the roots of today's vast wealth inequality between blacks and whites. Instead, our students must imagine why African Americans lack wealth: Unwise spending? Laziness? Ignorance? Bad luck?To inject hope into this "stealing home" unit, I created a role play about recent efforts in Oklahoma to obtain restitution for the death and damages suffered by blacks in Greenwood. For me, teaching a "people's history" is not merely offering students a fuller, more meaningful history than is included in textbooks. It also means that we engage students in a problem-posing curriculum that brings history to life through role play and simulation.

In 1997, the Oklahoma legislature authorized a commission to study and prepare an accounting of the "riot." After three and a half years, the commission delivered its report.

Rather than just reading about the results of the proceedings and the more recent lawsuit initiated in 2003 on behalf of the survivors and their descendants, we asked students to think about what "fair" compensation for the loss might mean. We put students in the position of commission members. We asked them to determine what, if any, reparations should be made to the riot survivors and their descendants.

Students made passionate arguments about what should happen. Aaron's was typical: "We can't change what happened in the past, but we can compensate the offspring for the loss of their property and inheritance. At least give the descendants scholarships."

But Desiree demanded:

Who suffered the most? Which was worse—death or property loss? The entire community suffered. We should choose a mixture of compensations: There should be scholarships, as well as compensation for the survivors and their descendants. There should be a memorial day and a reburial of the mass graves.

Sarah feared that bringing up the past would open old wounds and reignite the racism that initiated the riots. Vince and others disagreed: "This is not just the past. Racial inequality is still a problem. Forgetting about what happened and burying it without dealing with it is why we still have problems today."And this was exactly what we wanted kids to see: The past is not dead. We didn't want students to get lost in the history of Tulsa, though it needs to be remembered; we wanted them to recognize the historical patterns of stolen wealth in black, brown, and poor communities. We wanted them to connect the current economic struggles of people of color by staying alert to these dynamics from the past. We wanted them to see that in many ways Tulsa, or other historical black communities are still burning, still being looted.

We wanted to bring the story home.

Linda Christensen has taught high school language arts in Portland, Oregon for almost 40 years. She is the Director of the Oregon Writing Project at Lewis & Clark College. She currently co-teaches an 11th-grade language arts class at Jefferson High School in Portland, Oregon, with Dianne Leahy. She is the author of Reading, Writing, and Rising Up: Teaching about Social Justice and the Power of the Written Word and Teaching for Joy and Justice: Re-imagining the Language Arts Classroom, both published by Rethinking Schools.

 

----

Shared via my feedly reader

Pope Francis Condemns ‘Bloodsucking Bosses’ [feedly]

----
Pope Francis Condemns 'Bloodsucking Bosses'
// AFL-CIO NOW BLOG

In a recent sermon, Pope Francis condemned bosses who exploit workers and the so-called 'prosperity gospel' that teaches that profits are more important than people.

----

Shared via my feedly reader

Today, Please Don’t Thank Me for My Service [feedly]

----
Today, Please Don't Thank Me for My Service
// AFL-CIO NOW BLOG

I don't mean to be rude, but please don't thank me or any living veteran for their service today. Not today.

----

Shared via my feedly reader

Re: [CCDS Members] Peter Dorman: Modernity and Capitalism

"I think Dorman gets part of it right: I have heard, on my radio program, numerous spokespersons of sundry environmental campaigns deny (without any evidence) that combatting climate change, for example, will require MORE, not LESS, technology; and that, regardless what efficiencies in energy production and consumption we could achieve via public policy -- the future of human civilization will require every MORE, not LESS energy. Rivers of it, indeed."
 
What is MORE technology? There are all kinds of technologies from primitive to "modern." Some work and some don't. Some used to work, but stopped working.
 
One can say that our future will require "MORE, not LESS energy. Rivers of it, indeed." But that doesn't mean we will get it. This approaches magical thinking – we need it, therefore we shall have it.
 
Per Fagereng
 
 
From: John Case
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 11:06 AM
Subject: [CCDS Members] Peter Dorman: Modernity and Capitalism
 

Case:

 
Who is a "paleo-socialist"?
 
I think the author gets Naomi Klein right here (below). Dorman is a UMass type economist, having abandoned neo-Classicism, theoretically at least, in favor heterodox economics -- mixtures of Marx, MInsky, Robinson, behaviorists, and complexity theorists.
 
The Naomi Klein "socialism" fits the anti-modern monicker.  It is "looking backward" in a primitivist reaction to the excesses of modern capitalism. This kind of "socialism" will forever be an elitist one, since it is of very little use in the daily struggles of working families. However, its sway in the environmental movement is very strong. This does not mean the anti-modern socialism would have no appeal among working people. There are many workers who are environmentally conscious -- but they have little time or income or means to enjoy the privilege of dropping out of the corporate, commodity-based, global economy.
 
Why have many reincarnated "socialisms" -- not counting Bernie Sanders (Bernie is NOT a "paleo-socialist" -- but he has quite a few "paleo-socialist" supporters in Vermont) -- become anti-modern, anti-technological, anti-global in their critiques of "capitalism"?  Dorman argues this is in part a reaction to the retreats and/or collapse of "classical socialisms" associated with the Soviet, Cuban, and early Chinese experiments.
 
I think Dorman gets part of it right: I have heard, on my radio program, numerous spokespersons of sundry environmental campaigns deny (without any evidence) that combatting climate change, for example, will require MORE, not LESS, technology; and that, regardless what efficiencies in energy production and consumption we could achieve via public policy -- the future of human civilization will require every MORE, not LESS energy. Rivers of it, indeed.
 
Further, the anti-Modern critiques overlook the stunning AVERAGE performance of market-based development (ESPECIALLY in less developed societies), compared to the "classical" socialist, command-economy model. One can point to all kinds of contradictions, but "non-market" socialisms, at least in this era, are most definitely "paleo" -- long gone and not coming back.
 
So what constitutes a "non-paleo" socialism?
 
First: I submit there is no economic escape from the production of commodities (items and services produced for exchange for money -- the "special" commodity) and their circulation (my definition of capitalism  -- borrowed from Marx) except the one Marx speculated: make them (through technology, automation, and science) so cheap and abundant, as close to "free" as possible. At that "point" -- not actually a "point" in time, but a rather lengthy and complex process -- "to that degree" is a better expression than "at that point" --  the satisfaction of new and emerging human wants will not be filled by commodities, and can be restructured to support different relations.
 
Second, economic escape from capitalism, and socialist  politics, are NOT the same. Between here and an economic escape from capitalism lies any number of political upheavals and likely revolutions. When we talk about socialism today, in politics, we are talking direction, not some state of being. And the fundamental measures of progress are the reduction of inequality AND the expansion of public goods  to the extent scarcity in the material means of life can be alleviated.
 
Third: class struggle is a common thread through all of capitalist development. INdeed, it is a KEY source of its development and revolutionizing of production and services. The definition of "classes" will also change with every shift in the division of labor and capital in society -- but any notion of socialism that seeks an end to class struggles, or an escape from technology, industrialization, globalization or capitalism through "looking backward" politics in this era will be disappointing to its supporters.
 
As Jesus explained to the faithful Pharisee, a good man who consistently followed the Law, when the latter complained that Jesus paid more attention to a sinful slave girl who washed his feet and sought forgiveness than himself: "If I forgive two debtors of their debts, and one owes me little, but another a lot, who will love me more?". To Hillary Clinton, I say -- the last will be first: the enslaved are the future, not the well-intentioned rich. Choose well.
 
 
 



Dorman


Modernity and Capitalism

 
Peter Dorman(Econospeak)
Well, that's a heavy title.  I'm not going to say the last word about it in a blog post, but I would like to make a fairly simple observation: for at least a century, defenders of capitalism have argued that the two are inextricably connected.  If you like modernity you have to like capitalism, and if you get rid of capitalism you will lose modernity with it.  By modernity I mean a way of life that is science-based, rational and skeptical, technologically innovative, liberal, cosmopolitan and adapted to markets.

The traditional response of the left was to argue that modernity under capitalism is flawed and that a better, socialist modernity is possible.  In other words, it rejected the identity and saw modernity as bigger than any particular version of it.

That position has been complicated by the collapse of traditional models of socialism that do seem to fail the modernization test: they were clunky and inefficient, closed to the outside instead of open, stultifying instead of dynamic.  Now, I can already hear the cries of paleo-socialists in my ear: No!  Socialism didn't fail in Russia/China/Cuba/wherever; it was encircled by the forces of capital and betrayed from within.  I don't agree, but I won't debate it here; my only point is that most of the left is not paleo-socialist, so they've had to figure out what it means to be left wing and anti-capitalist in a world in which capitalism and modernity (in their eyes) largely coincide.

The result that seems to be unfolding is a widespread rejection of modernity on the activist/committed left.  This is obvious in a book like Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus the Climate.  She denounces "western science" and the industrial revolution.  She is against globalization and wants each of us to stay put and cultivate our relationship to the soil—to native plants and local, stable communities.  She has rediscovered spirituality and finds it answers life's questions better than rational skepticism.  She thinks traditional societies lived better and possessed more wisdom than those swept up in modernity.  And of course, any use of markets (other than carbon taxes) is to be denounced as the sin of greed.

What Klein writes wouldn't matter so much if they were only her personal thoughts (just like mine don't matter very much), but the reception her book has received shows she has distilled a worldview shared by much if not most of the left.  Her anti-modernist stance is not even mentioned; it is taken for granted.  Or more precisely, it is how we understand her to be radical and left-wing: that's what it means to oppose capitalism in the Anthropocene.  (My spell-checker doesn't recognize Anthropocene yet.  Give it time.)

So that's how we've come full circle.  The identity between modernity and capitalism is no longer offered in defense of the existing order but (or also) as the basis for its rejection.  My prediction is that the benefits of modernity are so obvious and compelling for the vast majority of humanity that anti-modernist leftism will be an evanescent cult, something future generations will look back upon with curiosity.

And I still think we need to consider what form a non- or post-capitalist modernity might take.

(Postscript: If you want to think about how this conceptual turn of events began, you might look at the emergence of postmodernism, which transferred the critique of capitalism to the critique of modernity and arose at about the same time classical socialism/communism lost its intellectual luster.)

(Postscript ^2: This is not about anarchism vs Marxism.  Anarchists used to be modernists.  Read Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops or, for cultural modernism, Emma Goldman's Living My Life.)
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV
 
The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.


_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
   visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/phantom%40hevanet.com

You are subscribed as: phantom@hevanet.com