Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #1 

There seems to be this misconception being forwarded by a few folks that this party is a far left party and that anyone who dares to breath a word about building coalitions with conservatives on any topic or in sharing any idea that might also be shared by conservatives is wrong.  They also tend to imply that this is some sort of new thing, or that it is just a few fringe people.
  In fact it has been an ongoing principle, and is rooted in the idea of building consensus and consistent with the occupy movement, which this party was at one point close with.  If you look at this thread http://justiceparty.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5732761
 from february of last year, you will see that these ideas are nothing new, and were coming from a member of the steering committee.  Many of the people advocating the left turn are newer to the party, or have specifically decided to sit it out while the heavy lifting was being done, so are perhaps not as familiar with the JP culture that has been growing as we have been developing these ideas as some of us with varying degrees of left or rightness have found common ground, and learned a new respect for one another, and a new willingness to work together, or to at least put our differences aside to reach common goals.  That is the lasting thing that this party offers that no other party does. 

  The people that promulgate these ideas tend to make personal comments or attacks on a person's "progressiveness" or attack a person's idea because of where it comes from, instead of debating the relevant points; and use inflammatory language based not on the merits or lack thereof, but by insinuating or directly accusing folks of being anti Semitic, t-partiers, conservatives, wrong thinkers, redneck, hick, etc etc etc.  This is "right baiting".  It is a form of 'red baiting' but red state red as opposed to red commie red, and is equally dastardly and underhanded.   Interestingly, these same people tend to take any criticism of their policies as 'red baiting".   Baiting of any sort needs to end.  It is disrespectful, immature, and toxic to building a vibrant and successful party.

  If you take a hard line and cannot debate the ideology, but instead resort to attacking the messenger, that is polemics.  It is unhealthy, and there is NO PLACE for it in a free society.  There is plenty of room for civilized debate of the issues, but when it devolves into personal attacks, it goes too far.  When it comes from members of the party leadership it sends the wrong message, and it encourages an increasingly polemic and ineffectual discourse overall.  It will break this party. 

 This party is a party that has deliberately eschewed labeling ourselves.  We have set forth a very progressive set of ideals, vision, and goals, which by and large are progressive and or libertarian, but rather than label ourselves as such, and thus risk alienating vast numbers of people that are more interested in labels than substance.  Here is a list that was posted by Walter Mason, again, almost a year ago:

JUSTICE PARTY

Economic Justice:

  • Implement major domestic green jobs and infrastructure programs
  • Re-establish and make viable workers’ right to organize
  • Create a fair, democratic, and transparent financial sector that serves the needs of start-ups, small business and consumers
  • End incentives for U.S. companies to send jobs overseas
  • Enact a financial transaction tax that will curb reckless speculation and provide revenue for job creation, job training and education
  • End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
  • Compassionate and rational immigration reform
  • End to subsidies for oil and gas companies
  • Free education through four years of college or equivalent as a right
  • Protect public investments by opposing and reversing the privatization of public assets

Environmental Justice:

  • Enforce employee and environmental safeguards in trade agreements
  • Ban the Canada-to-Mexico tar sands pipeline and mountain top removal
  • Enhance air and water quality protections by strengthening the EPA
  • Take aggressive action and leadership on the climate crisis and the environment

Social and Civic Justice:

  • Affordable universal health care through Improved Medicare for All
  • An end to the wars; reduce the military budget and redirect money to domestic economy
  • Marriage equality
  • End race and gender discrimination
  • Treat substance abuse within a public health framework rather than as a criminal matter
  • Repeal the PATRIOT Act
  • Abolish corporate person hood and implement campaign finance reform to end the corrupting influence of money in politics
  • Prosecute the illegal conduct that led to the economic melt-down



Notice there is not a reference to socialism or communism.  In fact, there are several decidedly capitalistic goals listed.  Progressive capitalism, to be sure, but capitalist none the less.  this was an idea championed by Henry Wallace, who was one of the architects of the new deal.  He was FDR's sec of Agriculture, VT, and Commerce Secretary, and it was clear that FDR hoped he would be his successor..  Dem party bosses installed Truman at the 44 convention, and in 48 Wallace ran for president as a Progressive Party candidate.  Here is a link to an excellent biography and list and transcript of a few of the various speeches and talks he gave. http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/index.htm 

The progressive movement in America was founded by a broad base of people. Teddy Roosevelt was a former Republican, but ran on a platform of women's suffrage, racial harmony, and federal programs to help the needy, the handicapped, the elderly...
  "Fighting Bob" La Follette was a prominent republican/Progressive from wisconsin that formed a progressive caucus as legislator, which included  folks from the Dem/Repub/ and Progressive parties. He won the state in the 24 presidential election.
  Henry Wallace was a republican, then a dem, then a progressive.  He was FDR's sec of agriculture, his VP, and Commerce Secretary, and FDR's political heir apparent.  He advocated for making peace with the soviets, and left the Dems to run as a progressive presidential candidate in 1944.
  Fellow new dealer Fiorello Laguardia was a republican, who was also nominated by the Labor party, and was elected mayor of NYC by a coalition of democrats, republicans and labor and his legacy is one of the most progressive of any politician of his day.  The New Deal Coalition was a coalition of folks from many different parties and ideologies, that realized we need to work together.  To tose that say they find coalitions unworkable, that is obviously hogwash.
  Bernie Sanders, who is an Independent candidate, a former socialist, one of the early Liberty Union party candidates, one of the founders of the Progressive Coalition (which became the Vermont Progressive Party) could easily win as a Progressive, and is nominated by both Progressive and Democrats each year but refuses the nomination, because he knows the polarizing effect either label will have on his ability to pursue progressive ideals in the senate.  He caucuses with democrats, but worked with republican/libertarian Ron Paul to get the Fed audited.  He is perhaps the most progressive person in elected federal office at the moment, and one of the most popular senators.  He is the only "socialist" to be elected to the senate in over 60 years.
  America does not want socialism.  We want some of the socialist programs, like universal health, but we don't elect socialists.  It's hard enough to elect independents or 3rd partiers-- He was the first independent in 40 years.. 

  American politics may have taken a shift to the right, but Americans, by and large have not.  But Americans also haven't had an interest in socialism since before WWII.  As the Republican party has gone to the right off the cliff, and the Dems have followed them, to take their place to the right of center, there is a HUGE vacuum left where the Democratic party used to be.  That is the place the JP needs to fill.  Progressive capitalism, with a dash of libertarian on civil liberties and freedoms issues, a clear peace agenda, a clear environmental agenda, and a strengthening of the social safety net including universal health care.  Equality, justice, dignity...   We do not need to meet the governments jump to the right with our own step to the left...   We just need to deliver on the ideals that the Dems used to, and the republicans before them.  We need to return to the ideals of the new deal, and institute a millenium of the common citizen. 

I hope this post will be taken as the constructive post it was meant as.  Many folks, myself included, have put alot of time and resources that we cannot afford to waste into building this party because America needs it, and I sincerely hope we do not throw that investment away on an ideology that slips further and further to the left until it is safely irrelevant to the corporate hegemony.  We need a broad base of support or we waste our time and efforts.
  Our party was founded on the ideals of building a broad based coalition, and all voices are welcome and should be encouraged to speak, but we need to retain the focus that has brought us where we are today, and will bring us to ever bigger things as we continue to grow, but we must stick to our core principles, and not let bullies on either side cause us to give up on any of our ideals as a party.  There is room in a party for folks of widely disparate ideas.  We need to honor and encourage their open andrespectful discussion.  That does not mean that as a party we need to, or even should adopt them.

Thank You.  Respectfully, in solidarity,

~Ben Eastwood, VT SPP



 


__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #2 
I think when people say that there is no room for conservatives they mean those people who want to shrink the government as opposed to people who believe that government has an important role in helping people. In other words, conservatives who support social Darwinism. I have to believe that debate is not between capitalism and socialism/communism. I don't see the Justice Party being on the far left supporting socialism and certainly not communism. The social welfare state, yes. Based on ecology we may have to find a no growth economic system. Since capitalism requires growth it is unclear whether it is on a collision course with ecological systems. I think this is something that we at least should be considering as the world economy keeps doubling on a finite planet.
Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #3 

I think the issue isn't no growth, it is sustainable growth.  We can put mechanisms in place to make sure that growth doesn't become a cancer.  I believe that with new technologies, coupled with a careful stewardship of our environment, we can sustain a level of growth globally, and that should be reflected in our party and our culture.  I think rampant consumerism is a tumor that needs to be biopsied, and we need to look at how we can achieve sustainable growth on a global scale.  I think that could be a growth industry in and of itself: Humanitarian technologies designed to raise the standard of living throughout the developing world, and to helping communities become food and energy self reliant, and connected to the global community, if they want it. 


 


__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #4 
I assume you are aware that many people consider the term "sustainable growth" to be an oxymoron. I found an organization that is pushing an alternative called a "steady state economy." The website for the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy is at http://steadystate.org If the Justice Party wants to stand out from the crowd this could be something to consider supporting.

They have a pretty impressive list of signatures including the following:

E. O. Wilson, Professor of biology at Harvard University; author of Sociobiology, The Ants, The Diversity of Life, Consilience, and many other books; winner of the U.S. National Medal of Science; Pulitzer Prize winner; Crafoord Prize winner; member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Jane Goodall, World-renowned primatologist; United Nations Messenger of Peace; Commander of the Order of the British Empire; recipient of the Medal of Tanzania; member of the advisory board of BBC Wildlife magazine.

Maude Barlow, Chairperson of the Council of Canadians; co-founder of the Blue Planet Project; councilor on the World Future Council; winner of the Right Livelihood Award; former Senior Advisor on Water to the United Nations; author of Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water, as well as numerous other books.

Chris Matthews, Host of Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and The Chris Matthews Show (NBC News); author of several best-sellers; regular commentator on NBC’s Today Show.

Herman Daly, Professor of ecological economics at the University of Maryland; cofounder of the International Society for Ecological Economics; author of Beyond Growth and Steady-State Economics; coauthor of For the Common Good; recipient of the Right Livelihood Award.

David Suzuki, Cofounder of the David Suzuki Foundation; host of television program The Nature of Things; author of The Sacred Balance; Companion of the Order of Canada.

Bill McKibben, Global warming activist; author of The End of Nature, Deep Economy, and Eaarth (among other books); founder of stepitup07.org.

Caroline Lucas, Member of British Parliament; former member of European Parliament; leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation on Science, Technology, and Ecology; author of Water Wars:  Pollution, Profits, and Privatization and Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge; recipient of the Right Livelihood Award.

Wendell Berry, Farmer; author of more than forty books; past fellow of both the Guggenheim Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Here is their position statement:

 

Whereas:

1) Economic growth, as defined in standard economics textbooks, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;

2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;

3) The global economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors that require physical inputs and produce wastes, and;

4) Economic growth is often and generally indicated by increasing real gross domestic product (GDP) or real gross national product (GNP), and;

5) Economic growth has been a primary, perennial goal of many societies and most governments, and;

6) Based upon established principles of physics and ecology, there is a limit to economic growth, and;

7) There is increasing evidence that global economic growth is having negative effects on long-term ecological and economic welfare…

Therefore, we take the position that:

1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;

2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;

3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;

4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;

5) A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in large, wealthy economies, and;

6) The long-run sustainability of a steady state economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of reduced ecological and economic capacity during expected or unexpected supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages, and;

7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, and;

8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;

9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.

Does the CASSE Position Change with the Times?

The CASSE position has been available for e-signing since May 1, 2004.  Although it was designed with global implications, it was also focused to some degree on economic growth in the United States.  It was slightly revised on June 3, 2008, to reflect growing concerns about global economic growth and the need for wealthy nations to take the first steps in moving toward a steady state economy.  CASSE does not modify the technical aspects of the position, as these are based on long-established scientific principles.  The original CASSE position is posted here, with the revisions readily discernible.


 

Ben Eastwood

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #5 

People are entitled to their own opinions.
  I think unchecked growth is bad, but I think it is possible to grow without increasing the drain on resources, through increased efficiencies, and through more dispersed and local initiatives.  I think new technologies, like 3d printing, will change manufacturing and the way we consume things.  Imagine, I could build a printer that can make plastic gadgets, and then the used plastic bits could be directly recycled.  the technology is here now, and being developed outside of the big industries in open source projects like rip-rap.
  These technologies could enable an artist in point a to create a piece of art, and post it on the internet, and sell copies of his sculpture, that people could buy copies of in points b,c and d, and print themselves at home, with no need for the artist to even have any means of production.
  This could be just about anything you can make from plastic, at home printers pretty much just use plastic right now, but there are printers that use metal, and some use food, and it wont be long before we see micro factories where communities can set up a printer and a cnc machine and build anything, even a car.  You could order your blender from company a, and it could be built right down the block from you, no matter where you live...  this levels the playing field, and in fact, may give the advantage to the little guy that can be flexible... 

  My point is, I don't think we can look at the world through old rules, and I feel that if we look at other priorities besides profit, we can still find room for profit, and not wreck the planet, or promote disparity.  I think America's growth and consumerism are too high, but I think the world in aggregate can support growth, as long as it is controlled growth, and that, just as technology has provided growth in the past, it can in the future.  The issue is to balance it, to make sure that our processes and habits are actually sustainable. 


__________________
We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #6 
Unfortunately you are up against the laws of physics. The outcome is predictable. Basically there are two choices. One is to keep growing economically until the inevitable population collapse occurs which will end growth and the other is to recognize that there are limits to growth and try to design a no-growth economic system to avoid a population collapse. Given this choice I would choose the latter.

To see how bad things are already check out the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2005 at http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx Here is a brief summary of what was found

 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that an estimated 60 per cent of the ecosystems that support life on Earth--fresh water, fisheries and the atmosphere--are quickly being degraded and depleted. They are not expected to last past 2050.

"Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," declared the study's international board.

I don't see where it makes any sense to call for more economic growth (smart, green, or otherwise) unless you are a politician wanting votes. We seem to be in the midst of an ecological crisis and need to abruptly change our ways before it is too late.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
There seems to be this misconception being forwarded by a few folks that this party is a far left party and that anyone who dares to breath a word about building coalitions with conservatives on any topic or in sharing any idea that might also be shared by conservatives is wrong.  They also tend to imply that this is some sort of new thing, or that it is just a few fringe people.
  In fact it has been an ongoing principle, and is rooted in the idea of building consensus and consistent with the occupy movement, which this party was at one point close with.


Just because some idea enjoys popularity for some period of time does not, in itself, make it correct.  That is argumentum ad populum, and therefore invalid.   We can therefore dismiss this thread if that is to be the only essence of it.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Many of the people advocating the left turn are newer to the party, or have specifically decided to sit it out while the heavy lifting was being done, so are perhaps not as familiar with the JP culture that has been growing as we have been developing these ideas as some of us with varying degrees of left or rightness have found common ground, and learned a new respect for one another, and a new willingness to work together, or to at least put our differences aside to reach common goals.
 

I did not decide to sit it out while the heavy lifting was being done to avoid heavy lifting.  I decided to sit it out (I signed up early last year) because this party was not clear back then -- nor is it now -- about what it was really trying to achieve.  I was looking for a Leftist party, and had strong doubts whether the Leftist tendency was present here or not.  Your assumption that I (and others?) tried to avoid work is misleading.  You did not consider whether we wanted to contribute to a proposition that seemed to be murky in definition.

I am not willing to put my differences with the RW aside.  They are the enemy.  Unfortunately, there are people here who do not respect semantics, and thus lead us down the garden path of deception and misunderstanding.  The RW must go.  Period.  Citizens and the NeoCons have nothing in common, their aims are in opposition, one seeking to constrain democracy and equality while the other is left to struggle in the economic and social wasteland purposely created to advance the aims of the former.

The battle between the plutocratic, monarchical, antidemocratic forces and the billions who slave their entire lives is ancient.  It is just that we use the terms of the French Court to establish the terminology; those ARE the terms, and you are not allowed to change them unilaterally, at least not without stipulating what you mean by them.  And any new meanings you assign had better be compelling or you will experience nothing but attacks on your arguments tearing them to shreds.

There is a war here.  A real war.  An ancient war.   Grow a spine and face these defenders of inequality.  That is the tendency I will align with.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
If you take a hard line and cannot debate the ideology, but instead resort to attacking the messenger, that is polemics.


Funny, Merriam-Webster defines polemics this way:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

1
a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another
 
b : the art or practice of disputation or controversy —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction
2
: an aggressive controversialist : disputant


I don't see anything in the definition of the term as "attacking the messenger."

Semantics matter.   Thanks for leading us into more confusion.  (Yes, THAT was a personal attack.)

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
People are entitled to their own opinions.


So it is OK if some people here advocate for killing elementary school students with weapons designed for battlefields, not personal protection?  Their opinion is that the 2nd Amendment says they can kill anyone they want, anytime, anywhere with any type of weapon they want.  Their position is further bolstered by the many states that have passed "Stand Your Ground" laws.  They feel justified in holding their opinions.

You believe those people are entitled to their opinions.  Why are they entitled?


__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Mcamelyne

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #11 
Hi Ben,

I don't subscribe to the Malthusian argument about limits of growth.  For one thing, we have been very bad at predicting the influence of technology on productivity and growth.  One of the dangers of technology is that we tend to look at things in comparison to the past.  However, the technology is curve is still rising and while I understand the limits of a rising curve, we are not anywhere close to the top.

Our economic model will have to change to reflect the needs of production for labor, not for resources.  Carbon technologies can replace many of the metals we use, coal conversion to oil can replace many of the petrochemical products, and water despite its cost can be desalinated.  Every building in America can house a hydroponic garden once we achieve cheap energy.  Now is not the time to talk about limits to growth but how we will adapt our employment for the non-labor economy.
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #12 
Here is a relevant quote from the original Limits to Growth book published in 1972.

"While technology can change rapidly, political and social institutions generally change very slowly. Furthermore, they almost never change in anticipation of a social need, but only in response to one.

Most delays, physical or social, reduce the stability of the world system and increase the likelihood of the overshoot mode."


If there was any time to talk about the limits of growth it is now. Several studies have found that it will be impossible to successfully limit global warming if economic growth continues, if fact, negative growth, i.e., economic contraction, might be needed. There seems to be growing consensus that we are headed for 4C which it is believed will end civilization as we know it. I would say it is totally irresponsible not to at least talk about limits to growth in the middle of this climate crisis. Perhaps economic growth can continue without causing overshoot and collapse but more dialog is needed on this matter. The signs are everywhere that we have exceeded the Earth's capacity to sustain billions of humans living in an increasingly industrialized world. It is unlikely that the Republicans or Democrats can discuss it because they are consumed with winning elections. It is also unlikely that the mainstream media can discuss it because they are concerned about advertising revenues. Who then can discuss it in a political context? If anybody it would be the left wing media and left wing political parties. The former exist without advertising and the latter have little hope of winning elections regardless. The quote above from the Limits of Growth should be taken very seriously.

Mcamelyne

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #13 
Here is the third world view (Vietnam) of the limits of growth:

The intent of westerners is to prevent developing countries from achieving the same standard of living as they have.  They do not want our people to own automobiles and consume resources at the same rate as they do, instead they want to fix the global economy through cultural imperialism at an arbitrary point forcing developing countries to remain the purchasers of their goods while continuing to provide their resources.

I was unable to find a single Vietnamese person over a seven-year period who supported the limits of growth.  Further, all the Chinese, Indians, and Russians that I met during that time agreed it was a western conspiracy designed to keep them down.

Let's review some facts.  World population growth has been declining for a decade.  Oil reserves have doubled in the past 10 years not counting oil shale and tar sands oil.  Peugeot has introduced a car for 2016 that gets 117 mpg which if adopted would reduce auto consumption by 60%. Technology change is accelerating and people are willing to buy hydroponically grown food.  Energy prices are high because of price collusion in the oil market through production constraints.  Technologies like lithium CO2 ceramic membranes are beginning to be installed in power plants to extract CO2 from the smokestack.  Carbon is being used as a substitute building material in bridges.  Artificial intelligence is replacing workers in the service industry faster than the jobs can be created in new industries.

We have an employment problem, not a resource one.  Here is a quote from a book on the new AI-revolution, "we are not in the middle of a Great Recession, as many observers have claimed, but a Great Restructuring, in which white-collar jobs considered for decades to be the backbone of our economy — such as marketing, retail and sales — are being re-distributed to machines that can do them just as well."

The reason why both parties ignore the jobs issue is that they know they cannot solve it without restructuring our economy around a new paradigm.

ladyactivist

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #14 
I notice the same people who want to break bread with the right wing are the same people opposed to the government being responsible for full employment. As a woman who finds it difficult to secure good paying jobs without the advantage of affirmative action I can just imagine where I stand with all of you. Glad I didn't support the Justice Party and never will. Anything for workers seems to be regarded as far left by you. I have been following Oliver Stones Untold History of the U.S. Seems to me the lesson learned is progressive parties need to have very strong socialist and communist components. You fear us. Where does that leave the Justice Party? Without support from the majority of the people. Thanks for the interesting discussions anyways.
Mcamelyne

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #15 
You seem quick to judge before our party has declared its platform.  I assume that "full employment" means something specific to you and not just a general statement.  As for Oliver Stone, I did not get the same message from him, I got more of an indictment by him that our vaunted heroes were acting in the best interests of corporations and bankers. Teddy Roosevelt founded the progressive party but I doubt he would agree with you.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!