HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 Next »

merrily

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 6,747

Journal Archives

Market Basket Employees: Join Crucial July 25 Rally and Donate.

Please see this thread in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025287742

Market Basket--Urgent Needs: Support the July 25 Rally and Donate.

As many know, the employees of Market Basket, a New England supermarket chain, are protesting the ouster of their former boss and minority stockholder, Arthur T. Demoulas, who, from all reports, was a dream boss.

The employee action was initially instigated by a man who has worked there 49 years, whose son has worked there for 25 years and whose other son has worked there "on and off." Those in control of the company fired him by delivering a message to his home and, if the business goes bankrupt, his son will be out of work, too. That is how much he believes in his boss.

A local commentator said this evening that he searched for employees to speak against Demoulas, to give both sides, but could not find any. (For consumers, Market Basket kept prices low, too.)

Many threads at DU give the background, if you don't know and are interested, but in this post, I want to focus on urgent needs.

Demoulas has made a bid for over 50% of the company. Whether or not the Board of Directors is meeting to consider that tomorrow, it is is meeting tomorrow. The employees are holding a rally in Tewksbury, Massachusetts tomorrow, July 25. They would love for anyone who can to join them.

More info about the rally is at their website.

http://wearemarketbasket.com/

Also at their website is a link where you can make donations to help the warehouse employees survive as they go without pay during the strikes and demonstrations. My understanding is that warehouse employees are the beneficiaries of the fund because they are among the lowest paid.

http://wearemarketbasket.com/a-fund-to-help-our-fellow-associates-in-the-warehouse/

Tonight, on the news, I heard one of the lawyers for the opposition (from the firm of Burns & Levinson) say that the owners will be fine, even if the company goes bankrupt, because the real estate on which the stores sit alone is enormously valuable. I hope that is not the route they take.

Please show solidarity with the workers in whatever way you can. Maybe you can't get to Tewksbury tomorrow, but can find five or ten bucks (or more) to donate.

Since the rally is tomorrow, July 25, please try to keep this thread kicked for visibility.

No, that would be socialism, period.

Many people have doubts about socialism, in part because of what I mentioned in my prior post--how much time, energy and money we've spend discrediting socialism.

Those doubts are exactly why the RW throws around the word "socialism" when social programs that have nothing to do with ownership of the means of production are at issue.

And exactly why I think the left should not also use the word incorrectly. So doing only hurts the left and helps the right.

I don't know when people began thinking that what they feels a word means is more correct than the dictionary meaning of the word. I think dictionary definitions are important if we are going to actually understand what we and others are saying, instead of only assuming we're communicating on the same page.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

It means government ownership of the means of production, not just

some government program. That is its meaning and dictonary definition.

If Obamacare were truly socialist, government would be owning the hospitals, hiring doctors, nurses and maintenance staff, etc.

When the word is used loosely, it brings to bear in a program about 70 years and trillions of dollars spent by the USA combating the left and discrediting the left at home and abroad.

Why I never call myself a progressive, by merrily

When the DLC first formally organized, Koch Industries donated to it and one of the Koch brothers had a seat on its Executive Council.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

(According to Jean Mayer of The New Yorker, this was about the same time as the Koch brothers began planning the Tea Party.)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations

The first two full-time employees of the DLC were Al From and Will Marshall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Marshall later founded the Progressive Policy Institute. It's web home page used to say something like, "Welcome to the Progressive Policy Institute, the place for pragmatic progressives."

I haven't checked lately, but the last time I checked, it no longer said that. Perhaps Tom Tomorrow got to PPI?



Anyway, PPI was founded in 1989, only a few years after official formation of the DLC. In 2003, Marshall, who is still President of PPI, signed the PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

How's that for progressive? How's that for pragmatic?

I was with you 100% until the last sentence. The Founders were plutocrats.

Who but plutocrats would have kept abolition of slavery out of the Constitution and restricted the vote to about 3% of the then population of the colonies, only white male who could afford to own land AND pay a poll tax?

They set up the electoral college to elect the President and Senators were elected by state legislatures--also made up of plutocrats, at least more plutocratic than others. State legislatures also got to vote on ratification of the Constitution. The people got to vote only for Reps, but the Senate got to vote on ambassadors, treaties, convictions in impeachment, etc., as well as the ability to kill things passed by the House.

We've been brainwashed all our lives to practically worship these people, most of whom were wealthy, especially the slaveowners, slaves being the single most valuable thing in the colonies. But, I'm over the brainwashing.

True, they could have overthrown the British, then set up another monarchy, if they wanted. Instead, they invented something that had never existed in human history. (They did want to make Washington "President for Life," but he refused--and that's close to another monarchy with a Congress, instead of a Parliament.)

I'll give them brilliance. Geniuses, yes, but they weren't egalitarians by any means. And they feared "the mob," which is why the Senate got more powers than the House.

"You can thank President Clinton...

You can thank President Clinton...

...for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which was one of the drivers behind the domination of right-wing talk radio today.

And NAFTA - a huge sell-out of the working person in this country, and I would propose one of the reasons for the shrinking middle class we're experiencing now.

And the current "Third Way Democrat" who used to talk like traditional Democrats but economically (and for some, foreign policy) are just as bad as the Repubs. Rather than confront the fat-cats, he catered to them (for the most part.)

He may have done some good things (even broken clocks...), but NAFTA and the Telecom Act created HUGE holes in our society for which we may never recover completely.

And he and the establishment Dems expect me to get all excited about Hillary? GIVE ME A BREAK!


Thank you, eizenmahn. I quoted in full because I want to add this post to my journal. I hope you don't mind. If you do, pm me and I will delete it from my journal.

And then, there was the Fairness Doctrine. Until the Obama administration, Democrats were calling for its reinstatement by the Executive Branch. However, under Obama, the FCC killed it. Whereas before, it could have been resurrected by the Executive Branch, after Obama, it will take an Act of Congress. And we all know, as we knew when the FCC put the nail in the coffin, that it will never pass Congress.

And much more recently, the FCC blew it with the internet, too.

But, sure, let's make believe that only Republicans are to blame for all our ills. That's great for professional Democrats, not so much for ordinary Democratic voters.

No, I think we agree activism is important. Question is,

what kind of activism?

Demonstrations, marches, signing internet petitions, calling your Rep? Don't get me wrong, I do do some of that, even though, as I am doing it, I ask myself why am I doing this when I don't think it will matter. The answer is, because I can't help myself. But, I don't think that will do the job.

Some of the things that have occurred to me:

Two huge websites, one for the US, one for the world. Not to discuss anything but what is going on in activism at the moment and maybe to exchange ideas on the most effective kinds of activism.

Economic boycotts.

Demonstrations, but really big ones. It could be local for everyone. "Show up at your town halls with signs next week at lunch hour," for example.

Ten people show up at a town hall, pffft. Five or ten people show up at every town hall in the country, though--maybe something gets shaken up? Maybe by the tenth week or so, media will even admit it's happening?

Iching and True Delphi are good evangelists for acting local and I really want to do more of that, too.

Anyway, those are some things I Have been mulling.

And so on.

Hippie probably was not the correct term.

It was my shorthand for people who took part in quite a few peace marches, maybe civil rights marches in the 1960s. Not necessarily the druggie, Haight Ashbury types--"not that there's anything wrong with that," or the "Can you spare some change?" group.

The persistent demonstrators could have been accountants, for all I know. I do know for certain that some were doctors and lawyers. And members of the military, etc. And some kids of multimillionaires, too.

The ones I mean are the ones who believe with 100% certainty that they fought the peace and civil rights battles for 5, 10, 15 years and finally won. When I tell them maybe it only looked as though they won, maybe the same things would have happened if they stayed home, they get furious. I don't blame them.

Same thing for those who go to a lot of demonstrations today, though most demonstrations today seem kind of puny. Even those who don't demonstrate, but keep telling us to call the White House or sign this internet petition or call our Rep. If any of that did anything, the bill that went to Baucus would have had a public option.

No one seems to want to even consider for a minute that they may need to change their M.O. What was good enough for the 1960s (or so it seemed) is going to do wonders in 2009-2016 and maybe forever. Or so they seem to think.

Um, how is it been working for us, so far? If I ask, that, someone will point to some vote or other of his or her rep. However, that doesn't mean the rep changed his or her vote because of calls and internet petitions. It was how the rep was going to vote all along.

Not to mention the damned D.C. kabuki. "Here, Emma, this vote is going to pass no matter what. You live in blue state, so go ahead and vote No. " or "Gee, the Dems out there want this vote to pass, but screw that. Let's make sure it's damn close, though, so it's looks like we REALLY tried. If you are in a solid blue state, or very, very popular, vote no and help out your fellow Dems in the pale blue states who have to vote yes or get primaried next time."

Anyway, the bottom line is, whatever did or did not work in the Sixties, that was a long time ago. It's not working today, so we have to find things that might work. At that point almost everyone is pissed at me and I get reamed as negative. Why? Because I think we should stop doing things that don't work and try to think of things that might?

Not true. Then again, neither it is true that only centrists can win elections.

Don't you people ever get tired of pushing memes that are untrue?

Obama defeated Ciinton by portraying himself as well to the left of centrists. The fact that he governed as a centrist has nothing to do with what got him elected. And the climate in the country is shifting. You and the DNC need to keep that in mind as well.

Besides, I would wager that about 80% of the country never heard of the DLC and has no idea that the party has changed. All they know is Democrats--FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, yadda yadda. New Deal, Fair Deal, Social Security, unions, civil rights, Great Society. Not mortgage derivatives.

Each party could run a hobby horse and they would get roughly the same number of votes, just based on the bitter partisanship that has been ginned up by both sides. So, please don't tell me that only a centrist can win. It's imaginary.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »