In what the author says will be a series of interviews with minor party candidates, Socialist Party candidate for US Senate in Ohio Dan La Bortz was interviewed by John Michael Spinelli of the Examiner. Read the full thing here.
CGE: What’s your working definition of socialism? Do you think Americans have a good/bad view of socialism, and why? How does this answer help/hurt your campaign?
Dan La Botz: The Republican’s battle against the Democrats’ health care plan has had a surprising result. The conservatives accused Obama of being a socialist because of that plan. This has led many to draw the conclusion that if they believe in health care for all, then they must be socialists. So overnight, millions of people have become open to thinking about the socialist alternative.
We live today in a country where capitalism and the corporations provide the model for life: selfishness, competition, greed, and disdain for others. It’s a poor model, violent, and destructive.
Socialism means conducting the political and economic life of our nation the way that—at least ideally–we conduct the lives of our many, varied sorts of families. We hold our wealth in common. We work hard to provide for all: young or old, healthy or sick, weak or strong. We create bonds of solidarity through our common efforts. We make decisions democratically through a process of give-and-take.
So too, we as a people should take collective, social control over the largest industries and corporations in our country. We should democratically elaborate a plan to use our wealth to provide a decent life for all. Most Americans, I believe, share this vision of a just society. We might make our nation one where we take care of each other, where we insure that all are taken care of. We might in that process, create a nation where one loved one’s neighbor as one’s self.
CGE: Why isn’t the mainstream media in Ohio writing about you?
Dan La Botz: Socialist candidates, because they challenge corporate power, including the power of the corporate media, find it difficult to get coverage in the mainstream media. Corporations like CBS, General Electric, Hearst, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom and Walt Disney own most of the mainstream media, and they are in business to make a profit—not to provide news, much less to present the truth. CNN, FOX and Clear Channel radio present rightwing programming aimed at keeping the American people under the sway conservative politicians and the corporations. Fortunately within the mainstream media there remain some committed editors and journalists, and now we also have independent news sources on the Internet. We will get through to the mainstream media, but only when the social and labor movements become strong enough to forces its way in and get a fair hearing.
CGE: You say you’ve “come to know that none of the problems facing this country can be dealt with unless we end the domination of banks, insurance companies and multinational corporations over both major parties and over our political system” and that “our economic system needs to be changed.” Changed to what? What’s’ the first step in that direction, and how do you sell it to voters in Ohio?Dan La Botz: Today ten or twenty men meeting in a mahogany room can vote to close a factory or some other workplace and destroy the economy of a town, putting thousands out of work. Similarly, they can bankrupt an industry and destroy the economy of an entire state, as we have seen happen in neighboring Michigan. We need end this system where a small minority makes decisions that affect the lives of millions who have no voice or vote in that process. I think the working people of Ohio know that such a system is unjust. No small group should hold such power. We have to end such a system.
We have lost since the peak a few years ago 650,000 jobs in Ohio and people need jobs now. We have seen no serious effort to put people in Ohio back to work. The people of Ohio want alternatives, they want answers, and they want action now. The Republicans ushered in the crisis, the Democrats have since overseen it, but neither party proposes to create jobs here now.
The Stimulus Bill was not enough and not aimed at the right target: creating jobs for all. The Stimulus Bill’s extension of unemployment benefits, assistance with health care, aid to low-income workers, and help for the very poor were necessary—but they were not enough. And the tax cuts for big business and tax money flowing to private corporations, however, put our tax money in the hands of the rich. We can do better.
Take Wilmington. DHL destroyed the economy of that town by closing its facility. The government let a viable economic center and an entire community collapse. Our tax money could have created a publicly owned logistics center—warehousing and shipping—run democratically by workers and consumers providing jobs for 8,000 workers. The government could take over and keep operating other logistics facilities in the country. We could integrate these into a revamped and revitalized U.S. Postal System. With our tax support, the workers’ know-how, and consumer in-put, we could build a logistics system to compete with and beat DHL, FEDEX, and UPS. Rather than temporary unemployment benefits, we should create jobs at living wages. I will fight to create permanent jobs not temporary handouts.
When I meant that they are at odds economically, there are a few that think when they see anything outside of their views it is “ZOMG Socialism!”. The correct thing is to say, “ZOMG Statism”. The Greens, Libertarians, and Socialists are all opposed to corporate welfare.
There is also a Tea Party element at play here this year, but the correct party for a lot of them would be the Constitution Party.
And of course Libertarians and Socialists (and Greens) are on the opposite end economically. There is common ground on drug reform, civil rights, and a non-intervenionist foreign policy.
Some of the common ground is economic as well.
http://thirdpartyalliance.net/
Of their “four points of unity” two are economic:
I. Freedom from Central
& Foreign Bankers
II. Freedom from National Debt
& Bailouts
The other two are not —
III. Defense of Civil Liberties & the Constitution
IV. Freedom from Wars & Empire
But when the coverage comes, I will post it.
We could sign you up so you could do that directly on the site rather than in comments.
…and obviously by the name many Green Party people in the U.S. and around the globe are also centrists, conservatives, or of no specific bent…
What’s obvious about that by the name?
Dan’s Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dan-La-Botz-Socialist-for-Senate/105166016181526?ref=search&sid=196900002.3206562135..1
There isn’t a long list of Greens, unfortunately. I tried recruiting, I tried running myself as well.
But when the coverage comes, I will post it.
…and obviously by the name many Green Party people in the U.S. and around the globe are also centrists, conservatives, or of no specific bent…
The more Green Party stories posted the better…
That’s why I devote a little time a few days a week with 5 to 10 new Green Party story links..
The Green Party success in the U.S. and around the world right now is terrific, and no surprize..
Green energy, solar, wind, geothermal, Green homes, Green jobs…are the future for jobs, jobs, jobs…
Let’s hope the big Ohio paper now does interview with the long list of excellent Green Party candidates…
Vaughn (sorry for misspelling earlier),
I will try to dig for some more Green news for IPR in the future.
Are you interested in signing up to post it here?
It’s now a two-step process, which is annoying, but I managed to figure it out. I’m in the library for a the next few minutes but if you want to give me a call a little later I may be able to walk you through it, 415-690-6352
IPR’s audience is much more than the people who comment here — the vast majority of our readers never leave comments. And we would probably get more Green readers if more Green stories were posted. I think there would be a point in posting more of your stories here, as they would reach a wider audience than they do at GPW, but of cours it is up to you.
The greatest leftist commenter in iPR history so far was Catholic Trotskyist (true he wasn’t left-wing on all issues, but he’s a socialist). What ever happened to him? I hope he returns and even becomes a writer here when he has time.
See http://www.ic.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community
@ 24,
That seems to be the norm lately.
I’ve noticed a lot of the Libertarians that stepped forward in Ohio as candidates are not civil-libertarians, however. I’m suspecting that they are mostly disgruntled former Republicans and social conservatives. I don’t know how well the Greens and Socialists are going to be able to cooperate with them going forward…
I will try to dig for some more Green news for IPR in the future.
By the way, life in Europe is pretty good with a healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism. It’s not like they need jack-booted thugs to make people enjoy efficient public transportation, quality public education, and affordable, high-quality public health care.
Hola. I’ve been spending less time on IPR mainly because I get tired of my comments going to the spam filter. Apparently logging in first fixes that problem (altho I still can’t get my comments out of that filter – no idea why, I could do it before). Also, I didn’t exactly see the point of cross-posting everything I post at GPW, since (as someone noted) IPR seems to have a more Libertarian audience, while I expect Greens would read GPW. Of course, I’m glad to let IPR editors repost what I post on GPW.
No ism ever works in its absolute state.
Jake @17,
All government is perpetuated at the end of a gun.
paulie @ 14,
I didn’t mean my point as a criticism of what gets covered and how (I think IPR’s coverage is pretty comprehensive), but was wondering about the relationship between coverage and comments. It seems like more xyz posts will probably lead to more comments from xyz’ers. And potentially, more xyz comments might lead to more xyz posts.
It might be the case that Greens therefore tend to congregate and comment more at places that are specifically geared toward the GP, or toward progressives and progressive Democrats where Greens could do outreach (Firedoglake, for example).
First century of the Christ movement …….
How wonderfully naive this board is. Gosh, everybody sharing in the means of production, the fruits of that production, etc., sounds swell. But peoples have been there, done that…and it hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried.
Can you name even one place or time in history where socialism has been successful and/or hasn’t been perpetuated at the end of a gun?
Vaugn @ 5,
Libertarians and socialists are not on the opposite end economically.
Even if we limit the definition of libertarianism to state-capitalist libertarians, and limit the definition of socialsm to state socialism (that is, the common assumption that the state is the means by which workers can come to own the means of production, which other socialists disagree with) — both libertarians and socialists generally oppose corporate welfare and corporate-government collusion.
Given that corporate welfare and corporate-government collusion is in fact the existing economic system, and that it is backed by the establishment of both of the big two political parties, I would consider that substantial common ground.
For example, the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, etc., by and large opposed the recently passed government mandate for individuals and small businesses to buy medical insurance from large corporations, albeit for different reasons.
Clay, I don’t think socialism is any more difficult to explain than libertarianism.
d. eris,
Much of that is because we get Libertarian news more easily. The LP blog posts regular updates, many LP leaders send us articles to contact.ipr, etc.
I’ve signed up Green/ex-Green writers so that they would provide more coverage of the GP here, but they haven’t done so nearly to the extent I hoped.
For example, when I have time to do so I cross-post just about everything from Green Party Watch here, but Dave Schwab does not cross-post most of his own articles from GPW to here.
On The Wilder Side still has many GP stories that do not get cross-posted here (unless I am around to do it). Etc.
I’ve invited other Green writers to write here and they have said no.
So, if people are signed up here and don’t want to even post the stories they post on other sites to IPR – and others don’t want to sign up at IPR when asked – there’s not much else I can do.
Well, I could scale back LP coverage to enforce a quota system, but I don’t think that is the answer.
Also, when you look at those stats, you should also consider that the biggest share of stories in the “Independent” category are about Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, and other leftist independents, and that the socialist/left category has a lot more articles than the right wing minor parties category. Likewise, the Green category has many more articles than the Constitution Party category.
Thus, you can only say that our coverage leans to the right if you classify the Libertarians as right wing, *which I do not*.
If you say that Libertarians are neither left nor right, or even left wing, if anything, we lean to the left in terms of the news coverage – but not in any intentional way, either. We would be just as happy to see increased participation from the CP and far right as we would from Greens and far left.
Trent @ 8,
One can definitely be both libertarian and socialist.
Socialism means that workers own the means of production (ie community resources are shared). Libertarian just means the sharing has to be voluntary, with no one being forced to remain in the community or participate against their will.
Many latter-day socialists have expanded the meaning of “community” from the above to entire nation-states — including ones which make it difficult for people to leave — and a world where one nation-state or another claims control of every last little bit of the earth, and the “world community” works to prevent any territory from falling outside the rule of nation-states. Others dream of world government.
Libertarian socialists, on the other hand, see communities as small parcels of mutually shared property which are very easy to leave and, in the more successful ones, where the participants all know each other.
Despite popular perception, libertarianism does not mean any particular economic system. It means forbidding/abolishing (or, in the case of moderate libertarians, minimizing) the permitted initiation of force.
If you haven’t read it yet, or haven’t read it in a while, I highly recommend http://mises.org/story/2099 for a history of how socialsm and libertarianism developed from common roots on the left and how and why they have diverged (perhaps temporarily) in the last hundred years.
Still, 20% prefer generic ‘socialism’: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism
That’s just ‘socialism’. No description at all, just ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’. So I don’t think it is as tough of a sell. I’d like to see a ‘taste test’ where there aren’t any labels and people choose between different political ideologies.
I am surprised that there aren’t more people from Ohio on here before I’m surprised about any other group being underrepresented. We have 6 political parties here!
One of the reasons Libertarianism is easier to Promote than Socialism is that its based around a more easily graspable tenet: Less government. Socialism, meaning the community owns the means of production, is a more difficult sell. It also requires more time to discuss than we are willing to commit to in out blog based small short text exchange world. Socialism is a beaurocratic system. It engenders a conversation about how we should go about placing the means of production in the hands of society. It’s more involved. It’s harder than just saying “LESS GOVERNMENT! LESS TAXES!”, and then donating.
The Green Party is dying.
“I’ve always been curious about . . .”
I was recently thinking about something similar and wondering if it was just a function of general coverage. The categories widget reveals that there are about twice as many stories on the LP than the next largest party/group, which is the Greens.
I can’t imagine how you could be a libertarian and a socialist. All of the other combinations make some level of sense.
I’m a small l liberal, small s socialist and small l libertarian. Perhaps even a small g green. I would certainly refer to myself as a leftist rather than right or moderate. The Nolan chart claims I’m a left libertarian, and I can certainly image voting for some libertarians, but I can also image voting for some socialists and greens.
Michael and Vaughn,
I know both of you are leftist–and we have a few others. But the number of readers and commenters who are moderate or leftist PALE in comparison to the Libertarians and Hard Right folks (though even the hard right types are scarce).
And of course Libertarians and Socialists (and Greens) are on the opposite end economically. There is common ground on drug reform, civil rights, and a non-intervenionist foreign policy.
But on a larger scale, no third party member in Ohio should vote for any major party candidate in the general election.
Trent, I’m all three!
Dan showed up at the Green Party convention earlier this year and made a big impact. An independent candidate (Eric Lamont Gregory) also showed up. They both wanted our endorsement, but we are waiting until after the primary to decide, but there is a fair chance that we could endorse Dan. I’ve been heavily in favor of his endorsement.
This is the first year that Ohioans can vote for third party candidates all across the state. I’ll vote for any Libertarian that is on the ballot if there isn’t a Green there as well. I hope there are some Libertarians out there that would do the same.
Trent
What the hell am I? Chopped liver?
Well, we’ve got a fair amount of Green commenters and small p progressives and small s socialists. Not as many as libertarians (and Libertarians), of course.
I’ve always been curious about why we can’t get any Socialist, Green, or Progressive commenters/readers here…