Sunday, April 3, 2016

Why America Needs Glasnost .

In the 1980s  the old (#)>>Soviet Union . Was ideologically Marxist and diametrically opposed to the liberal, democratic ideals of Western Europe and the United States. A superpower, it was geographically one of the largest countries in the world and boasted one of the globe’s most powerful militaries. It maintained influence in Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Third World. Upon his rise to power in 1985 as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet UnionMikhail Gorbachev introduced glasnost as one of a troika of slogans in his campaign to reform faltering Soviet system. He called for glasnost (openness) in public discussion, perestroika (restructuring) in the economy and political system, and novoye mneniya (new thinking) in foreign policy. All three slogans broke away from the ideology-laden sloganeering of past Soviet leaders and suggested movement away from dictatorship to a more open and democratic Soviet future.Soviet Union .Although the government of the Soviet Union was Communist in name, it didn’t emulate the values and structure of Communism. It reflected a more authoritarian,or even dictatorship, style of government. Citizens were highly controlled, as what they read, watched and said was monitored and their public lives were enforced in a way to prevent rebellion or resistance. (1)>>Glasnost, perestroika; free speech; open parliamentary debate televised before millions of viewers; the beginning of organized political opposition to the Communist Party; mass strikes and demonstrations by workers and ethnic minorities; serious publications dealing honestly with the nation's sordid history which had been covered up for decades by official lies. The spin here , if we compare the corrupt Soviet Union in Russia in the 80s with some of the political metaphoric of (1.1)>>our American system since 2000 the American dishonesty was worse  than we are to believe. First to get somewhere anything near a true glasnost or perestroika policy, the entire political system in the United States would have to be upended. For example, if we radically changed the distribution system in this country, it would likely lead to some conflict, at the very least. The capitalists aren't going to give up power just because the legislature told them to (though the legislature would never tell them to do this), so it's going to have to come from a worker's movement that confronts them and forces the power out of their hands; ideally by that independent worker party that Sanders talked about in the essay. Second, the media is never going to relent their control, and there are ways for them to press the government to interrupt grassroots media; for example, the policy on pirate radio stations. This would also cut into advertisers.The overall effect to the US? Well, if the movements play their hands right, then it could be positive and we could move toward a worker-powered and controlled society and economy. If not, then we risk a reactionary backlash, like what happened in the Soviet Union." Our American system since 2000. Americans need to be more politically open-minded and, regardless of their political affiliation, should work in earnest with different parties and factions in order to improve our country and strengthen its democratic institutions. This includes working to cut exorbitant campaign-spending and making our political system more open to different voices aside from just “Democrats” and “Republicans.” There are many shades of gray in America that exist between the black and white of the current parties. The American Republican Party has been eroded over the last two decades, like the HARD LINE Soviet they both diametrically opposed to the liberal, democratic ideals of Constitution.  
In 1989 "we" were WARNED about our situation 2016.
In 1989 back then Barnie Sanders ( yes that Sanders who is running for President ) said this in a article that he wrote that mirrors (prophetically) the year 2016:

Within the United States today, the richest one percent of the population now owns over half the wealth in this country and the richest 10 percent owns over 80 percent of the wealth (excluding home ownership). The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. Further, with the recent "merger mania" and the incredible growth of huge, multinational corporations, a handful of corporate executives now exercise unprecedented power over the economic life of the nation. In the United States today, over half the eligible voters no longer vote for President and far fewer vote in off-year state and local elections. In fact, the United States now has the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized nation in the world, with the vast majority of poor and young people not voting. Further, in 1988, 99 percent of incumbent members of Congress were reelected. This strongly suggest that, due to the power of incumbency, our system of representative democracy has broken down completely and that election to Congress is now tantamount to lifetime tenure--a House of Lords.

We need More Political Parties in America. 

(3)>>Americans need no rude awaking to the current situation of our "choices" for the Presidency . We have Trump , Cruz , Hillary and Sanders . All of them are (2)>>Democrat , or Republican . We have serious marginal choices for the vote. The lack of "other parties" is a great polarity in our system . Its also part of our problem of whom our elected officials associate themselves with. First both Democrats and Republicans are both the party of the Rich , they both have little in common with the average American . Donald Trump for example could have run on an Independent platform  , his extremism views have now put in in a confusing off the wall area which the GOP neo-cons have distanced themselves from his views . Oddly enough though the Republican party has repudiated Trumpism , they have for a long time have embraced his ideas . Along the side of the Democrats they have no choice to rally around Hillary . Sanders can't run as a Socialist in America ( though it would be good if he did ) so he has to call in the name Democrat . So again seriously enough we are stuck in the two party system. Americans' current desire for a third party is consistent with their generally negative views of both the Republican and Democratic parties, with only about four in 10 viewing each positively. Americans' views toward the two major parties have been tepid for much of the last decade. However, even when the party's images were more positive in the past, including majority favorability for the Democrats throughout 2007 and favorability for the GOP approaching 50% in 2011, Americans' still saw the need for a third party.Democrat , or Republican . Given the U.S. political system, those whose ideology puts them to the left of the Democratic Party or the right of the Republican Party are better served trying to work within a major political party than establishing their own party. Supporters of the Tea Party movement generally took this approach, with some success, by trying to get their preferred candidates nominated as Republicans in the last few election cycles. But as with most U.S. third parties historically, the Tea Party's influence appears to be waning as the movement did not play a pivotal role in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and was less successful in defeating more moderate Republican candidates in the 2014 congressional primaries than in 2010. And, as Gallup's brief analysis of the result suggests, the U.S. system is stacked pretty heavily against third parties being taken very seriously, winning many races, or lasting very long. Remember that the most successful of recent third party presidential candidates -- Ross Perot who got 19 percent of the popular -- managed to get zero electoral votes.The political parties have not represented the "people" in decades. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are fighting to serve the same master, i.e. the ultra wealthy and powerful monopolistic corporations. Their servitude has resulted in a corporate communism at its worst which has more to do with our economic woes than any other issue. Yet both elected party representatives play good political theater that serves as a con on the people to distract them from getting their pockets picked and the slow erosion of our standards of living. First, both parties’ chief aim is to win elections, not solve problems. Second, both parties are prisoner to interest groups and ideological litmus tests that prevent them from blending the best of liberal and conservative thinking.Despite the understandable level of frustration with today’s partisan wrangling, political parties do serve a necessary function in politics. Instead of perpetually cataloging their misdeeds and venting our anger about partisanship onto liquid-crystal screens, our long-term strategy should be to make sure that political parties proliferate so as to appeal to all voters; especially, those who disavow the Democratic and Republican options.First, it is important to emphasize that political parties are indeed necessary. While America’s founders warned against “factions” in theory, they immediately found them necessary for political organization and mobilization.
(#)>>Soviet Union .The Soviet economy was dependent on centralized planning. A small group of government officials decided exactly what everyone produces and what their salary will be. The law of supply and demand was ignored, and as a result there was either too much or too little of certain food and goods. Another big problem was the ridiculous amounts of recourses the went to the military to keep up with the United States, and other leading countries in the world. This deprived other areas of money, factories, people and natural resources. The Soviets also tried to produce everything themselves and traded as little as possible. As a result, they did not have everything they needed and no trade meant loss of money. The country was just about to collapse and needed capitalist reforms. Gorbechav was elected as leader of the communist party in 1985 and with him came his market reforms. These "radical" reforms allowed people to work where they wanted, and sell what they wanted. People were allowed to own private property, and there was even democracy in The Soviet Union but only in one party- the communist party. This failed due to the corruption in the government. No one bothered to follow his orders. This caused the reforms to move slowly, and people became unhappy. Boris Yeltsin believed in accelerating reforms, and soon he was elected president. Yeltsin allowed other parties into the government, causing a political uprising, which ended the U.S.S.R in 1991.(1.1)>>our American system since 2000 .Our system is rife with abuses of power, conflicts of interest, and paybacks to the rich through sole-source contracts, tax preferences or beneficial regulations. These "pay-to-play" schemes are endemic to corruption, making it hard to understand how our politicians are any better than Russia's, whom they are quick to condemn. Of course, many will point out that at least we don't assassinate or jail opposition voices.staggering 75 percent of Americans say that “corruption is widespread throughout the government.” The number saying the government is corrupt is up dramatically, almost 10 points, since Barack Obama took office. We must change our voting methods. *Range and Approval voting* is the best method out there if you can count to ten in one language (or more, duh). The huge diversity and landscape of this nation CAN'T be accurately represented by only TWO parties(!). The two parties are either captured or corrupted - and it's festering into the justice system, media, and banking industry. Plurality or Fist-past-the-post (where 50.001% wins "representation") does not work anymore. Ranged-Approval voting is the wave of the future - educate yourself, now, and get it implemented in your state.(1)>>Glasnost.A policy of increased openness, transparency of state institutions and freedom of expression, Glasnost was the core element of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika of 1986-1991 aimed at democratization of Soviet society. “Without Glasnost there is no and cannot be any democratization, or political creativity of the masses, their involvement in ruling”, Gorbachev said in 1986. And a year later, at the Plenary Session of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), where Perestroika was announced the USSR’s state ideology, its father claimed: “People need the truth, the whole picture…Now, as never before, we need more light, so that both the party and people would be able to know everything, so that we no longer have so called “dark corners”, where a mold could spring again”. Soviet people, for the first time in almost seven decades, were allowed to speak honestly and to hear the truth. They got the opportunity to tune in to Western radio stations and listen to Russian and foreign rock bands without fear of being arrested. Soviet newspapers revealed buried secrets of the past and present and reported openly about successes and foibles. For the first time since the October Revolution of 1917, the Communist Party itself could be criticized.  (2)>>Democrat , or Republican . Republican
politicians and bureaucrats are just as partisan, and can be corrupt and power hungry -- which is why our Constitution limits government -- but their sense of mission has limits, and they are grounded in American history.  They accept constitutional limits.  Democrat liberals and leftists do not. Democrats, from liberals to leftists, see themselves along with Obama as the embodiment of hope, and their opponents as anti-hope.  Of course those opponents are illegitimate and must be defeated by any means necessary.  Of course, the limits posed on elected and bureaucratic power by our anti-utopian founding fathers must be breached.  America has two tired, intellectually insipid political parties, each more than 100 years old. And they are producing a shoddy product. The two parties see only each other as the potential competition. Sure, voters can describe themselves as "independent," but when an election rolls around, the only real choice on the ballot is Republican or Democrat.It is the policies of the Republicans and Democrats that have served to give virtually free money to banks and international corporations while watching those same corporations perform financial con jobs on the American public, especially small businesses, through contracts with large hidden land mines, and userous interest rates.It is both the Republicans and Democrats who have sat by idlely by watching the credit scoring industry colude with the financial sector in developing further manipulative ways to pick the pockets of Americans and further erode their standards of living.It is both the Republicans and Democrats who have played the health reform con on the American people by turning us all over the to the health insurance industry instead of creating an affordable solution to health care access to ensure the burden of healthcare is finally off the backs of our employers. (3)>>Americans need no rude awaking.  This country is overdue for a new and powerful centrist alternative to dueling Democrats and Republicans. The United States desperately needs a moderate party to represent the vast and sensible middle, whose vote everyone covets but whose interests few have been willing to represent. The new party would operate without favoritism toward the rich or poor, without special-interest agendas, without connections to lobbying groups.

No comments:

Post a Comment