Views in brief

Will we have to pay for charters?

LOBBYISTS FOR charter schools in New York City have launched a campaign to raise the cap on charter schools, currently set at 500. The campaign includes commercials playing sad music with statements of supposed parents saying what a shame it would be for their child to be deprived of a good, quality, charter school education.

In perhaps the starkest demonstration of the hypocrisy of charter schools, their campaign coincides with a class-action lawsuit brought by charter schools against the state of New York, charging the state with underfunding charter schools and interfering with their ability to provide a quality education for their students.

You heard that right: The charter schools themselves are arguing in their lawsuit that they do not have the funding to provide their students with a quality education--directly contradicting their clear statements to the contrary in their current "raise-the-cap" campaign, not to mention their broader advertising pitches to parents across the state regarding the benefits of charter schools.

In Brown v. State of New York, the charter schools argue that the state drastically underfunds charter schools as opposed to regular public schools, which results in their students receiving an inadequate education. The state, in opposition to the lawsuit, argued that "aid levels cannot be as inadequate as plaintiffs claim because charter schools maintain their students outperform those in public schools." The state lost that argument.

Charter schools will now be able to proceed with their case and prove they are inadequate, as they are contending in their lawsuit. If they win, the state will be required to provide them with the same money it provides to comparable public schools, despite charter schools consistently trumpeting their ability to secure private funding.

One is left to wonder: If charter schools cannot provide their students with an adequate education despite the infusion of private funding and all the innovation charter schools are supposed to provide, then why have charter schools in the first place? It remains unclear whether the state will make that argument in the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, activists should continue defending against the siphoning off of public funds for "quasi-public institutions" or "public/private partnerships." We need to defend the public square--including providing good quality public education for all!
David Bliven, Bronx, New York

The impact Bernie can have

IN RESPONSE to "The problem with Bernie Sanders": I'm a retired political science professor and a democratic/Debsian socialist. I held local elective office as an independent in Easthampton, Massachussetts, in the 1990s and ran as an independent candidate for Congress in 2010 (I lost, of course). My political stance was always clearly and explicitly identified, and it never hurt me. That had a lot to do with how I articulated it and how I related to voters.

I am actively supporting Bernie Sanders for president. That said, your article, which was posted on a friend's Facebook site, presents a thoughtful and intelligent critique, and I share some of the reservations you have about his candidacy.

One criticism I have, however, is that you seriously understate the difficulties of establishing a permanent third party. As you may know--and as I always taught--the system is structurally rigged against any such possibility. Third parties have succeeded only when one of the major ones collapsed--and the last such occasion was in 1860.

I agree we cannot "progressivize" the Democrats. Two prior attempts--in 1896 and 1972--brought down both the progressive forces and the party itself. I don't believe Sanders is actively pursuing that alternative, so I also disagree with your equating of Sanders with Kucinich. Sanders' choice is essentially opportunistic. Kucinich explicitly committed himself to "progressivizing" the Democrats, and failed utterly.

But my biggest criticism is your conclusion that he is somehow luring people off the socialist path. I totally disagree. I think he is doing exactly the opposite, and that is the primary--perhaps the only--reason I am supporting him.

Of course, his brand is "socialism lite," and certainly not the International Socialist Organization brand. But he is bringing that "s-word" back into mainstream American politics, as well as the idea of class conflict. I appreciate the need for ideological consistency, but reject its transformation into rigid ideological orthodoxy, a typically socialist dysfunction.

A minor example of what I'm talking about--I just self-published a small book I call Socialism for Smart Folks. I got two major local newspapers to publicize it (I have connections and a history with them), and to publish two long guest columns elaborating on what socialism might mean. Without Sanders, that would never have happened. I reached tens of thousands of readers who are not part of the choir we usually preach to. Excuse me if I'm being too snarky, but does Socialist Worker--or any socialist publication today--do that? Less significantly, It also helped me sell copies of the book (I'm losing money on it so far), which is on Amazon.com.

I do agree with you that local politics, rather than presidential politics, is the key to advancing a socialist agenda. But again, too many on our side have lost the common touch that we had in the Debs era. He talked the people's language. Today, we are too comfortable talking to ourselves and contemplating our political navels.

Again, thanks for your thought-provoking commentary.
Michael Engel, Ludlow, Massachusetts

The problems at Quad

IN RESPONSE to "Life has no dignity at Quad": There was another person who lost their life at Quad/Graphics one month earlier. He worked in recycling the department.

I think this is a great site. Every word in the article was dead on the money. I love how some try to say it's all wrong. I've worked there going on 15 years. I think something needs to be done.

It's all about numbers. Now we have to work 40 hours before we can get any overtime; it used to be overtime after 36 hours. Quad took away profit-sharing so the president could buy more companies and shut them down. Only managers can take off when they are sick or their kids have an event.

Quad is the worst place I've ever worked at, but it pays the bills. Let's spread the word. Maybe their customer base will see this and think twice about having Quad/Graphics print their books. Awesome job, keep it up.
Anonymous, Martinsburg, West Virginia

The limits of the left

THANKS YOU for providing great quality articles from the socialist perspective. Being from Norway, I always thought people's fear of socialism (socialist democracy) was irrational and possibly a result of successful propaganda, and in that regard, your website is a breath of fresh air between whiffs of rancid bullshit.

In response to "Is a revolution possible in the U.S.?": First of all, this is how I discovered your website, by typing "Is revolution possible U.S." into the Google search bar. The article, well-written, interesting and fact-based, unfortunately dodged the titular question.

Here's my short answer: No.

No, revolution is not possible, but headway can be made, myths debunked, truth spoken to power, and unions organized. Maybe the erosion of the middle class can be reversed, and some political movement can get people into office to implement reform to deal more comprehensibly with the problems concerning poverty, health care, civil rights, privacy, election fraud and minimum wage. Such victories would be helpful.

But I can't see a movement taking on and defeating, or weakening to acceptable levels of influence, the international banking cartel, the intelligence community, military-industrial complex, Big Oil and other multinational corporations. I can't see those losing when the system's been rigged to their favor for a hundred-plus years.

And what defiance is there nowadays? I don't think Occupy is relevant any more, although the people who were involved in it could be mobilized. Same with third parties. The Tea Party either was hijacked by the GOP or created by the GOP to counteract certain undercurrents of independent libertarianism that were threatening to become a movement. The Tea Party, instead, controls the narrative while siphoning votes to the talking heads of the oligarchy.

Maybe there should be an article called "Is revolution possible in the U.S., part 2?"
John Christiansen, Port Richey, Florida