Brian Moore to address how Socialism is Ready to Transition Faltering US Economy

Tampa Bay Community Radio WMNF 88.5 FM, will interview Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA presidential nominee, Brian Moore, on Wednesday afternoon, May 7th, on the “Rob Lorie Program,” from 1 to 2 PM.

Moore will highlight the rich heritage socialism has brought to the United States, while trying to address its negative image that the media portrays to a younger public unfamiliar with the past and the body blows imposed unfairly on one of America’s pristine minor political parties.

Moore will also address the crisis occurring this week in one of Latin America’s poorer countries, Bolivia. Moore lived and worked in Santa Cruz, Bolivia for two years, in the late 1980’s, at the very heart of where Bolivia’s largest state is seeking greater political and economic autonomy. Some say the conflict between the central government and Santa Cruz is imperiling the presidency of Evo Morales, the first Indigenous president in all of Latin America. Morales is also the leader of the “Movement for Socialism” in Bolivia.

Socialist Party USA presidential candidate Moore also interviewed on Dallas, Texas Radio’s “Jack Bishop’s KMNY radio program” last week, one of the few progressive radio programs in all of the state of Texas.

WMNF is considered an alternative radio station, also known for its left-leaning progressive programs and call-in talk shows.

12 Responses to “Brian Moore to address how Socialism is Ready to Transition Faltering US Economy”

  1. Mike Theodore Says:

    Is there any online socialist radio? All I see is Moore on local stations.

  2. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    socialism IS why the economy is faltering

  3. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Oh be nice Libertarian Joseph. Some forums are dedicated to opposite ideologies ripping each other. I see this one as having each ideology rip itself. What we need are some socialists to tell this socialist how much his plan sucks, that way this thread balances the libertarian threads.

  4. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I’m happy to see the Socialists making use of this site. I’m an LPer, but it is always useful to hear other voices presenting their cases.

  5. Nexus Says:

    Socialism is a parasite. It must have a strong capitalist host to feed off of. It can’t create wealth on it’s own. If it could, Cuba and North Korea would be the richest countries on earth.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    Actually, capitalism was invented—or at least popularized—by socialists. It’s nothing more or less than a government-regulated industrial state of the type which precedes the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx’s theory (or the non-revolutionary transition in Fabian socialist theories).

    Laissez faire and free markets are not and never have been “capitalism,” no matter how many times the Randroids click their heels together and wish for history and language to magically change content and meaning.

  7. Nexus Says:

    Your spliting hairs. Whether the chicken or the egg came first is beside the point. The fact remains that fully government run economies(Cuba, North Korea) fail. When private property rights and the rule of law are respected, there is prosperity. You can not redistribute wealth unless someone creates that wealth in the first place and governments have a very bad track record when it comes to wealth creation.

  8. disinter Says:

    What is the purpose of the socialist party when the Dems and Repugs have been advancing their agenda quite successfully for many decades?

  9. David Gaines Says:

    A socialist economy doesn’t necessarily mean a centrally run planned economy. Libertarians who have a poor understanding of what socialism is as advocated historically in the United States - which is to say virtually all of them - never seem to grasp this. Your local credit union is an example of socialism. So is your local food co-op. This is the type of socialism a lot of SPUSA members favor. Not everyone who advocates socialism is a Marxist-Leninist, although the libertarians I encounter on the internet almost without exception seem not to be able to grasp the differences. Then again, so many of them keep accusing Barack Obama of (don’t laugh) advocating socialism that I think it’s pointless to get into any kind of subtle shades of meaning on this issue.

  10. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    David, I am not a libertarian and I believe that Barack Obama does advocate socialism. He does have to hide much of it so he can defeat the Rodham/Bush/McCain/Nader conspiracy, however. He is also unpopular among socialists because he recognizes the importance to merge Christian ethics with socialism.

  11. Braden Says:

    I didn’t realize Obama being a socialist was such a surprise.

    Nonetheless, I agree with Nexus’ statement that socialism is a parasite needing a host to feed off of. If only Cuba or North Korea (two examples given) had their own Hong Kong to leech off of.

    But I also like to see ANY third parties getting attention and their ideas getting a forum. Sure, we have our own socialist party in the Democrat-Republican Party, but at least the Socialist Party USA is honest about their ideology. They have as much a right to ballot-access as any other party that exists.

  12. Brad Says:

    Actually, Murray Rothbard wrote that conservatives are the true opponents of libertarians and that Socialists (which he considered to be a confused middle-of-the-road movement that advocated libertarian goals and antilibertarian means) were the closest thing to natural allies for the libertarians (which he placed on the extreme left; see ). I don’t agree with everything that Rothbard wrote (I vehemently disagree with most of what he wrote in his Paleo period and I personally reject his Anarcho-Capitalism and sectarian strategy, in favor of a Minarchism with a phase out rather than immediate abolition of the “safety net” and a Big Tent strategy), but I consider his view of the political spectrum to be accurate (it is probably the best explanation for why the Socialists at Counterpunch sound like libertarians alot of the time, while Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush increase the size and scope of government even more than the worst Democrats).

Leave a Reply