I don't know that I took offense. It's just that it seems that no matter what I
say you label it Marxist. As for a socialist in a classical sense, I don't even
know what that is. There is a long history of socialism meaning certain things
and if someone starts calling something or someone a socialist when they don't
meet that meaning then it is simply wrong. I will also say that I don't think
there is any such thing as a Marxist definition of socialism. As I said,
socialism was around before Marx was around. Marx started writing about
socialism by writing about a concept that already existed. He did not invent
the word and he did not redefine it. He just wrote about a word that most
people understood and understood to mean what he assumed that it meant. His
main contribution was to come up with a program and a methodology for achieving
it. There was nothing about coming up with his own private definition.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/17/2019 9:29 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
No, actually, there's no argument here. The point was that I agreed with you
that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the classic definition of that word.
You take offense because I characterize what you're talking about as Marxist
socialism. You are extremely precise in how you label things. I just meant all
of the traditional, classical socialism that I've ever heard about or read
about. Again, these labels are not nearly as important to me as the realities
that we are all having to deal with. They would be, if we were in a formal
seminar on socialism. But we're not. We're just trying to express thoughts and
feelings on a tiny email list.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 10:24 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Miriam, it seems that the way to get you to label anything Marxist is just for
me to say it. Socialism was around before Marx ever was around and the word
meant something before Marx was even born and before he ever started writing
anything about it. It is true that the socialism that came before Marx was
mostly utopian socialism or anarchism, but it was still there. The word
actually does mean something. Even if it is utopian or anarchist socialism.
Here is what a socialist is. A socialist is one who advocates for the public
ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Again, that
predates Marx and just because I am the one who says it that does not mean that
it is Marxist theory. This definition is extremely broad. It not only includes
utopian socialists and anarchists, but it includes many flavors of Stalinists,
Trotskyists and myself and some very good people and some very bad people. It
includes people with whom I do not want to be associated. The first time I
offered that extremely broad definition on this list it was Sylvy who
practically accused me of sectarianism by telling me that there different kinds
of socialists, not just my little group. When I was being that broad it is
incredible that anyone would think that I was only counting some little insular
group. But you are nearly doing the same thing. You want to broaden the
definition of socialism to the point that it is so vague that it means nothing.
And that speaks to another thing that I have addressed. The more definitions
that a word has the vaguer it is and the more definitions that it takes on the
vaguer it becomes until when a word means everything it means nothing at all.
If you want the word socialism to mean everything then you may as well call
Donald Trump a socialist or you may as well call Ronald Reagan a socialist.
Then there will be no point in using the word socialism at all because it will
have no meaning. Now, of all those varying kinds of socialist that there are
even a social democrat can be a socialist,?? but I tend to think that the only
socialist social democrats that are left are the left wing social democrats.
Let's look at the history of where social democrats came from. Before the
Russian revolution if an organization was called social democrat it was pretty
much the same thing as calling it communist. In fact, before the Bolshevik
Communist Party was founded the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was the
party of Lenin and it was a revolutionary party. Leading up to the Russian
revolution, though, there was a split in the RSDLP. The followers of Lenin
wanted the party to continue as a revolutionary party while the followers of
Karl Kautsky wanted to essentially transform into a bourgeois electoral party.
Their argument was that socialism should be fought for by any means necessary
and that included becoming a part of bourgeois parliaments. According to them
they should participate in bourgeois elections and once they got elected they
could then pass laws that would gradually?? move toward socialism. It did not
seem to even occur to them that the bourgeoisie would resist that path and if
they actually showed a prospect of succeeding that the bourgeoisie would strike
back at them ruining their parliamentary plans. But furthermore, they ran into
another problem that has plagued reformist movements over the centuries. That
is that when you try to join the system in order to change it the only thing
that gets changed is yourself. And boy, did the Menshevik social democrats ever
get changed. Ever since the Menshevik/Bolshevik split the Mensheviks have been
drifting further and further to the right and since over a century has passed
now there are some social democrats who have drifted so far to the right that
they are not just right-wing social democrats, but just plain right-wingers.
Look, for example, at the British Labour Party. What does the Labour Party have
to do with socialism? What does even some sections of it have to do with either
labor or liberalism? The social democrats have integrated themselves in the
bourgeois system of governance that they defend capitalism and have no
perspective toward socialism at all. If a socialist is someone who advocates
the public ownership of the means of production then I will have to admit that
some of the left wing of the social democrats might still be socialists even
though I think they?? are all wrong about how to get socialism. But most social
democrats simply falsely call themselves socialists. Then along comes Bernard
Sanders. He is not even affiliated with any social democrat organization. He
just decided to slap the socialist name on himself. At least he started out
keeping himself apart from the twin bourgeois parties, but he even stopped
doing that and joined the solidly bourgeois Democrat party and became one of
its staunchest defenders. There is nothing in his program that even comes close
to advocating public ownership of the means of production. He only advocates
running capitalism with a few more regulations. I am sorry, but that is not
socialism. As for the bourgeois electoral system being set up so that parties
other than the Republicrats don't stand a chance of being elected, well, it
really does seem to me that that is an argument for making change in some other
way than just joining up with the enemy to perpetuate their system.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/16/2019 5:35 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Correct. It isn't Marxist socialism. It's Democratic Socialism or FDR Democracy
or whatever label one wants to give it. But the point is that everyone, except
people who follow classical Marxist socialist theory, are calling it socialism
and the label is immaterial at this point. What's important is that what
Sanders is calling for is the kind of changes most likely to help a majority of
people in comparison to what the other Democratic candidates are calling for.
And since our system is set up so that third party candidates don't have a
snowball's chance in hell of winning, it's important to get the best possible
Democratic candidate as possible.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 3:22 PM
To: Miriam Vieni<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
If what he is for is FDR style new deal then that is not socialism.
People who get falling down drunk on a daily basis can claim to be tea totaling
sober people too, but they are wrong.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/16/2019 10:18 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
These days, Democratic Socialism is equivalent to FDR's New Deal and the bill
of economic rights that he set forth. It is very different from today's
Liberalism and also, within the left of the Democratic party, there are
gradations. Also, if you listen to some of the Marxist economists on podcasts
these days, like Richard Wolfe, or you read what they write, they are talking
in concrete terms about something very different from the Marxist theory
espoused by the old fashioned Communist parties. But Bernie Sanders is not
representing himself as a Marxist socialist.
The usage of words does keep changing. Hillary Clinton is represented as a
Liberal, as is Joe Biden. You can't even put Elizabeth Warren in the same
category as them. But she just wants to repair the system we have. Bernie
Sanders wants to make much more significant changes in the basic system.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 9:16 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
I think what he really needs to explain is how his so-called socialism differs
from liberalism. I just don't see anything that sets it apart.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/15/2019 5:09 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the
Media By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
15 June 19
The Vermont Senator???s campaign is still trying to find its rhythm
??? but its message is clear
If it seems like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is fighting for his
political life amid a series of negative articles, it might be
because he always is. The Sanders campaign is grounded in a
principle that an absence of controversy would be the real indication of
trouble.
It???s not a clich??: Sanders is always, literally, embattled, among
other things because his version of politics is a battle, a zero-sum
clash of economic interests in particular. ???The way he fights is
unique,??? says his campaign manager, Faiz Shakhir. ???He goes to
Walmart and confronts the CEO over wages. He goes and stands with striking
McDonald???s workers directly.???
The latest brush-fire, a series of negative articles trumpeting a
poll surge by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as the latest
indication of Bernie???s oft-predicted demise, is just par for the course.
Sanders this week gave a major address, explaining why he calls
himself a ???Democratic Socialist.??? He did this in 2015, and after
much discussion this spring it was decided he needed to do so again.
Speaking at George Washington University, Sanders described his
campaign as a continuation of FDR???s legacy, specifically the
so-called Second Bill of Rights, as enumerated in the 1944 State of
the Union Address. He plans on releasing an ???Economic Bill of
Rights??? that will essentially provide government guarantees for a
living wage, affordable housing, health care and a complete education.
Echoing a famous line by Roosevelt, he talked about his confrontations with
corporate interests.
???They are unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their
hatred,??? he said, to cheers.
Unlike the last election, when the policy difference between himself
and opponent Hillary Clinton was so great it scarcely needed
explaining, Sanders in 2019 is running in a much-altered Democratic
Party environment. In part due to his own efforts in 2016, and in
part due to a growing movement driven by the likes of Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and others, he???s now chasing the nomination in a
field full of candidates expressing varying degrees of support for
policies once considered radical: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free
college, even a guaranteed income.
This is an accomplishment on the one hand, but also a complication:
How does Sanders stand out now in a political landscape that
(policy-wise, anyway) has made wholesale moves in his direction since 2016?
In an odd way, Sanders defines his campaign by the negativity it attracts.
Other campaigns that might talk the talk on issues like climate
change can???t be taken seriously, Bernie Sanders tells me in a
phone call from Washington, D.C., unless they ???frontally confront
the fossil fuel industry.??? If you???re not ???embattled,??? you???re not real.
In this vein he derides the ???middle ground??? platform of someone
like current frontrunner Joe Biden, which Sanders says ???antagonizes no one,
stands up to no one, and changes nothing.???
Asked why he chose this week in particular to give an address on
Democratic Socialism, Sanders says the motivation was ???twofold.???
???The first is to try to move this country away from an austerity
policy,??? he says. ???We must recognize that economic rights are
human rights. People are entitled ??? and I underline the word
entitled ??? to a decent job that pays a living wage. They???re
entitled to health care. They???re entitled to a complete education, to
affordable housing.???
He goes on to elucidate probably the biggest difference between
himself and Warren.
???In the words of Roosevelt,??? he says, ???the Republic at the
beginning was built around the guarantee of political rights. But he
came to believe that true individual freedom can???t exist without economic
security.
???It???s time to guarantee economic rights. [FDR] said this 80 years ago.???
Warren and Sanders have nearly identical critiques of how screwed up
American capitalism has become in the global economy age. The main
difference is that while Warren seems to want to fix the problem by
re-invigorating those original political rights, Sanders wants to
take what he calls the ???next step??? into guaranteeing economic security.
I ask him about the headlines of this week, and how he would best
characterize the difference between himself and Warren, whom he
describes as a ???friend.??? He answers by describing how he came to his
decision to run.
???I thought long and hard about this,??? he says. ???My wife and I
thought about it for months and months. We talked about it more than
we ever talked about anything else. We???d be sure of one thing on
Monday, then Tuesday it would be different.???
He pauses. ???I reached the conclusion that I???m the strongest
candidate to beat Donald Trump, but that wasn???t all. I wouldn???t just have
to beat Trump ???
the goal would be to create a movement to fundamentally transform
the country, so the future wouldn???t be threatened by later Trumps, either.???
Sanders then explains that the only kind of candidacy that could
succeed now would be one like his own. ???It won???t work,??? he
says, ???unless you have the courage to take on the very powerful
special interests that are entrenched and wield so much influence.
If you want to fix the climate change problem, you can???t do it
unless you frontally confront the fossil fuel industry. You want to
rebuild the infrastructure? You have to take on the 1-percent, get them to pay
their share.
???I believe from the bottom of my heart my approach is the only
way,??? Sanders says. ???The middle of the road approach isn???t going to cut
it.???
I asked him if he???s settled into a psychological strategy for
dealing with the media negativity, which seems relentless.
Specifically, did he ever think about taking the Trump approach, and
embracing the negative media, turning it to his advantage?
He laughs, but only a little.
???It???s hard,??? he says. ???My views on the press are nothing
like Trump???s. I don???t believe that the media is the enemy of the
people. ???They???re not terrible people, it???s not fake news ???
there are a lot of great reports in the New York Times, we use their work every
day here on the campaign.
???But,??? he says, ???at the end of the day, the media work for
huge multinational corporations. And as you know ??? you???re one of
the few who does know ??? anyone with my agenda is going to attract
a lot of opposition. I mean, last time, I think in a day or two, we
had 16 different negative stories in the same paper [the Washington Post].
???As for finding a new way to handle it, psychologically, I think
we???re getting there. I think we???re figuring that out.???
Email This Page
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
