Greetings All Enthusiasts,
Although this is a small list, it is a very diverse group of people.
From our resident professor Roger, to the frothy, curses of Joe, and
all the comments and post between, we have the ability to share and
learn. What I would personally hope is that in openly sharing our
inner thoughts, we do not begin to judge one another.
Sure, I'm loose with my terms, at times billing myself as Progressive
or Radical, and at other times a Wild Eyed Liberal. But if you read
my rambles you will form your own label for me, and I accept that.
The important service of this list is the sharing of thoughts and
publications that are ignored by the Ruling Class.
And by the way, as sure as I am that there are folks on this list who
appreciate the materials and thoughts being offered, I am just a
certain that there are Lurkers who believe that such expressions and
thinking are a threat to the American Empire and its Ruling Class.
Like Mostafa, their minds are set in concrete and we should not ever
fool ourselves into believing that exposure to the information and
opinions on this list will suddenly open their minds and turn their
heads.
But I want to thank all of you who do find this a place where we can
exchange opinions and information that is not readily available
anywhere else. And hopefully, where we accept each other for our
differences, as well.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/17/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, but there's a clear definition of what socialism is and Roger provided
it very precisely in his email.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Is there a genetic Socialism and a genetic Socialist?
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 17, 2019, at 7:29 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
you that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the classic definition of
Roger,
No, actually, there's no argument here. The point was that I agreed with
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.
for me to say it. Socialism was around before Marx ever was around and the
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
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 Labourhave to do with socialism? What does even some sections of it have to do
Party
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.
Democracy or whatever label one wants to give it. But the point is that
---
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
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.
totaling sober people too, but they are wrong.
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
bill of economic rights that he set forth. It is very different from
---
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
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.
a Liberal, as is Joe Biden. You can't even put Elizabeth Warren in the same
The usage of words does keep changing. Hillary Clinton is represented
as
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.
differs from liberalism. I just don't see anything that sets it apart.
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
of trouble.
---
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
with striking McDonald???s workers directly.???
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
course.
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
again.
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
with corporate interests.
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
Green New Deal, free college, even a guaranteed income.
???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
2016?
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
attracts.
In an odd way, Sanders defines his campaign by the negativity it
not real.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
no one, stands up to no one, and changes nothing.???In this vein he derides the ???middle ground??? platform of someone
like current frontrunner Joe Biden, which Sanders says ???antagonizes
affordable housing.???
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
economic security.
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
ago.???
???It???s time to guarantee economic rights. [FDR] said this 80 years
economic security.
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
his decision to run.
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
just have to beat Trump ???
???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
either.???the goal would be to create a movement to fundamentally transform
the country, so the future wouldn???t be threatened by later Trumps,
to pay their share.
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 cut it.???
???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
work every day here on the campaign.
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
Washington Post].
???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
???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
