Fortunately or un-fortunately cow one is not cow two is not cow three.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger,
I know this was a response to Carl, but it's also relevant to our discussion
so I'd like to make one or two points.
First of all, you use the term, "bourgeois liberal". Does that term come from
Marxist theory or from socialist writing that was done previous to his?
Second, when you use that term, aren't you using it as a criticism?
From everything that you write, I get the feeling that you believe that
everyone who doesn't believe in the exact kind of socialism which you value,
everyone who hasn't studied it and who doesn't understand it in the same way
that you do, is wanting or wrong or misguided or ought to change in order to
think just the way you think.
Am I incorrect?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Well, if we are going to form our own labels for someone based on reading his
or her rambles then my label for you, Carl, would be often radical. I say
often because you do stray into conventional liberalism at times. But insofar
as you are radical it is an unfocused radicalism with no ideological
perspective. I suspect that it was largely acquired from your father because
you are what is commonly called a red diaper baby. But I also suspect that
what you acquired from your father is poorly remembered and perhaps not fully
understood at the time. As for Bernie sanders, I form a label for him too and
it is based on his writings or, if you prefer, his ramblings. The label is
bourgeois liberal. I see nothing about him that is socialist. By using that
word for himself he threatens the good name of socialism with vagueness. As
for myself, I suppose it is fair to let you affix a label to me based on your
impression of my own ramblings, but to me the word professor does not fit.
That is not the least how I think of myself
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 11:13 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
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 Vieniwrote:
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Roger,you that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the classic definition
No, actually, there's no argument here. The point was that I agreed
with
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.
Miriamfor me to say it. Socialism was around before Marx ever was around
-----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
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 Labourhave to do with socialism? What does even some sections of it have to
Party
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.
---Democracy or whatever label one wants to give it. But the point is
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
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.
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 inThe usage of words does keep changing. Hillary Clinton is
represented as
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.
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
