Working class refers to the proletariat and it is a perfectly acceptable
term. Middle class and ruling class are somewhat ambiguous and
especially middle class. When Marx was writing the bourgeoisie was still
in large part the middle class. That is, they were oppressed by the
aristocracy and in turn they oppressed the workers. Even then, though,
there had been a number of successful bourgeois revolutions and so the
bourgeoisie were the ruling class in enough countries that the main way
the class struggle manifested itself was in the struggle of the
proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Originally bourgeois simply meant
town dweller, but a layer of town dwellers started a banking and
mercantile system that gave them economic power and the word came to
refer to the class that did the buying and selling of commodities
without participation in their creation and controlling banking and
speculation in money. That character remains today. What is middle
class? It usually refers to a professional class that performs jobs that
require a high degree of education and they are well compensated
monetarily for it. They usually are doctors, lawyers, professors and the
like. The phrase, middle class, is ill defined, but there is some basis
for defining it with reference to those professions. The trouble is that
even once you precisely define it just how useful is it? I suppose if
you are a status climber you might look to the middle class as your goal
and if you achieve it you can look down on other people who have only
achieved a less desirable situation, but other than as a way to be
snobbish about your status just what good does it do? As a term in class
and economic analysis it is useless. If you are going to do an economic
analysis you have to consider what economic role a class performs.
Middle class is just too vague for that. Bourgeoisie refers to something
definite and its role can be identified and analyzed. I don't understand
why you get so upset over the use of a meaningful word over the use of a
vague word that is hard to pin down. I do not understand why it is so
important to you that I speak only in vague and largely meaningless
language. It seems like you don't want me to express anything
meaningful. And, by the way, religious bullies don't teach. They try to
force their superstitions on everyone. And let me point out something.
If I cannot express my opinions and my perspectives on whatever subject
is at hand then there is no point in my discussing anything. I don't
know how I could possibly discuss anything without providing my own
perspective and opinions.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 5:33 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Yes, Precisely so, see below...
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
I use the modifier bourgeois because that identifies the class perspective of
the ideology I was talking about. I suppose in the context in which I was just
now using it it was not really necessary, but remember that you can go to an
ice cream shop and get a liberal scoop of ice cream on a cone. That shows right
there that there is room for ambiguity in the use of the term. Marx did use the
word bourgeois a lot, but that was another word he did not invent. It was a
word in common usage when he did his writing and he wrote in the common
language. Specifically, he wrote in German. I suppose bourgeois is a
translation of the word he used. I have seen it in German and I forget exactly
how it is spelled in that language, but it looks very similar to the word
bourgeois. He did also use the word very frequently in his theoretical writings
on class analysis. After all, the bourgeoisie was and is a significant class
that has to be dealt with. But bourgeois is, again, not a word that Marx
invented nor is it a word that he redefined.
But it is a word that he used and that you use, a lot. But these days, most people, people who are not
Marxists, people who may have socialist leanings, use terms like, "working class", and "middle
class", and "ruling class". They use those terms often, to try to describe social and economic
phenomena. They do not have precisely the same intellectual perceptions as you have, and they may not have
read the same books as you. But they have read books and articles, and they do have their own philosophical
views and value systems, and opposition to capitalism, may be part of their value system.
I do try to educate using whatever knowledge I happen to have. I do try to
explain things when I see that certain concepts are not well understood. And if
there is some chance of winning someone over to my own ideology I would like to
do that. But to demand that everyone think just the way I do? As far as I can
tell that is something that came out of thin air and it more precisely
describes Mostafa.
When you try to educate, when you try to explain because you think that certain
concepts aren't well understood, when you try to win someone over to your
ideology, that is exactly what many people do who are highly emotionally
invested in a particular set of values or philosophy or religion. In your case,
you would define what you're invested in, as a scientific theory. But whenever
people have this strong need to explain and to try to win someone over to their
way of seeing things, it is a kind of missionary work. Just as you do not want
Christians or Muslims, trying to teach you what you haven't asked to learn,
other people might not want you to teach them about socialism. If they want to
know about the things that you have studied, they would probably ask you.
Miriam
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 3:16 PM, Miriam Vieni 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 thehave to do with socialism? What does even some sections of it have
Labour Party
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.
---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
