But people observe the world, and they see different things when they observe
the world. They don't agree on the nature of reality. They're predisposed to
interpret what they see, differently. However, you are correct. I don't know
much about the history of science. Did people argue over the nature of atoms or
chemical reactions? I truly don't know. And if the arguments were among
scientists, howlong did they last and were the scientists split into factions?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 3:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders & oppositional criticism
It is simply a matter of observing the world as it really is and then acting on
it. If you make up things about the world or explicate a goal without having a
plan of action based on reality you are not going to get very far. Of course,
reality is far too complex to determine in all of its aspects perfectly. That
is why it is necessary to assess and act and reassess as an ongoing process,
that is, to combine theory with practice. And if you don't think that
scientists split into warring camps you don't know much about the history of
science.
On 6/22/2015 10:41 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
You said,
It's just that after Marx presented the world with scientific socialism all
the rest quickly faded away or very much marginalized themselves.
So do you equate "scientific socialism with the hard sciences? I mean, are
its hypotheses verifiable like those in physics or chemistry? Aren't they
more like philosophical theories? After all, scientists don't split into
warring camps that interpret scientific theories differently, but Marxists
seem to. There are all these different groups like Trotskyites and
Leninites. It's sort of like all those Protestant sects or the many different
kinds of Judaism.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 8:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders & oppositional criticism
I have said before that I am willing to count preMarxian socialists as
socialists. It's just that after Marx presented the world with scientific
socialism all the rest quickly faded away or very much marginalized
themselves. I will even count anarchists as socialists as long as they remain
communitarian anarchists and do not stray into right-wing libertarianism.
What I will not count as socialists are national socialists and other
fascists. That is a complete perversion of the word socialism. It is like a
demon worshiper calling himself a Christian. As for the social democrats, I
will count them as socialists up to a certain point. Even as they betrayed
proletarian internationalism at the opening of World War I they still
campaigned for socialist property relations. As time passed, though, they
more and more left that perspective behind. Nowadays if a social democrat
defends bourgeois property relations and defends the right of the bourgeoisie
to exploit labor then no matter how much he calls himself a socialist he is
not a socialist. Basically, a socialist is one who advocates for collective
or public ownership of the means of production and promotes democratic
management of the economy. If you do not do that you are not a socialist no
matter how much you call yourself one. Similarly, if you are a human and call
yourself a hedgehog you are wrong. You can insist on your hedgehogness as
much as you want, but you are still not a hedgehog. I was not the one who
came up with this definition and I am not the one who decided that humans are
not hedgehogs. I have no control over that. I am reminded of a certain actor.
I don't follow actors, so I don't remember his name, but he was in that
television show, Baretta. He insisted on calling all birds chickens. It could
be a chicken or it could be a turkey or a macaw or an ostrich. To him they
were all chickens. He also called all rodents rats. It could be a hamster or
it could be a squirrel or it could be a prairie dog. To him they were all
rats. That is, he just substituted the word rat for rodent and the word
chicken for bird. Guess what? He was wrong. And do you know what would have
been even wronger? If he had started calling elephants rats or kangaroos
chickens. That is, the more things you use a word to describe the less useful
the word becomes. By claiming that my definition of the word socialism is too
narrow you are claiming that the word should have no usefulness at all. If
Bernard Sanders does not advocate the abolition of capitalism by whatever
tactics or strategies he might think would work best whether he is right or
wrong about those strategies and tactics he is not a socialist no matter how
often he calls himself one.
And the same goes for Obama too. The chorus of people who call Obama a
socialist are not just using a broad definition of socialism. They are just
flat out wrong. They are at least as wrong as they would be if they called
Obama a sea turtle. Another thing I am reminded of is a certain televised
debate for the candidates for governor of West Virginia. John Raese said that
he was against Obamacare because he is against socialism. Jessie Johnson, the
Mountain Party candidate, said that it seems to him that Obamacare was
capitalism on steroids because it forces people to buy insurance from private
insurance companies. I was disappointed in Jessie Johnson. What he should
have gone on to say is, and anyone who calls that socialism is either lying
to you or else has not the slightest idea what socialism is, Which are you
Mr. Raese, a liar or an ignoramus? But would you have said that was using a
too narrow definition of socialism. Well, if it is then you may as well call
the moon a socialist. Once the word socialist is used to describe everything
then there will be no word to describe socialism and then what do you call it?
On 6/22/2015 3:50 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
OK, put another way, different groups have different definitions of the
word, socialist. You are very precise and you use the Marxist definition
and you believe that, that is the only proper definition.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders & oppositional
criticism
With any word you use it is necessary to define it with a certain degree of
narrowness. Otherwise it means nothing. If a word means everything it means
nothing at all.
On 6/22/2015 11:46 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Your definition of Socialism is narrow. However, to me, the label is
irrelevant Different groups have different analyses of what Sanders'
function is in this election. The far left sees him as not only a
distraction, but a tool of the establishment. I see him as a means to move
the population to the left on a variety of social and economic issues, to
get them to conceptualize their grievances so that eventually, they may
take positive action. The far left has an unfortunate habit of splitting
hairs and of damning anyone who doesn't agree with their particular point
of view as being counter revolutionary. That keeps the left weak and it
alienates people rather than attracting them to work together.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:28 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders & oppositional criticism
In the past when I have been asked what I think of Bernard Sanders I have
said that at best he is a social democrat and a right-wing social democrat
at that. I think that Sanders is causing me to revise that opinion himself.
He does not seem to be a social democrat at all and his claims of socialism
have about as much meaning as others' claims that Obama is a socialist.
Sanders is showing every sign of being nothing more than a bourgeois
liberal and not even a left-wing liberal either.
http://socialistaction.org/bernie-sanders-and-oppositional-criticism
/
Bernie Sanders & oppositional criticism
Published June 21, 2015. | By Socialist Action.
July 2015 Sanders
By JOE AUCIELLO
“… the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a safety valve for mass
dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of the social structure.” —
Leon Trotsky in his preface to “The History of the Russian Revolution.”
In early June, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told a
conference organized by Service Employees International Union members that
she backed the $15-an-hour national minimum wage campaign. She praised the
union activists and supporters “for marching in the streets to get a living
wage” and added, “I want to be your champion. I want to fight with you
every day.”
She didn’t really mean it, of course. Within 24 hours her campaign issued a
clarification explaining that in general Clinton favors higher wages for
low-income workers, but she does not specifically endorse the demand for a
$15 hourly minimum. So, union members and activists heard their hoped-for
message; big business and Democratic Party officials heard the more honest
message.
Clinton’s cautious centrism permits her only a flirtation with leftist
causes, thereby yielding the left-of-center space to another candidate.
Thus, the stage is set for the entrance of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,
whose campaign website boldly asks: “Ready to Start a Political Revolution?”
Sanders certainly intends to become the voice of “oppositional criticism”
in the 2016 election. Thus far, the efforts of this sometime “socialist,”
the independent in the Senate who typically votes with the Democrats, have
been more successful than those of former Democratic governors Martin
O’Malley of Maryland and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
Sanders has been drawing increasingly large crowds in the primary states
for his campaign events, and in those states his poll levels are sharply
rising. Clearly, Sanders is saying something different—which energizes
Democratic and independent voters. The promise of radical change resonates
with many whose lives have seen little benefit during the tepid years of
the Obama administration.
At this stage in the primaries, the Sanders platform gives a public hearing
to many progressive ideas. Most notably, the Sanders campaign directs a
spotlight on the obscene levels of income inequality in America. Sanders
speaks out for a national, single-payer health care system and pledges to
pursue efforts to create sustainable energy to reduce global warming.
He would remove tuition fees from state colleges and universities. He
supports the $15 minimum wage, argues for breaking up the mega-banks, and
promotes a jobs package that would put people to work by rebuilding the
highways and bridges that are deteriorating throughout America.
These are reforms that, if enacted, would benefit the lives of millions.
No wonder Sanders’ poll numbers have risen dramatically.
Still, Bernie Sanders is hardly an unknown. Given his “socialist-light”
political history and voting record, which is virtually indistinguishable
from that of a typical liberal Democrat and includes support to funding
Israel and the war in Afghanistan, it is fair to ask:
Is Sanders really the voice of dissent? Is he really the figure who can
galvanize the poor, the working class, women, racial minorities, and youth
to lead the political fightback that is so sorely needed?
Though audiences at rallies may be stirred by soaring speeches, high-flown
words accomplish little. What’s more, a geyser of popular rhetoric tends to
erupt every four years around election time.
A socialist writer has noted that while the Democrats proclaim themselves
“as champions of the poor, their ‘soak the rich’ rhetoric is largely a
misrepresentation. They and their Republican counterparts use such rhetoric
only to appeal to voters. Both parties, over the last decade in particular,
have rushed to find tax breaks for the rich and lower the real income of
working people. Today even two-income families are having a difficult time
paying for basic necessities.”
This observation was made 25 years ago. The article, written by Hayden
Perry, was entitled: “Congress approves new budget: Higher taxes and fewer
services,” which certainly has a present-day ring to it. Though it was
published in the November 1990 issue of Socialist Action, it could be
reprinted today with little change.
Bernie Sanders is this year’s model of the token “leftist” who will make
oppositional criticism as a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction. His
commitment to his causes appears real enough, but it goes no further than
the margins of the Democratic Party. Those margins cannot and have never
sustained a popular movement that would give real meaning to democracy.
Some fifteen years ago, Ralph Nader launched his bid as the Green Party
candidate for the president of the United States. Although Socialist Action
gave no support to the Green Party’s electoral campaigns, which only
proposed reforms to capitalism, Nader at least argued with a boldness and
insight thoroughly lacking in Bernie Sanders today. In his 2000
announcement speech, Nader said that the foundation of his efforts would be
“to focus on active citizenship, to create fresh political movements that
will displace the control of the Democratic and Republican parties, two
apparently distinct political entities that feed at the same corporate
trough. They are in fact simply the two heads of one political duopoly, the
DemRep Party.”
How did Bernie Sanders, the socialist who asks if we are ready for
revolution, respond to the Nader campaign? In his political memoir, Nader
explains: “Bernie had told me that while he sympathized and agreed with our
pro-democracy agenda, he could not come out officially for us.
The reason was that his modus vivendi with the House Democrats would be
ruptured and he would lose much of his influence, including a possible
subcommittee chair” (“Crashing the Party,” pp. 125-126). Nader was discreet
enough not to inquire about the actual results of Sanders’
supposed influence.
Little has changed. The fix is still in. The Democratic National Committee
has essentially offered Sanders a simple deal in words approximately like
these: “We’ll let you speak out and give you a place in the six Democratic
primary debates if you affirm your place as a Democrat. You get to say
whatever you want in the state primaries as long as you support whoever we
want in the national election.”
It is not a very good deal, but it is the only one on offer, and though
Sanders will haggle, pushing for more debates, he will accept what he is
given. It’s what Bernie does. In fact, Sanders has built a career as the
fighting socialist who takes a dive for the Democrats.
Sanders does not lead and does not intend to. He follows. His vision of the
future is restricted to what has been made popular in the recent past. The
ideas Sanders offers, the program of his campaign, go no further than the
demands raised by the significant social struggles of the last several
years: the Occupy movement and the environmental movement, especially.
The lesson for activists working for Sanders is quite clear: Do better work
and be more effective by building social protest movements at the
grassroots and national levels. The opportunities are many and varied.
The Ferguson National Response Network is a good source of information for
protest actions taking place in cities all across the United States.
The approximately 100 organizations that attended the United National
Antiwar Coalition conference would eagerly welcome new supporters.
Whether it is 15 Now, Black Lives Matter, local campaigns against nuclear
power plants, struggles for environmental issues, women’s rights, and more,
important causes need the time, energy, and money that is being poured into
the Sanders for President Campaign.
The biggest flaw with Bernie Sanders is not his failure to condemn
capitalism as a system and call for its overturn. It may even be asking too
much to expect Sanders to fight for the structural reform of capitalism, to
demand the nationalization of basic industries, as the British Labor Party
did after World War II, in a platform that won a national election. The
Sanders team will say the times are not right for such bold measures, that
it is enough if Bernie only wants to soften some of the system’s worst
excesses.
But the time has come—in fact, the time is long overdue—to show a new
generation of activists just what the Democratic Party is and why it is
necessary to move past it. Bernie Sanders fails to take that decisive step.
His campaign by its very nature misleads activists by asserting that the
Democratic Party is a fit instrument for the kind of social change that is
needed to transform America.
A socialist who truly merits the term “independent” once said, “Capitalism
rules and exploits the working people through its control of the
government. … And capitalism controls the government through the medium of
its class political parties. … The unconditional break away from capitalist
politics and capitalist parties is the first act of socialist
consciousness, and the first test of socialist seriousness and sincerity”
(James P. Cannon, “Speeches for Socialism,” pp. 339-340, emphasis added).
Sanders has been compared to a “sheep-dog” who herds people into the
Democratic Party. A better analogy might be drawn from the world of sports.
In the preparation for a championship bout, boxers hire sparring partners
to help them train and get into shape for the real match. That opponent is
there to fight but not fight too much. Though putting on a lively show
before losing, the sparring partner should not cause the real boxer any
serious injury, much less draw blood.
This type of dynamic is underway now in the Democratic Party primaries.
Bernie Sanders is primarily a sparring partner for Hillary Clinton.
Share this:
Facebook4
Twitter1
Tumblr
Posted in Elections. | Tagged Democratic Party, Democrats, Sanders.
Get Involved
Join Socialist Action
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Events
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
JAN. 2014 p.1 jpegJAN. 2014 p. 12
Subscribe Today
Subscriptions to the monthly print edition of Socialist Action are
available for the following rates:
- 12 month subscription for $20
- 24 month subscription for $37
- 6 month subscription for $10
Learn More
Email Updates
Enter your email address to subscribe to our free e-mail Socialist Action
Newsletter. Also to receive notifcations of new web posts by email.
Learn More
Newspaper Archives
Select Month June 2015 (6) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
2015
(9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
November
2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014 (10)
July
2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10) March
2014
(9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013 (10)
November
2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August 2013 (10)
July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013 (14)
March
2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December 2012 (7)
November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2) August
2012
(27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14)
March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17) December
2011
(3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September 2011 (13)
August
2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011 (19) April 2011
(15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011 (15)
December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010
(9) April 2010
(3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9) December
2009
(6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009 (3) August
2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December 2008
(11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
August
2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April 2008
(3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11) December
2007
(8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1) April 2007 (1)
March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11) November 2006
(11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July
2006 (12) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March 2006
(14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9) November
2005
(8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July
2005
(16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12) March 2005
(14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004 (14)
November
2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August 2002 (21)
July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February 2002 (15)
January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24) September
2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000
(26) May 2000
(21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18) January
2000
(20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999 (25)
September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
(24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
(29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12) 0 (2)
Learn More
Pamphlets/Books
Socialist Action publishes a wide variety of pamphlets on burning
issues of today such as global warming, women’s liberation, the
Middle East and other subjects.
Learn More
Socialist Action (U.S.): socialistaction@xxxxxxx | (510) 268-9429
Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste (Canada):
barryaw@xxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © 2015 Socialist Action. All Rights Reserved. Site Design
by Lucid Digital Designs | Site Utilities
