I am not even suggesting that he use traditional socialist language or
that he even promote socialism. That is, I am not suggesting that he do
that unless he becomes a socialist. I am only suggesting that he be
honest and stop calling himself a socialist. That would meet his
audiences where they are a lot better. As much as I would like for him
to be a socialist he is not one. He may as well admit that he is a
liberal and stop misleading people.
On 10/29/2015 9:34 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I certainly can't support someone saying that a police department is
socialism, and I have to take the word of the author that Sanders actually
said that since I didn't hear the speech. But if he did, it's an example of
imprecise language. I assume that if he said it, he was attempting to point
out that there are several government programs which exist to benefit
society as a whole. If I remember correctly, the article said that he also
mentioned social security as another example. I'm sure that he is aware that
these are not examples of socialism. I am equally sure that he was
attempting to get his audience to consider that programs which are run by
the government are not, by definition, bad. There's an old social work
concept which, I'm sure is used in community organizing, as well as in
casework. It is, Start where the client is. Bernie is talking to audiences
who have been told for years, often by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that big
government is bad. If you want to be elected, you don't talk socialist
theory to people who think that private enterprise does everything better
than government. I posted a separate article which you may have noticed by
now, in which Sanders uses the statement of a Muslim student at George Mason
University as a starting point to begin to explain how the ruling class uses
race, religion, and sexual orientation to separate the workers so that the
workers will be distracted from organizing. But he doesn't use traditional
socialist language to make these points. He uses language to which he thinks
the audience can relate.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
I remember watching a gubernatorial candidates debate on television for an
earlier election. The three candidates on stage were Republican John Raese,
Democrat Joe Manchin - now U.S. senator from West Virginia - and Mountain
Party candidate Jessie Johnson. The question of Obamacare came up and John
Raese sneeringly denounced it because it was socialism.
Manchin did not respond. It may have been tacitly, but he effectively
endorsed Raese's position. Jessie Johnson, on the other hand, said that it
seemed to him that a law that mandated that people buy insurance from
private insurance companies was capitalism on steroids. I moaned at him
because he just stopped and left it at that. Oh how I wished that I had been
on that stage. I would have gone on to say the following. Not only is
Obamacare capitalism on steroids, but anyone who tries to tell you that it
is socialism either does not have the slightest idea of what socialism is or
else is flat out lying to you. Which are you, Mr. Raese, an ignoramus or a
liar? Alas, I was not there and Jessie Johnson did not have the nerve to
break with his oh so polite attitude to call out the right-wing jerk. Raese
was allowed to continue with his superior attitude. Anyway, though, when
Bernard Sanders tells you that the police force is an example of socialism
just how is that so different from calling Obamacare socialism. Either way
you are hearing someone who either does not have the slightest idea of what
socialism is or else is lying to you. So is Sanders an ignoramus or a liar?
Either way, whether it is John Raese or Bernard Sanders, they are both
attacking socialism.
