I am not ignoring the fact that he calls himself a social democrat.
Don't you remember that a long time ago, before Sanders was even in the
conversation, I said that it is really hard to distinguish a social
democrat from a liberal? Actually, there is a difference even if it is
slight, but the social democrats have moved so far to the right that the
right wing of the social democrats cannot be classified as socialists
anymore at all. A socialist is a person who is opposed to capitalism and
is in favor of the social ownership and control of the means of
production by the people of a society. I was not born when that
definition was assigned to that word and you were not born when that
word was assigned to that definition and when that word and that
definition were assigned to each other social democrats were not yet in
existence. If they have moved so far to the right that they are no
longer socialists it is unfortunate that they still call themselves
socialists, but they are still not socialists. As for the word
progressive, that one is pretty vague in the first place. Remember, the
more things a word means the vaguer it is and progressive in a political
sense has never been a precise term anyway. However, it is kind of hard
for me to think of Hillary Clinton as very progressive. Now let me ask
you this. Does it bother you when one of those right wing Republicans
call any liberal a socialist? It bothers me. It bothers me because they
are not socialists and by calling them socialists a flat out lie is
being promulgated. But when a liberal calls himself a socialist and
misuses the word socialism in the very same way as those right-wing
Republicans misuse it you are ready to embrace it. Wouldn't it be better
if everyone just stopped lying and if they don't stop lying then
shouldn't they be called out on it when they do? By the way, that pot of
cigars I am cooking sure do smell good.
On 10/30/2015 3:57 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You're ignoring that he calls himself a Social Democrat. However, you can
complain about how words are misused and how their misuse, misleads people,
and I can agree that it's wrong. But in the big picture, it's a minor sin,
given the big purposeful lies that are being told every day and again, I
think you need to look at the people who are misusing the words and their
motives. Why are you not disturbed at the way the word, progressive, is
being misused? Have you noticed that everyone who isn't a right wing member
of the Republican Party is called a Progressive? Hillary Clinton is called a
Progressive. The Center on American Progress is considered to be a
Progressive organization, even though it's run by two lobbyists and has just
invited Netenyahu to speak. And actually, didn't people start using the
word, progressive, when the word, liberal, became unacceptable? And why is
being liberal unacceptable? Because, to the Hard Left, it isn't real
Socialism, and to the Right, it's soft on poor people and criminals. So
while you object to how words are being misused, I object to hair splitting
and to the fact that people are so busy arguing about which is the
absolutely correct way to view society and solve problems, that the
intellectdualization and theory takes precedence over what is happening in
real life on a day to day basis to real people. I'm upset that when some
folks become involved in union organizing, their goal isn't to actually
organize the union to fix a problem in the present, but to organize so that
the union will be ready in the future when and if people are ready to rise
up and change our basic economic structures. So that effort has been going
on in the US for how long now? And we're no closer to changing our basic
economic structures in the direction of socialism. In fact, we've lost the
social welfare state that we had and although it certainly didn't solve all
our problems, it made life a whole lot better for a whole lot of people.
And that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to get people to see and to work
toward. And it's much more likely that they'll work toward that, however
inadequate it may be compared to the ideal of pure socialism and however
poorly he labels it, then they would be to work for the state ownership of
the means of production. If he made public speeches supporting that goal,
he'd be booed off the stage.
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: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
It is not a matter of using definitions that are acceptable to me
personally. It is a matter of not being misleading and obscurantist.
Honestly, the word socialism means something. Take any word at all and then
decide that it means everything. A word that comes to mind right now is
keyboard because it is right in front of me. Suppose I said that the central
galactic keyboard causes an environment of high radiation.
Then you said, what does that have to do with a keyboard? And I answered
that keyboard means black hole. Then I said that I had keyboard for
breakfast this morning and you asked how I could eat a keyboard and I said
that keyboard also means oatmeal. Just how good a job of communication would
I be doing. Again, if a word means everything it means nothing and the more
things a word means the more vague it is.
When you use the word socialist to mean liberal that is just plain wrong. It
does not mean liberal whether Ted Cruz is using it that way or bernie
Sanders is using it that way. If you use it to mean liberal you are
misleading people whether it is out of your own ignorance or whether it is a
deliberate lie. If you use the word keyboard to mean grapefruit and you make
speeches in which you explain to your audiences that grapefruits and
keyboards are the same thing you are misleading anyone who is gullible or
ignorant enough to believe you and there can only be two explanations of why
you are misleading them. Either you have some reason to lie to them in order
to deceive them into thinking that keyboards and grapefruits are the same
thing or else you are ignorant of the difference between grapefruits and
keyboards yourself. If someone was actually making such a speech and I
pointed out that keyboards and grapefruits are not the same thing would you
insist that I am only demanding that other people use my own personal
definitions? If you did then you would be wrong about that too. I did not
make up these definitions. These definitions were assigned their meanings
and their words long before I ever came along. I am sorry, but I had nothing
to do with deciding that grapefruit refers to a citrus fruit and that
keyboard refers to a device used for typing. I also had nothing to do with
deciding that socialist refers to a person who opposes capitalism and
advocates the social ownership of the means of production. But I have
learned what a whole lot of words mean and when I find someone misusing them
I can diagnose either lying or ignorance. Now, I think I will check on the
cigar that I am cooking for dinner. You do know that a cigar is what some
people call a pot of beans, don't you. Of course, if you say that I should
call it a pot of beans myself then you are insisting on my using your
personal definition of cigar, whatever that may be. Well, I will ignore
whatever your personal definition is and I will tell you that cigars taste
really good with cornbread. Yes, a bowl of cigars and cornbread make a fine
dinner.
On 10/30/2015 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
He sees himself as a Social Democrat. You insist that people be veryacceptable to you.
precise in their language and that they use definitions that are
For example, you don't like the way in which the term, politicallyto say it.
correct, is used because from what you know about the history of its
useage, people are using it incorrectly. But people just don't conform
to our personal requirements for them and language is not static. It
is ever changing. I think it is a waste of time and energy to focus on
all the misuse of language that goes on continually. It's more helpful
to try to figure out what people are trying to say and why they're trying
Miriamfalsehoods.
-----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 11:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate
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 policesocialist language to make these points. He uses language to which he
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
thinks the audience can relate.
Miriamsocialism.
-----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
Manchin did not respond. It may have been tacitly, but he effectivelywhat socialism is or else is lying to you. So is Sanders an ignoramus
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
or a liar?
Either way, whether it is John Raese or Bernard Sanders, they are
both attacking socialism.
