Comment: We must make a effort to not over complicate our comments and over
simplify them at the same time.
A difficult process for most people.
Richard Driscoll
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2019, at 8:21 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK. So I got the term wrong. But my idea was right. The view is mechanistic.
All these labels and definitions that are so important to you, are not
important to most of us. We don't think the way you do. We don't understand
all the terms, nor are we so literal. But instead of fighting with me because
I got the words wrong, try to understand the general thought behind it. Your
view is a mechanistic view of history as economic class struggle and it is
not the way in which I conceptualize the world or human nature or history.
But I certainly do see class struggle as part of the whole.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 9:30 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden, Staggering
Frontrunner
Miriam wrote: "I suspect that what you are referring to, is a very
mechanistic formula of economic theory like, "dialectic materialism"
How many times have I explained dialectical materialism on this list? Not as
many times as I have explained concepts like class relations, but I have
still explained it more than one time and you still do not seem to understand
what it is. First, dialectical materialism is not an economic theory. It is
not a theory at all. It is a philosophical framework presented to understand
the dynamic nature of the universe. It concerns itself with the unity of
contradictions. It is true that it applies to economic theory just as much as
it applies to anything else, but before it can be used in economic theory the
dialectical relationships have to be identified. Second, calling dialectical
materialism mechanistic shows not only a very fundamental failure to
understand the concept, but it shows a failure to understand the polemics of
the debate that originated it. Materialism is the view of the universe
without appeals to the supernatural to explain it. Some antiquated
materialist concepts have been identified as materialism itself, specifically
mechanical materialism. That is the view of the universe as a clockwork
universe with a specific mechanical event causing every other event which
causes another event until all events have occurred. Dialectical materialism
denied that over simplistic view of the universe. It gave the view of the
universe that allowed for a constantly dynamic universe without the necessity
of falling back on mechanics or the supernatural either. Calling dialectical
materialism mechanistic is like calling a spacecraft a submarine. This
reminds me of a conversation I once had in a bar. Somehow the subject of
materialism came up. The other person said that he was completely aware of
what materialism was and so I started talking about some of the implications.
I was not even talking about dialectics. Soon it became apparent that my
conversational partner thought that materialism meant something that might be
better called consumerism or acquisitiveness. That had nothing to do with
what I was talking about. So I started trying to explain what kind of
materialism I was talking about. No matter what I said he persisted to assume
that I was talking about the desire for expensive consumer items. Finally
someone who had been just sitting there listening said, "You two are on
entirely different wavelengths." Miriam, I am suspecting that is how you and
I can be described. We are on entirely different wavelengths. I am talking
about one thing and you respond to me with the assumption that I am talking
about something and you go ahead and talk about that something else as if I
had been talking about it. ---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/21/2019 5:27 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
You say that if we talk about economic classes, we must name them and
then you give them names like national bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie, petty
bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen proletariat labor aristocra
peasantry, proletarianized peasantry and so forth. These are simply
names that describe classes in a capitalist economic system
Those are names that Marx gave them back in what year? In what country?
Even if I chose to think about contemporary issues only in terms of economic
class, as if no other variables influenced what is happening in today's
world, there is no rule that says that I must use those names. Those names
are not relevant to America in 2019, not as far as I'm concerned. And I
haven't heard any current Marxist economists use them either. Not that they
may not have used them as they were learning Marxist theory, but if they
want to communicate with their fellow Americans, they need to use language
and concepts that feel relevant to people's everyday lives.
You write about how class can be used to understand people's economic
situation. You said, The categories of what is commonly called class is
there to let us know what economic role people play in economic relations
and how they relate to each other on an economic basis. Ethnicity, religion
or even the specific job one performs are mostly irrelevant to this.
I cannot imagine how it is relevant to talk about people's financial
situations, about who has more privileges or more power, about who ends up
homeless or incarcerated, without taking ethnicity, race, religion, and
personal psychology into account. I suspect that what you are referring to,
is a very mechanistic formula of economic theory like, "dialectic
materialism" or some other economic theory, the reverse side of market
theory, which doesn't take real people and their thoughts, feelings, or
motivations into account.
In fact, one of the criticisms made of Bernie Sanders by some of his
detractors on the left, is that he doesn't talk enough about how race
impacts people's economic situation. I don't agree with that particular
criticism of him, but I do think that one can't look at class status in the
United States without analyzing the impact of race, religion, and ethnicity
on just who is a member of which economic class.
We also have, in this country wide differences in philosophical viewpoints
regarding religion, sexuality, and civil liberties and this divergence of
viewpoint exists among the very wealthy. So although in some ways George
Soros and the Koch brothers have similar self interests, in other ways, they
use their money in very different ways when it comes to influenceing events.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 3:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
Okay, you are getting into some of those quibbles that I alluded to that I
have with what Carl had to say, but your quibbles come from an entirely
different perspective. I will have to agree that it is over simplistic to
divide everyone into two classes, the ruling class and the working class.
However, this talk about different ethnicities, religions and things like
that does not even address the whole point of dividing people into classes
at all. In some contexts the word class means category and that is what you
seem to be talking about. You can divide people according to their
ethnicity. You can divide people according to whatever shade their skins
are. You can divide people according to whether they prefer to play chess or
checkers. But if you divide people by any of those criteria or any of the
vast number of criteria available for you to divide them by you have to ask
the question of why are you dividing them. Any such division you come up
with may very well have some usefulness in some study or endeavor like
psychology, sociology marketing studies or whatever, but you are still
talking about categories as opposed to class. Okay, dividing people into
classes is categorical too, but the purpose of doing so will not be the same
as dividing people into the categories of people who stand under five feet
and people who stand over five feet. The categories of what is commonly
called class is there to let us know what economic role people play in
economic relations and how they relate to each other on an economic basis.
Ethnicity, religion or even the specific job one performs are mostly
irrelevant to this. As I have said before, you can be either a lumper or a
splitter and varying degrees of lumping or splitting may be more or less
appropriate for whatever you are doing with your categories. You could pick
out at random any two people from the human population of the earth and
compare them and find that one or the other has some advantage over the
other with some amount of greater power or privilege, but to what purpose
would you be making that comparison? The only thing I can think of is that
you might be studying individual psychology, but that doesn't have much to
do with what is ordinarily meant when the word class is used. This
comparison of just one person to another, though, is an extreme example of
splitting. What Carl has explicated, though, is an extreme example of
lumping. Okay, there is the ruling class. They are called the ruling class
because they rule. They control how the economic system is conducted and
they have life and death power over a lot of people. However, there are
other people who have a lot of power too who are not quite as powerful as
the ruling class. Their own lives may be subordinate to the ruling class,
but they still have a high degree of privilege and they maintain that
privilege by implementing ruling class directives and by making their own
directives when not directly implementing ruling class directives. You have
powerful people who own the biggest manufacturing companies and who control
those companies. You have other powerful people who manage the transfer of
money who are the bankers. Below those kinds of people you have managers of
various levels and owners of smaller companies. You have company owners who
not only own and so implement their own power, but who also perform
productive labor themselves. Then you also have people who make their living
only from productive labor. Other people perform agricultural labor for a
wage or perform agricultural labor while owning the farm where they work.
Then you have a reserve of unemployed people who are maintained to keep the
price of labor from being bid up so high that the owners would fail to make
a profit after paying wages. Among those unemployed are a layer who have to
resort to criminal activity to make a living and may become professional
criminals. There are a lot of other gradations too and it has very little to
do with their ethnicity, religion or other characteristics that you mention.
But my point in mentioning all of these layers in the economic system is to
illustrate just how over simplistic Carl's division is. There are a lot of
classes other than the ruling class and the working class and just how far
you are going to split or lump them depends on what you happen to be doing
with the information. Now, let me add what I have been avoiding so far.
These various classes have names.
If you are going to talk about anything and have it make sense you have to
give it a name. Oh, I suppose you could describe it every time you mention
it, but that would be very unwieldy. I know, Miriam, that you don't like it
when I put a name to these classes, but they have to be named in order to
make sense of what is being talked about. When someone calls classes by
their names it does not mean that there is an attempt to make you think in a
certain way. It does not mean that you are being looked down on. It does not
mean that anyone is dismissing your own cultural perspective. It does not
mean that you are being personally attacked or however you see it. It only
means that the person who uses those names is calling something by its name.
The names of those classes include names like national bourgeoisie,
bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen proletariat labor
aristocracy, peasantry, proletarianized peasantry and so forth. These are
simply names that describe classes in a capitalist economic system and the
names were never given to any of these classes to offend you or anybody
else. And if we only call the class divisions ruling class and working class
we just cannot talk about the ways these varying classes effect and relate
to each other.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/21/2019 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
My feeling is that you can't just lump everyone together in, "the working
class". People have different levels of education, come from different
ethnic and racial and religious backgrounds, do very different kinds of
work, have very different kinds of life styles, and most importantly, have
very different views of who they are and what their place is in this world.
You're talking about power and it's true that you don't have any more power
than the people with no education or who struggle to make a living for
their children. That is, you don't have any more power to influence whether
or not we have war or peace, or whether or not we get a single payer health
system. But you do have enough power so that you will be treated with more
consideration by business people, politicians, and police officers. To me,
for people like us to say that there's no difference between us and migrant
workers or fast food workers or Walmart employees, is to trivialize the
kinds of problems that those working class people have. You're not one of
them. They know it and you know it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
With all due respect, I continue to consider all of us who are not members
in good standing of the Ruling Class, to be members of the Working Class.
Unless we are homeless or chronically unemployed, which would put us in the
Lower Class.
Middle implies halfway between something and something else. In the
economic structure of the American Empire, there is no "Middle"
anything.
My wife and I earned, back in the early 1990's, a bit over $100,000
per year between us. So $100,000 would put us mid way between
$000,000 and $200,000. But in order to be midway between $000,000,000 and
$100,000,000, we would need to come in around $50,000,000.
Middle Class is just another make believe term that soothes the Soul, but
means absolutely nothing.
But hey! All of the rest of you can call it anything you want, because the
fact of the matter is that all of us who are not members in good standing
in the Ruling Class are owned by one or more members of that Ruling Class.
Remember, when you get set to disagree, a Monkey on a golden chain is just
as much of a prisoner as a Monkey on an Iron chain.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/20/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden, Staggering Frontrunner By Norman
Solomon, Reader Supported News
20 June 19
Joe Biden just put a spotlight on his mindset when he explicitly
refused to apologize for fondly recalling how the Senate "got things
done" with "civility" as he worked alongside some of the leading
racist lawmakers of the 20th century. For Biden, the personal is the
political; he knows that he's virtuous, and that should be more than
good enough for African Americans, for women, for anyone.
"There's not a racist bone in my body," Biden exclaimed Wednesday
night, moments after demanding: "Apologize for what?" His deep
paternalism surfaced during the angry outburst as he declared: "I've
been involved in civil rights my whole career, period, period,
period."
Biden has been "involved" in civil rights his "whole career" all
right. But at some crucial junctures, he was on the wrong side. He
teamed up with segregationist senators to oppose busing for school
desegregation in the 1970s. And he played a leading role - while
pandering to racism with a shameful Senate floor speech - for
passage of the infamous 1994 crime bill that fueled mass incarceration.
Such aspects of Biden's record provide context for his comments this
week - praising an era of productive "civility" with the virulent
segregationist Dixiecrat senators Herman Talmadge of Georgia and
James Eastland of Mississippi (known as the "Voice of the White
South"), who often called black people "an inferior race."
Said Biden at a New York fundraiser Tuesday night: "Well guess what?
At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn't
agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished."
To Biden, any assessment of his past conduct that clashes with his
high self-regard is unfair; after all, he really means well. On the
campaign trail now, his cloying paternalism is as evident as his
affinity for wealthy donors.
Biden shuttles between the billionaire class and the working class -
funded by the rich while justifying the rich to everyone else. His
aspirations are bound up in notions of himself as comforter-in-chief.
"I get it, I get it," Biden said during his brief and self-adulatory
non-apology video in early April to quiet the uproar over his
invasive touching of women and girls. He was actually saying: I get
it that I need to seem to get it.
"I want to talk about gestures of support and encouragement that
I've made to women and some men that have made them uncomfortable,"
Biden said in the video. "In my career I've always tried to make a
human connection - that's my responsibility, I think. I shake hands,
I hug people, I grab men and women by the shoulders and say, 'You
can do this' . It's the way I've always been. It's the way I've
tried to show I care about them and I'm listening."
Weeks later, appearing on ABC's "The View," he declared: "I have
never in my life, never, done anything in approaching a woman that
has been other than trying to bring solace." It was not a credible
claim; consider Lucy Flores, or the countless other women and girls
he has intrusively touched over the years.
For several decades, Biden has made his way through the political
terrain as a reflexive glad-hander. But times have changed a lot
more than he has.
"What the American people do not know yet is whether Biden has
actually internalized any of the blowback he's earned over the years
for his treatment of women," journalist Joe Berkowitz wrote last week.
"So far, it's not looking good."
What's also looking grim is Biden's brazen adoration of wealthy
elites who feed on corporate power. His approach is to split the
rhetorical difference between the wealthy and the workers. And so,
days ago, at a fundraiser filled with almost 180 donors giving his
campaign the legal limit of $2,800 each - an event where he tried
and failed to get funding from a pro-Trump billionaire - Biden declared:
"You know, you guys are great but Wall Street didn't build America.
You guys are incredibly important but you didn't build America.
Ordinary, hard-working, middle-class people given half the chance is
what built America."
The formula boils down to throwing the "hard-working middle class"
some rhetorical bones while continuing to service "you guys" on Wall
Street.
Given his desire to merely revert the country to pre-Trump days, no
wonder Biden keeps saying that a good future can stem from finding
common ground with Republicans. But for people who understand the
present-day GOP and really want a decent society, Biden's claims are
delusional.
Biden sees his public roles of winking patriarch, civility toward
racists, and collaborator with oligarchs as a winning political
combination. But if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee,
Biden will suppress turnout from the party's base while providing
Republicans with plenty of effective (albeit hypocritical) fodder.
Already the conservative press is salivating over the transparently
fraudulent pretenses of Lunch Bucket Joe, as in this headline
Tuesday in the right-wing Washington Examiner: "Biden Rubs Elbows With
Billionaires in $34M Penthouse."
When Bernie Sanders (who I continue to actively support) denounces
the political power of billionaires and repeats his 2020 campaign
motto - "Not Me. Us." - it rings true, consistent with his
decades-long record. But Biden can't outrun his own record, which is
enmeshed in his ongoing mentality.
And
so, the former vice president is in a race between his pleasant
image and unpleasant reality.
As the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe
Biden is the biggest threat to Joe Biden's political future. He
continues to be who he has been, and that's the toxic problem.
Email This Page
Norman Solomon is cofounder and national coordinator of
RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to
the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is currently a
coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network.
Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
