There are no hard and fast "Truths". So saith the Prophet Carl.
Of course that negates the truth of that saying, since it can't be
hard and fast at all.
As an Agnostic, I have no Absolutes. My world, like the Universe, is
in a state
of constant change.
Having no absolutes makes life so much less complicated. I don't need
to bend over backward trying to twist words in order to make God's
absolute Word express its Truth when it seems to contradict what we
now know. For example, when the Word was handed down, Man knew that
the Sun "rose" in the East and "set" in the West. That was prior to
our figuring out that it was the Earth that turned, thus creating the
sense of a rising and setting Sun. So we invented the word, Metaphor.
God speaks in metaphors. Problem solved!
Did it ever occur to anyone else that we Humans are the only creatures
with a spoken and written language? Well, languages. We make a sound
and as soon as we figure out what that sound means, we make little
letters to represent the sound. No other creature is so clever. And
yet, other creatures seem to get on just fine without encumbering
themselves with all these piles of books.
My wife just returned from feeding the horses. The horses can't read
or write. They stand around in the pasture, munching grass and
pooping all day long. My wife, a skilled reader and writer, comes
along with a flake of hay, some beet pulp or oats and maybe a few
carrots or pieces of apple. She feeds them, cleans out their water
bucket, and cleans up their stalls with a big pooper scooper. Then
she curries them, cleans their hooves and combs the brambles out of
their manes and tails. So, just who is better off?
Are the horses or my wife better off? Since the horses can't read or
write, I can't get a straight answer from them. And I would never
dream of asking my wife.
But we Agnostics never worry about such stuff. If there is a God,
He/She will let us know when He/She decides it's time. And when that
happens there will be nothing we can do about it. In the meantime,
believing in God has little to do with daily living. We get no
special protection if we profess belief. We can't pray and ask for
great wealth, because it doesn't work that way. Same with our health.
Too bad though, I've got a lot of old movies I'd like to watch once
God heals my eyes. But God must be off playing golf, or something,
because He never gets around to answering my requests. No, all the
evidence I can sense tells me that we are on our own. No God. But
then that means there is no Devil, either. Drat! that means we have
to be responsible for our own goodness and wickedness.
The Huskies are going to the Rose Bowl this New Years Day. Maybe God
was watching that game because it sure looked like Divine
intervention.
Hope He/She is still hanging around on Sunday. The Sea Hawks play.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/1/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little. Insofar as Little was certainly not
the name of his African ancestors then it was a name given to one of his
ancestors who was enslaved. His actual complexion was very light for an
African-American and that would indicate that he had female ancestors
who were victims of slave rape. His skin was lighter than a lot of white
people, but his other features showed that he was of African ancestry
and he could not have passed as white. He changed his last name to X
when he joined the cult, the Nation of Islam in the West. Despite the
name of that cult it had nothing to do with Islam. It had nothing to do
with any other religion either. It was made up by Elijah Muhammad.
According to its tenets African Americans had been robbed of their real
names and he, Elijah Muhammad, would determine their real names and
until he got around to that they would be called X or if there was more
than one person with the same first name they would become 2X, 3X and so
forth. After he left the so-called Nation of Islam he converted to
orthodox Islam and changed his name again to Shabazz. That was only
shortly before his assassination, though, so he never became known by
that name. Now, as for the religious nonsense, anything that is made has
to have a maker, yes. However, you are still making the logical fallacy
of assuming the conclusion to arrive at the conclusion. Let's be sure we
know what the word make means. If you are going to make something you
transform some material from the natural world into something that has
obvious design and purpose. For example, you might pick up a piece of
rock and apply a chisel to it and transform it into a sculpture. If you
do that then you are making a sculpture. That is, the word make means
that the thing that has been made got that way through conscious
intention and purpose. However, there is another sense of the word make.
The word make and its forms like the word made are used metaphorically
to describe natural processes. You can look at a piece of obsidian and
say that a volcano made it. You can observe an earthquake and say that
it was made by plate tectonics. But these uses of the words make and
made are only metaphorical and are not literal. The volcano had no
intent to make the obsidian and had no awareness that it was being made
or coming into existence. In the literal sense it was not made and so if
you want to find something that exists and was not made and so had no
maker just step outside and pick up a rock. You might say that the rock
had an origin and whatever natural forces produced the rock must have
had an origin too and so ultimately there must have been a designer.
That is false. Again, I can say that the rock was produced by natural
processes and I can trace those natural processes back to the
coalescence of the solar system out of the solar nebula and I can say
that the solar nebula was produced by a supernova billions of years ago
and then I can describe how the star that exploded came into existence.
I can keep going back to the big bang and if asked where the big bang
came from I can start talking about the collision of branes and of the
runaway expansion of an otherwise virtual particle in the quantum foam,
but then the question will be where did that quantum foam come from.
Eventually I will have to say that I don't know. And you don't know
either. If you make the claim that a conscious creator made it you are
just making up a completely unsubstantiated story. You are pulling it
out of nowhere. And like I said, you can pull an infinity of stories out
of nowhere and the probability of any one of them being true is one in
infinity. One in infinity is equal to zero. Now, Mostafa, I will deride
your chosen lifestyle. Insofar as you are a theologian you are wasting
your life. You mentioned Harry Potter. So let's look at how a fantasy
novel is created, at least how it is started. By the way, I enjoy
reading fantasy novels. The author will make up a fantastic premise. It
could be that wizards exist. It could be that fairies are flitting
around in one's house. It could be any one of that infinity of things
that I told you could be made up out of nothing. Then the fantasy writer
will consider and expand on the implications of that fantastic
supposition. This process is called world building and the more
consideration that is given to world building the better the fantasy
novel ends up being. There does come a point of diminishing returns
though. The fantasy writer could engage in world building for years
without ever getting around to writing the story. If that is done then a
lot of time will have been wasted. The fantasy writer could engage in
world building for his entire life and never get around to writing the
novel. If he does that he has wasted his entire life because all of his
fantasizing would have come to nothing. He will have contributed nothing
to humanity because he just spent his life effectively day dreaming.
That is exactly what theology is, day dreaming and wasting one's life.
If you really want to accomplish something there comes a point that you
have to drop the considerations of the implications of the fantastic
suppositions and get to work. If you do that you just might be able to
write a novel that will be very entertaining. But it will still be only
entertainment. If you want to accomplish something more worthwhile the
suppositions you start with should be suppositions that there is some
kind of evidence for. Theology starts out with premises that have no
more validity than the made up premises of the fantasy writer. You may
insist that they are true, but if you have nothing to back up your
premises you are just insisting on nonsense. So you claim to be a
theologian. Okay, then I charge you with wasting your life. Furthermore,
I charge you with wasting the time of everyone upon whom you push your
wasteful theology. That, Mostafa, is pathetic.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 11/27/2018 9:27 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Malcolm X was called Little because Little was the surname he was born
with. It had nothing to do with his complexion. Actually, you spoke
half of the truth. It was the name he was born with, yes. But it had
to do with his father's and mother's thraldom descent. It was
obviously because of their complexion. He latered changed his name and
thoughts after he returned from pilgrimage to Mecca which is
unfortunately not plainly mentioned by many white commentators. As for
your question, you talked about two different things. If something is
perfectly designed, does that demand the necessity of a perfect
designer? Well, that's what I agree with Thomas Aquinas on. Mr Roger
considers this a fallacy. He then doesn't explain why. He rather
mentions a conversation that took place between him and an
acquaintance. His acquaintance pointed to a passing car and said: If
this car exists, there must be a car factory that had manufactured it.
Roger considers this a false assumption. He then continues, the way we
know about car factories is independent of the existence of the car.
We know about car factories because there is abundant evidence for
them in that we can go and look at them. We can take tours of them. We
can get jobs in them. Here, Roger baffles two different matters. The
method I use along with Thomas Aquinas and Roger's acquaintance is
called logical proof. "I think therefore I am", Descartes says.
Descartes knew that his mind is different from the anatomical
structure of his physical brain. The brain is the seat of the faculty
of reason. However, your mind is the unobserved factor that is
responsible for knowledge and intellectual reasoning. We have the
similar skeletal frame of many animals. Nevertheless, our mental
capacity is intrinsically superior to their own one. There are humans
who are mentally retarded. Be that as it may, they have the same boney
skeleton of ours. Roger mixes between rational and physical evidence.
What is physical evidence? It is any material object that plays some
role in the matter that gives rise to the litigation introduced as
evidence in a judicial proceeding. So, the manner Roger talked about
cars factory is essentially educed of physical evidence. If you look
at the factory, take tour of it or get job in it, that still is called
empirical evidence. So, what is rational evidence? It is primarily
based on Bayesian hypothesis. So, if you were able to prove that
something exists based on rational substantiation, you have expended
what is logically defined as rational proof. Thence, if something is
made, it surely has been made by someone. Even if I do not know who
made it, that doesn't make it made out of nothing. Why? Because you
couldn't find one substance on earth that has been made without a
maker. Everything is made has a maker. The prob with Roger and
generically most of Atheists, is that they unconsciously puzzle
empirical evidence with rational ones. For them, they won't ever
believe in the Divine unless they are capable of empirically examining
Him at the science laboratory. We concluded the existence of the
Divine through faith tenets and rational evidence respectively.
Religious affairs are immensely bedeviling in the western world. There
is mass Christendom which explicitly incarnates the Divine. At the
opposite side of the spectrum, there is the denotative denial of the
Divine. Needless to say, both are declined for me. Why? Am I blindly
believeing? I base my assertion on both theological and intellectual
elements. I always say this to my fellows, we are urged to imitate
westerns in scientific fields. Nevertheless, we'd better refrain from
imitating them on two crucial arenas. First, faith and spiritualities.
Why? Because dozens of them are worshipping a personified god. While
plenty of them abandoned faith or scarcely about to. They barely go to
the Synagogue, the Church or even the Masjid for that matter. Second,
social affairs as of marriage, relationship between the two genders
and the status of women. They proved to be radically affected with a
respiratory failure on these issues. Here in Egypt, we currently have
a secularist movement that purposely flows into the culture. They seek
to somewhat occidentalise our identity. Atheism is not threatening
because we are courageous to instantly get into discussion. Many
westerns lost their faith because they are vastly confused. While
about those who grew up here, most of them are tempted with blindly
imitating the west. I sat with three students at the American
University here in Cairo. After an open-minded discussion, we
gratefully were able to bring them back. I did not threaten or coerce
them. I renew the invitation of a civil discussion. I have Skype and
we could constantly set arrangements. I defy when someone attempts to
deride my chosen lifestyle. If someone rosts, I naturally retaliate.
If someone attempts to demonise my identity, I naturally fend for my
heritage and where I come from. I do not entirely dispose everything
that comes from the west. My spouse likes to go to bed while listening
to Harry Potter. I naturally lie next to her and it never troubled me.
She has major in English as of linguistics and literature in addition
to competency on translation. She went to the States in 2014 with a
program paid by the US government on intercultural communication. She
hasn't been affected with what she saw there. She visited beautiful
places that she still has good memory of. But, she hasn't been
westernised or taken off her Hijab, for instance. That's what I say. I
have no problem what so ever communicating with westerns. The only
problem I have, is when I perceive with even minimum signs, that there
are either explicit or implicit attempts to alter my identity or
ridicule my religious introspection. That's when I have to be strident
and possibly inimical. I in general am a quiet and humorous person. If
you wish to verify my proposition, you have to speak to me in person.
I have no problem what so ever if someone dissents with me in a
deferential manner. However, if someone destines to be improper, I
will have to go farther because I do not tolerate humiliation in any
form. I do not like to humiliate or to be subjected to humiliation.
Therefore, if I incidentally said something that is not acceptable to
someone, I wholeheartedly apologise. It is my disposal to apologise
when I realise I commited a mistake toward someone. That's the
temperament of strong and brave people and I like to be recognised
among them. Thank you for patiently reading, Mustafa
On 11/24/18, Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Warfare has been as much a part of Asian history as any other part of
the
world. Both within countries and between them. It is hard to think of a
more
competitive behavior than war.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
There is another reason for the misattribution of things to human nature
that are not human nature. It is also that problem that I keep alluding
to that I call political, social or economic myopia. That is, it is the
great difficulty that some people have in even imagining that the way
things are is not the way things have to be. Some behavior is called
human nature and it happens to be something that the surrounding culture
facilitates or even backs people into a corner such that they can't help
behaving in any other way. Then the person calling it human nature
either ignores or is completely unaware that in other cultures or other
periods of history the behavior does or did not exist because the
conditions were such that it was not allowed. How often have I heard
that it is human nature to crave money when the vast majority of time
humans existed there was no such thing as money. But in the economic
system that we live in now people do crave money. I crave money too.
That is because without money a person could not even function. Remove
the objective conditions that cause this craving for money, though, and
the craving disappears. Considering the objective conditions is
important. If you want a certain type of behavior to stop or if you want
a certain type of behavior to begin you have to change the objective
conditions to facilitate the abolition of one behavior and to facilitate
the adoption of the other behavior. But as long as you can't see past
the tip of your nose -metaphorically speaking of course - you just end
up saying that this is the way something has always been done even if it
is something that may have been done only since the last generation died
out. If you have spent all of your life seeing greedy people you are
likely to say that greed is human nature and you will not even think of
abolishing property. If you abolish property then where is that greed
that is supposed to be human nature? And that reminds me of another
example of economic myopia. Remember the time I said something about the
need for the eventual abolition of money? Ted, who has left us some time
back, started telling me how inefficient barter was as if I didn't know
that money was invented exactly because barter was so inefficient. It
didn't even enter his mind that if I was talking about abolishing money
that I was also talking about a radical restructuring of property
relations. He always did have a problem understanding that the way
things are is not the way things have to be. I am not saying that there
is no such thing as human nature. There are some behaviors that are
constant cross culturally and historically. But there is a lot, a whole
lot, that is highly malleable and if the objective conditions change
then the behaviors change. In the case of Evan his social myopia causes
him to think that there is almost no difference between cultures. For
example, he claims that competition is human nature while ignoring or
being unaware that in Asian cultures noncompetitive group loyalty is the
norm.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything,
no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder
and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/21/2018 11:16 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
But Evan, we can't attribute what you're describing to human nature.
All
we know is that the western powers all had Capitalist economies and
that
the world economy has been dependent on western banks. We know that
China
was treated as an inferior country, eligible for conquest by Great
Britain
in the past and that the huge majority of its citizens were poverty
stricken. We know that any attempt at Communism or Socialism has been
met
with resistance and armed aggression by the US and other western
powers.
So politically and economically, Communism never had a chance. It's
happening right now to the countries south of us that have
experimented,
with some success, with socialism. They're being destabilized by our
government and our public is being lied to about what is actually
happening there.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Oh, you know Marxist theory backwards and forwards, no doubt about
that.
But
you seem to know very little about human nature.
When exactly would the moment arrive of no possibility of the former
ruling
class reestablishing itself? The people in power can always claim that
there
is still a possibility of the former ruling class reestablishing itself
as
long as they want to stay in power, which is as long as possible.
How long did Mao rule China? After all the deaths he caused, did he
wake
up
one day and say, "Well, I think that's done it. All the capitalists are
eliminated."?
And after Stalin, who supposedly betrayed the revolution in the Soviet
Union, for another 38 years after his death, did the rulers there ever
say
they were close to reaching the impossibility of the former ruling
class
ever returning? No, they did not. And why did they not? Perhaps I
should
leave that question as an exercise, but I'll give you a hint. It was
power.
They wanted to stay in power.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 8:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
This is why I become frustrated. When someone who knows nothing about
the subject that I am trying to explain to him tries to lecture me in
return as if I am the one who does not know what he is talking about I
get these absurdities like under communism there would be competition
to
be part of the ruling class. In case you have gone through your entire
life without ever hearing about it the word communism means no ruling
class. If you have a ruling class you do not have communism and if you
have communism you do not have a ruling class. As for these attempts
you
speak of to create communism, again, it has always been an open ended
goal and has never been tried. And again, a socialist revolution does,
by necessity, start out with a ruling class. Let me explain this again
and this time try to pay attention. When a revolution has been
accomplished there are people who have a strong interest in returning
to
the old regime. At the time of the Russian revolution there were
anarchists involved in the revolution who were agitating for the
abolition of the state by decree. Lenin wrote a whole book, State and
Revolution, which was a polemic against them. As true as it is that to
have communism the state must be abolished if you abolish the state
right away by decree your opposition would immediately reestablish it
with the old ruling class restored as the rulers. The point is that the
revolutionary state must be a state dedicated to maintaining the class
rule of the working class or, as Lenin called it, the dictatorship of
the proletariat. That is not communism. That is not trying communism.
In
order to try communism the objective conditions have to be met that the
former rulers cannot return to power either domestically or from
external sources. Communism cannot be tried as long as the state
administers people rather than things. When there is no possibility of
the former class rule returning then the state can gradually transform
from an apparatus that administers people into an apparatus that
administers things and then communism can be tried. We have not reached
that point.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe
anything,
no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder
and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/17/2018 5:12 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Competition as a part of human nature is extremely relevant to the
economic system.
If Communism were to become the global economic system, then there
would
be competition among those desiring to become part of the new ruling
class
and to wield power over the majority. That there would be a new ruling
class is verified by the attempts at creating Communism in the 20th
century, as Mikhail Bakunin correctly predicted even in Marx's time.
In
those cases, it did not take long for a new ruling class to emerge.
Egoism and hierarchy do not simply vanish from the human condition
with
the changing of the economic system.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 3:29 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I am completely aware of competition. It just has not been relevant to
what I was talking about. And I am not really sure that it is a part
of
human nature. It is more common in some cultures than in others.
Cooperation for mutual benefit just about has to be a part of human
nature though. Without that we could not even survive, or at least we
could not survive as humans and build the cultures that we have. I am
not going to deny that competition is a part of human nature though.
Even if it is less common in some cultures than others I can't think
of
any examples where it is nonexistent. I expect that competitions went
on
in prehistoric cultures. I think one of the most common kinds is the
wrestling match and I suppose the winner enjoys some kind of prestige
because of the win. Then, there is the competition between different
communities for resources. That is the main explanation of primitive
warfare and it is a factor in social and economic evolution too. But
that kind of stuff was not what I was talking about. I was talking
about
the default economic system that exists in human communities. That is
that before the rise of class society everyone in the community who
could work did work and they worked for the benefit of the community
as
a whole and shared the product of their collective labor. There might
have been competition among individuals and there was certainly
competition between communities, but that has nothing to do with the
economic system that they were living under. I can point to some other
examples of competition in my own experience too. Back when I was
politically active we had competitions involving petitioning for
ballot
status. Every time we ran candidates and had to turn in petitions to
get
on the ballot we would put up a wall chart with the number of
signatures
that each petitioner collected. I remember one time that it was in the
form of a bar graph. Some petitioners got a lot of signatures and
others
got less. I was never at the top myself and I think I know why. It had
to do with my petitioning style, but that story is too major of a
digression. No one ever won any prizes for getting a lot of people to
sign and if here was any prestige attached to it it was minor, but we
called it a competition anyway. We never bothered to tell anyone on
the
outside about our competitions, but it was not because it was any kind
of secret. It was because it was completely irrelevant to the
political
message that we were trying to get out just like it was irrelevant to
the economic system that we were working under. Then, I mentioned
earlier that I used to participate in chess. That is competition and I
have always regarded it as competition. Whether the game is casual or
tournament play you go into it with the intention of winning and so
making your opponent lose. In tournaments the only prize I ever won
was
a third place prize. A certain amount of the entry fees were kept back
for prizes at the end of the tournament. I remember the tournament
organizer telling me when he gave me my third place prize that now I
could never play chess in the Olympics is chess was ever made an
Olympic
sport. Was there any prestige attached to being a consistent chess
winner? Within the chess playing community I suppose there was, but,
again, outside of that community it was irrelevant. Some of the better
chess players did like to brag and they sometimes bragged to
outsiders,
but I think the attitude of outsiders was mostly, okay, you're a good
chess player. So what? Nevertheless, all of this chess competition was
completely irrelevant to the economic or political situation outside
of
the chess community. It is also irrelevant to the economic system that
existed under primitive communism. You might as well say that it is
human nature to like chocolate. I doubt that it is because I have
actually met people who do not like chocolate. They may be in the
minority, but they do exist. But what if liking chocolate really is
human nature? So what? What does that have to do with the things I
have
been talking about? You may as well say that everything I have said
about economic systems is invalid because people like chocolate.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence
for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the
firmer
and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/12/2018 3:26 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Certainly it is true that people cooperate, but they compete as well.
You
don't seem to either be aware of that, or want to take it into
account.
Whether it was intertribal, or within the tribe, or band or whatever,
actually it was both, competition has always existed alongside
cooperation. It didn't just start with the emergence of class.
A restructuring of society along Marxist lines isn't going to change
the
competitive aspects of human behavior. That has to be dealt with, or
if
that restructuring ever comes about, things are not going to turn out
as
he predicted.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 3:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
It's not a matter of being suitable. I certainly would not want to go
back to primitive communism. It is more of a matter of what is
possible
at what stage. When it comes to biological evolution it has to work
on
contingency. It might or might not be reproductively advantageous to
have a third arm growing out of the top of our heads, but whether it
is
or not evolution has to work with what it has available and with what
has come before. The same goes for social and economic evolution. I
don't doubt that a large component of human social capacity was tied
very closely to biological evolution, but the simple fact is that in
order to survive for the most part of the existence of humanity it
was
a
great advantage to cooperate with others for mutual benefit.
Defenders
of inequality like to say that such an arrangement is against human
nature, but I really can't think of much that is more exemplary of
human
nature than the ability and propensity to cooperate with one another
for
mutual benefit. There is always, however, the temptation to get a
free
ride by forcing others to do the work and to provide for oneself if
it
is possible to do so. It took a long time for anyone to do it and to
sustain the unjust arrangement, but when it was done then class
society
arose. Nevertheless, it has never been possible to eliminate the
natural
propensity to cooperate for mutual benefit. You see it happening all
around you every day and if you did not cooperate with others you
would
be very isolated and at an extreme disadvantage yourself. But there
are
also extreme inequalities. What makes those inequalities unjust is
not
a
question of whether they evolved or how efficient they might be in
whatever way that they accomplish something for the people at the top
of
the heap. It is unjust as a consideration that flows from humanist
philosophy. The justification of humanism is another discussion, but
if,
for now, we accept humanism then there are just a lot of unfair
things
going on. For one thing, it is unfair for the people who do the
hardest
and most unhealthy work to be paid the lowest rate on the pay scale
while the people who sit behind a desk and engage in no productive
labor
at all, but only manipulate money, receive the very highest incomes
of
all. So to put it simply, the struggle for communism is just the
struggle for justice. The struggle for justice, though, can only
proceed
with the conditions that exist to contend with. Just like we can't
grow
an extra arm out of the tops of our heads even if it might be
advantageous we can't just wave a magic wand and get justice.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence
for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the
firmer
and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/7/2018 4:00 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It may be that primitive Communism was suitable for humanity under a
certain population, or when resources were so scarce that there was
no
surplus who's distribution needed to be worried about.
But if it is indeed the default system for humanity no matter the
population or resource level, it is odd that it has not been in
force
for the past several millennia.
Perhaps above a certain population, Communism is no longer the
default
economic system. Just as atoms behave differently in large numbers
than
they do in small clusters.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 3:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Yes, primitive communism was the almost universal economic system in
prehistoric times. The evidence for it is prehistoric people living
in
historic times. Such cultures survived long enough for
anthropologists
to study some of them up close. But as far back as recorded history
goes
we do have some writers describing encounters with them too.
Generally
the ancient writers, the Romans and the Greeks, who wrote about such
cultures were not very interested in their economic system, but they
did
write about them enough that clues came through. Anyway, it is the
default economic system for humanity anyway. In small groups that
become
isolated the practice of everyone working and everyone sharing the
results of the work is just automatically adopted. It is almost
universally practiced in family groups too. It is practiced in
nuclear
families and when and where their are interdependent extended
families
it is practiced among them too.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/3/2018 5:28 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
This primitive communism, was that not before literature and
agriculture and recorded history in general?
What evidence do you have that this is in fact the way people lived
back then?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 2:39 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
We don't really need a new economic system that nobody has ever
thought
of before. There is the one that humans lived under for the large
majority of time that humans have existed. That is called primitive
communism. Everyone in the community performed labor to transform
nature
into useful things. Given the technological conditions that were
being
contended with the useful things were mostly food or tools that
helped
in procuring food, but everyone worked at something. Then the
wealth
that was created was used by the whole community collectively just
as
it
was produced collectively. Because all the resources were community
property the concept of property did not even exist. Then one day
someone figured out a way to make all the others do things the way
he
wanted. He staked out a portion of land, undoubtedly with plenty of
the
resources that the community needed, and declared it his property
and
he
defended that property with violence and the threat of violence. He
then
demanded that the others had to do what he said before he would let
them
use the resources on that property. Thus was born the first class
society. What we need to do is to return to that type of economic
system
except that now that we have the technology to do so we need to do
it
on
a worldwide basis. Those who wield power based on their property
won't
like that very much, but once we depose them of their power it will
be
a
simple matter of people cooperating with one another for mutual
benefit.
Cooperating for mutual benefit is human nature, isn't it?
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe
in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers.
I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/30/2018 12:57 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hello Bob and Miriam,
I am aware, even as I defend the current system, that it is very
unfair in numerous ways. Many abuses of workers occur. A great
many
people suffer under the current economic system. I would contend,
however, and I think history will bear me out, that the
alternatives
are worse. Now maybe someone will devise a new economic system,
one
which has never been tried before, where suffering is even less
than
under the current system. I don't think total elimination of
unfairness is possible, but maybe there is one out there that does
better than the one we have now. I've asked for suggestions for
alternatives on specific subjects before here, but nary a one has
been
forthcoming. So trashing the current system is easy, thinking up a
better one is much harder.
Under the current economic system, many people suffer. Under
Communism, just about everybody suffered, especially anyone who
disagreed with the state, which I would note, you guys can do
freely
here.
Our current system, with all its flaws, rewards initiative and
drive.
That's why we have the quality of life we do, and that you all
enjoy
even though you trash the system that provided it to you. That's
fine,
because that's the system we have, and it's better than any other.
Now, if you guys want to start a business and then face the
pressures
of trying to make it work, while everyone is looking as hard as
they
can for the lowest prices on everything, then be my guest. You're
more
likely to succeed in this economic system than any other,
especially
the Marxist variety, where initiative and drive are quashed,
unless,
that is, perhaps the initiative and drive to attain ever more
political power over the working masses.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hi Evan,
IMHO, one is exploited if one is not paid a fair wage. Just
exactly
what is a fair wage is a big question.
If today's minimum wage were to be made equivalent to what we had
in
the 1970's, it would have to be at least $18.00 per hour.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan
Reese
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, so I am wondering, how is it exploitation to sell one's
labor
to
someone else? If you buy a product from a person or a business,
are
you exploiting that person or business by exchanging your money
for
the product or service you want to buy?
In the same way, if I sell my labor to another person or a
business,
how am I being exploited? Is it because, unless I get a disability
check or some other form of payment from the government, I need to
work to eat?
Would everything be free in a system where noone is exploited?
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
DMARC)
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Libertarian capitalism cannot achieve the goal of maximizing man's
power over nature and minimizing man's power over man simply
because
capitalism is an exploitative system by definition. That is like
asking if you can extend someone's life by electrocuting him in an
electric chair. You cannot steal labor value from people and
pretend
that you are granting them freedom. Well, on the other hand, I
suppose
you can pretend. They pretend it all the time. But it can't be
done.
But again, science has nothing to do with whether you should do
something or not.
It has to do with facilitating your doing it. If libertarian
capitalists apply scientific method to what they really are doing
they
are being scientific. But I happen to think the would also be
using
science to accomplish anti-humanist goals.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle?
—
in
life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers.
I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/28/2018 10:39 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, so if libertarian capitalism were to achieve the goal of
maximizing our power over nature, and minimizing man's power over
man,
would that be considered Marxism?
Now we don't currently have anything like libertarian capitalism,
but
the version of capitalism we have right now has gone much farther
in
increasing our power over nature than any other economic system
previously tried. It would be ironic if the zenith of capitalism
turned out to achieve the goals of Marxism. If he were a real
scientist, then he should have no objection to that.
As for being close to infallible, he thought the revolution would
come
in his lifetime. In 1857 in fact.
You should move on. Most of humanity already has.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Marx was most certainly extremely influential. I suppose we will
have
to wait a couple thousand years to see if he was as influential
as
Jesus or Mohammad. And as anathema as I find religion it is a
case
of
objective reality that those religious leaders were extremely
influential. But there is no such thing as a secular religion.
The
phrase is contradictory. I suppose that there are people who look
to
Marx as infallible and so far he has come pretty close to being
just
that. That probably has a lot to do with how he became so
influential.
But if you regard Marx as infallible then you are not a Marxist.
He
analyzed capitalist economics and he made predictions that did
come
true and there were some things that he did not foresee and could
not
have foreseen that pushed other predictions off to the future and
that
have also required further analysis by his successors. But when
it
comes to the goals that he set out your demand for prediction
does
not
really apply. I am not really so sure that it is all that
important
in
any scientific endeavor. In an investigative science you make
hypotheses which I suppose you can call predictions. Then you
test
them and show that they are either true or false. If your
hypothesis
is false that does not mean that you were not being scientific.
The
point of conducting the experiment is to find out if it was
correct
or
not. Using scientific method in order to achieve a goal is
another
matter though.
Anyone can use scientific method for that purpose, even
capitalists.
The CEO of a company may set a goal for his company to make X
number
of sales in the next quarter. If this goal is approached
scientifically that means that objective reality is recognized
and
that may mean that the history of sales under similar conditions
may
be looked at. The methods that caused the sale goal to be
accomplished
in the past may be considered and when failures have been made
that
should be considered too. But it is hardly ever possible to know
every
possible variable and so if all the employees act according to
the
sales theory the goal may not be accomplished. In that case it is
necessary to figure out what went wrong and incorporate that
information into formulating a more refined sales theory. This
process
does have its failures, but that does not invalidate that it was
scientific or that it should be thrown out entirely. Marxism
applies
the same process to another goal. Now, let me remind you what
that
goal is. When Trotsky was asked about it he said that our goal is
the
maximization of man's power over nature and the minimization of
man's
power over man. Now just how can we tell when that goal has been
reached? Can it ever be reached? Is there ever a time that we
will
be
able to say that we have manipulated reality to the point that no
further manipulation will bring about any further freedom? That
would
mean that we knew everything there is to know about reality and
so
far
every time we have discovered something about reality that was
not
known before that discovery has opened whole new questions about
reality that were not even thought of before. Does that mean that
the
objective quest to understand reality is not scientific?
Furthermore,
is capitalist economics has been analyzed, even very thoroughly,
and
there is more to be investigated does that mean that the original
analysis was not scientific? I think it is important to recognize
science as the objective study of reality by objective methods
rather
than to repeat the step by step simplistic algorithm that you are
taught in high school. And, then again, science is as neutral
about
human endeavor as it can be. We have to decide what we want to
accomplish with the information we gain with science and use that
information to achieve our goals. Science doesn't care if we do
or
not. It is our tool to use.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle?
—
in
life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers.
I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/28/2018 3:38 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, I would agree with some of this. I am certainly a
humanist,
and
indeed, Marxism is a product of humanism.
Also, I am a materialist, and Marxist is assumes materialism.
But there are a couple of problems with the idea that Marxism is
scientific.
Firstly, the followers of Marx didn't treat it as a science.
They
treated Marx as a religious figure. I can't say it any better
than
Peter Singer did in his book, Marx: A Very Short Introduction,
so
I
will quote him:
"Marx's Impact can only be compared with that of religious
figures
like Jesus or Muhammad.
For much of the second half of the twentieth century, nearly
four
out
of every ten people on earth lived under governments that
considered
themselves Marxist and claimed
- however Implausibly - to use Marxist principles to decide how
the
nation should be run. In these countries Marx was a kind of
secular
Jesus; his writings were the ultimate source of truth and
authority;
his image was everywhere reverently displayed.
Does that sound like a scientist?
The second problem is that a real science makes testable
predictions,
and if they are correct, then the scientific theory is valid. So
let's say that Marxism is in fact a scientific theory. And
further,
let's say that it makes testable predictions. When the
resentment
of
the oppressed class reaches a sufficient level blah blah.
So how have those predictions turned out? Even you say that
there
is
no Communism anywhere on Earth. The closest to it is Cuba, which
is
socialist.
The Communist manifesto was published 170 years ago. Since
Communism
has been tried, or at least those who took power in various
nations
said that's what they believed in, (I have my doubts), but let's
grant that they were all honest and really wanted to implement
Communism. So what happened?
The
scientific theory turned out to be wrong.
So how has it been modified since then? You don't seem to quote
anybody except these old guys, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, who, in the
case
of Marx, was the original creator of the theory, or, in the case
of
the others, were part of those failed implementations of the
theory.
You have told me to think outside the box. I think you are in a
box
that was created in the 19th century, and has failed to deliver
what
it claimed to be able to deliver. Maybe you should let it go.
Few
people take it seriously anymore.
True, as Singer says, Marxism's impact on humanity is the equal
of
that of the most influential religious leaders. He did indeed
have
a
tremendous impact on thinking about economics, his ideas brought
about modern sociology. I don't dismiss his influence on many
aspects
of modern society.
But that doesn't mean we have to believe everything he said,
just
as
we do not have to believe what those religious leaders said
either,
especially when it turns out that they were wrong about
something,
just as Marx clearly is about the historical process of the
arrival
of Communism.
You explain this maximum capacity of production concept as when
the
revolution is most likely to break out. You have it exactly
wrong,
or
rather Marx does. It is when capitalism is at its booming best
that
the revolution is least likely to occur because people are
living
as
well or better than they have before. It is when capitalism is
in
trouble that people get restive because their quality of life is
threatened. The reason Communism is nowhere to be found is
because,
despite its many imperfections, capitalism has delivered more to
humanity than Communism. The modern capitalist system has given
a
higher standard of living to more people, billions in fact, than
any
other economic system in all history. That is why few people
really
believe in Marxism anymore. Even those regimes, such as China or
Vietnam, which still use the word "Communism" in their
vocabulary
don't believe in it anymore.
So, I will be generous, for the sake of discussion, and grant
that
Marxism is scientific. However, as you say, a real science must
modify its theories when the predictions of those theories don't
pan
out. Marx's predictions haven't panned out. So where are the
modifications?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, first let me explain maximum capacity. Capitalism is
subject
to
a boom and bust cycle. Because the capitalists are always
striving
for maximum profit they try to extract the maximum amount of
labor
out of their workers that they can and that tends to result in
overproduction.
That is, they make more than they can sell. Then when they can't
sell
they scale back. It is when the overproduction is at its height
in
most all of the competing businesses and when the capitalists
are
trying to expand their markets outside of their own country that
maximum production has been reached. That is an ideal time to
transition to socialism because there is simply plenty of goods
to
distribute while the new order is being constructed and
transitioned
to. Now, simply claiming that something is pseudoscientific
without
understanding what the basis of claiming it to be scientific is
rather unscientific itself.
Here is how Marxism is scientific. Before Marx there were many
philosophers who postulated what they thought a perfect society
would
look like. Most of them just wrote treatises or novels without
making
an effort to bring it about or even formulating a way to bring
it
about.
Some of them founded utopian communities that most often lasted
no
longer than their founders did. Some had a little more staying
power
and I am thinking of the Shakers, but they did themselves in by
prohibiting reproduction and relied on recruiting orphans.
Foster
care really wiped them out. But it is interesting that most all
of
these postulated societies looked a lot alike. They can be
lumped
together as utopian socialism. I would suggest the book,
Socialism:
Utopian and Scientific by Frederik Engels to learn a lot about
the
difference between scientific and utopian socialism. The main
problem
with utopian socialism, even the varieties that were put in
practice
was that there was no program to transform society as a whole.
They
seemed to think that they were doing something great by just
withdrawing from society and living a so-called superior
lifestyle.
Then along came Marx who founded scientific socialism. The
scientific
method had been around for a long time before he came along, so
it
is
a bit surprising that no one had proposed this before. But the
point
was to look at the real world as it really is and that includes
the
real world as it has been historically. Then take note of how
great
social and economic changes happened before and what they
resulted
in
and why they resulted in what they resulted in. That is, the
first
step is to assess objective reality. It is necessary to realize
that
the way any of us, individually or collectively, get what we
want
is
to manipulate reality. Praying doesn't do it. Incantations don't
do
it. Magic doesn't do it. It is reality that must be manipulated.
And
then every time we manipulate reality we change reality and have
to
reassess it. There is also the problem that it is not possible
to
know every aspect of reality and so any manipulation stands the
chance of resulting in unexpected consequences that have to be
accounted for in the next assessment. But the assessment has to
be
made in the first place. Once the assessment of reality is made
then
based on that assessment we then have to make theories based on
reality and apply those theories. Once the theories have been
applied
we have to examine the new state of reality and assess where we
went
wrong and where we went right and develop new theories
accordingly.
The goal is socialism and communism beyond that. That means that
we
assess reality insofar as how much progress we have made toward
that
goal. You might say that each application of theory is an
experiment
and the development of new theories is done according to the
outcome
of the experiments. Now, I want to say that even as I was
writing
this I understood that I was giving a wrong impression because I
was
describing the process linearly. That is because I am a bit
constricted by the language. In practice it is not a simple
matter
of
step one followed by step two followed by step three and so
forth.
That is because reality changes on a minute by minute basis and
on
a
second by second basis and on a basis of even smaller measures
of
time. We do not have the ability to effect change and formulate
new
theories on such an incremental scale, but we have to understand
that
the reality we are working in and our goals are all moving
targets.
That means that the assessments, the reassessments, the
theorizing
and the actions are all taking place at the same time. But the
important point is to recognize reality. Science is the study of
reality. Reality is too vast and complex to fathom all at once
and
so
the study of reality is a never ending process. Science in and
of
itself is a neutral thing too. It does not include value
judgements
like what is the desired kind of society.
That kind of thing has to be arrived at by other philosophical
means.
The philosophical basis for Marxism is humanism. If you are a
humanist then you see humanity as the ultimate and you adjust
your
behavior to effect whatever is best for humanity and even the
word
best is subject to your philosophical foundations. There are a
good
many subdivisions of humanism too. Marxism falls into secular
humanism. That is, humanity is considered the ultimate without
regard
to religious or other idealist considerations. Secular humanism
is
also divided into other subphilosophies too, but there is no
point
just now to drill down into exactly which subdivisions Marxism
belongs to. But to be scientific it must be secular and it must
be
materialist. What the science does, though is not to determine
just
why humanity should be the ultimate nor why any particular
action
should be moral or immoral. The neutral science is only used as
a
tool to get what we want. It helps us to decide which actions we
should take in order to move closer to our goals. Pseudoscience
is
a
different matter. Pseudoscience is idealist philosophy dressed
up
to
look like science. Astrology is an example. It uses lots of
charts
and lists of data which look like tools that a real science
uses,
but
it is not the least based on objective observation and it does
not
recognize that new things can be found out about the reality in
which
it functions and thereby cause the astrological theory to
change.
For
that matter, it does not even recognize the precession of the
Earth
and so the astrological charts are about a couple of thousand
years
out of date and as a result the sun sign you may have been
taught
that you were born under is about a month off. Alchemy is also a
pseudoscience. It uses reagents and laboratory glassware and so
gives
the impression of something like the science of chemistry, but
then
relies on the same kind of static assumptions that astrology
does.
Marxism is dynamic, though, and recognizes the possibility of
being
wrong at every turn and then deals with the objective reality
that
results when it does turn out to be wrong. It is not a precise
science like physics or chemistry are though. All science has to
deal
with variables because reality is in a constant state of change,
but
in something like chemistry you can count on the mixing of
certain
reagents to result in the same chemical reaction every time. In
Marxism the experiments are much slower in being made and every
time
they are made the conditions change considerably before the next
experiment can be done. Instead of taking a precise action under
a
precise set of conditions and observing a precise outcome that
can
be
repeated exactly the next time it is necessary to take similar
actions under similar conditions and observe the similar results
and
explain the dissimilar results. That does not mean that it is a
pseudoscience. It just means that it is a science in which it is
a
lot harder to get precise answers.
Still, though, the recognition of objective reality, the action
on
objective reality and the objective consideration of results is
what
makes it a science. Sometimes I think of psychology as a pseudo
science.
But it is not really a pseudoscience. I think psychoanalysis is
though.
I am inclined to think that talk psychotherapy is a
pseudoscience
too.
But psychology as a whole is actually scientific. Its problem is
that
it is also a science that is not as precise as the so-called
hard
sciences.
The results are harder to trust and may change under differing
conditions. But that does not mean that psychological
researchers
do
not recognize reality and investigate it objectively. The same
applies to Marxism.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda
triangle?
—
in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers.
I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to
be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/27/2018 10:52 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It is scientific to make historical observations, note
commonalities, and then recognize what human behaviors lead to
those
commonalities. The corruption of the Soviet revolution may have
had
unique conditions, but so does every historical event. I'm sure
one
could explain the objective conditions of Mao's corruption of
the
Communist revolution in China. But the underlying cause was the
same. Ditto for Pol Pot.
Besides, Marxism isn't even scientific. It is pseudoscientific
at
best.
Some call it more of a religion with some justification. Humans
are
under the control of historical forces rather than being under
the
control of a deity, but the underlying mode of thinking is the
same.
Just one example: What is this "maximum capacity of production"
you
refer to? Is that the maximum capacity of production on the
planet,
the solar system, or the galaxy? Even if you want to restrict
this
maximum capacity of production to the planet, how much of the
planet's material would have to be involved before this maximum
capacity has been reached?
The entire surface? All the material down to what depth?
There's
no
such thing as a "maximum capacity of production". It's not a
scientific concept.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:21 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
You might want to consider the objective conditions that lead
to
the
corruption of a revolutionary state rather than just assume
that
corruption is as natural as the sunrise. In the case of the
Soviet
Union I would refer you to a book by Leon Trotsky entitled The
Revolution Betrayed. He offers an analysis of what went wrong.
First, Russia was not the ideal place to have a socialist
revolution. Marx himself had said that it would be better to
wait
until capitalism had reached a maximum capacity of production.
However, as I have explained, we just do not have the fine
control
to decide when to have a revolution and when to wait. If we had
control of social forces that precise we could just skip
revolution
altogether and start building a new socialist society without
it.
As
I have also explained, that is the way we would really prefer
it.
But again, revolution is like a natural disaster. When it comes
we
have to deal with it and try to control it as well as possible
in
order to get the best outcome that we can. The reason Russia
was
not
the best place to have a socialist revolution was that it was
still
economically backwards. Germany or England would have been much
better choices. Russia had an underdeveloped capitalist economy
and
was still largely under the influence of the remnants of
feudalism.
The serfs had been freed by an earlier tsar, but without an
effort
to educate them and to relieve them of the effective
enslavement
they labored under there was simply no yeomanry to work with.
Then,
Russia had just been involved in the greatest interimperialist
war
that had ever been fought. It was such a large conflagration
that
it
had earned a name that had not been applied to any other war,
the
world war. This Russian participation in that war had pretty
much
devastated the Russian economy by itself and Russia was far
from
free of physical destruction. When the bolsheviks took power
they
immediately unilaterally withdrew Russia from the war, but
undoing
the damage was not so easy. Then tsarist forces and the white
Russians rather objected to the bolshevik government too and
waged
civil war against it. Well, what does more war do after just
getting
out of another war? It causes even more destruction. So we had
a
new
revolutionary government that was dedicated to equality for
all,
but
there was not enough to go around for all. If all the consumer
goods
and food that was available was distributed to everyone equally
then
everyone would have been destitute and starving. As hard as it
was
to make such decisions it was necessary to prioritize
distribution
and production too. Then there was the problem of who was going
to
do the distributing. If there is not enough to go around for
all
and
you are in charge of the distribution then, of course, you are
going
to include yourself and your family in a high priority
category.
This created an instant privileged layer in the economy. Then
along
came Stalin. I have some suspicions about his having been a
clinical
sociopath and a solopsist, but whether that is true or not he
was
a
very strong authoritarian with his own ideas of how the social
system should be arranged and he had no scruples about forcing
it
no
matter what obstacles were in the way. He tried to rebuild the
Russian productive capacity by brute force without any regard
to
other things that should have been taken care of. By decree he
rescinded very many gains of the revolution to suit himself.
But
on
what basis did he rest his power? It was upon that privileged
caste
that had been born as the layer who had been in charge of
distribution. They had accrued power and could lose it very
easily
and if they lost it it would not be like just having to get a
new
job with lower pay. Stalin rewarded them and severely
threatened
them at the same time and so was able to consolidate his own
power.
By the way, it did take some consolidation too. Despite the
image
you have probably absorbed from capitalist depictions of the
Soviet
Union he did not instantly become the absolute dictator.
Eventually
he did essentially do that, but for some time his position was
pretty perilous.
I could go on about how he distorted the whole world communist
movement and subordinated it to his theory of socialism in one
country and made foreign communist parties instruments of his
own
foreign policy. I could go on about a lot of nefarious things
he
did. But suffice it to say that the rise of Stalinism was a
complete betrayal of the communist movement.
The task of the uncorrupted communists became examining where
the
Russian revolution went wrong and being careful to not repeat
the
mistakes that led to Stalinism. This objective examination is
all
part of being scientific socialists. Of course it is still
necessary
to take whatever revolution you can get, but if you get one in
a
country that is less than ideal it is still well to examine the
specifics of what went wrong in Russia. What you should not do
is
to
ignore the objective conditions and just make pronouncements
like
it
is just human nature to be corrupted by power. It is more of a
matter that already being corrupt makes one strive for personal
power. But one really should not just ignore the objective
causes
for things going wrong. That falls far short of being
scientific.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda
triangle? —
in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers.
I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there
is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is,
however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to
be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/26/2018 11:30 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, well, the problem arises when those who are running the
state
get corrupted by power; and we've seen that that is what
happens
more often than not. I'm being generous here. It would be more
accurate to say that that is what happens pretty much all the
time.
That being the case, it is hardly a plausible notion that the
state
will stop oppressing, as you put it: "When objective
conditions
ease to the point that there s is not possibility that these
regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for then
the
state can start withering away, ..."
What is overwhelmingly more likely to happen, and which
history
will verify ad nauseam is that the state will go on oppressing
just
for the sake of oppressing, because the people running it have
gotten corrupted by power. They will invent new class enemies,
new
regressive forces, scapegoats for why things haven't turned
out
as
well as was promised, et cetera, et cetera, and the whole
sorry
cycle will repeat itself.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As a matter of fact, upon the completion of a revolution the
oppressed class does become the ruling class. I would
recommend
that you read State and Revolution by Vladimir I. Lenin to
learn
how the dynamics of this process plays out. That book was
written
as a polemic against the anarchists who wanted to just abolish
the
state by decree upon the triumph of the revolution and Lenin
explained that would be throwing away the entire revolution
and
all
of its gains. The reason is that civil war or not and winning
the
civil war or not it is impossible to kill each and every
person
who
benefited from the old order. Let's look at what the state is.
Lenin explained this, but if you read Hobbs you will see that
he
was well aware of it too. The state is an apparatus by which
one
class exercises power over another class by means of violence
or
the threat of violence. The armed forces and the police force
are
the instruments of violence that the state uses to wield that
violence. If you don't believe this just try to defy the
state.
Pick out a minor crime against bourgeois law. Make sure you
are
observed violating it because it is possible to get away with
minor
crimes if you are careful.
Try, say, jaywalking in front of a cop. When he tries to give
you
a
ticket tell him that you do not recognize the authority of his
government nor his authority either. Then when he arrests you
resist the arrest. Defy the power of the state at every turn.
When
you are taken to court repeat that you do not recognize the
court's
authority and try to walk out. When you are taken to jail do
your
best to escape. Continue to resist and defy at every turn and
just
see how long it takes for you to get shot. Anyway, abolishing
the
state by decree would mean abolishing all armed forces and
police
and to do so right after the revolution. If you do that the
very
next thing that will happen is that the people who benefited
from
the old order will instantly reestablish the state again and
the
revolutionary struggle you just went through will be instantly
defeated and you will be worse off than you were before the
revolution even got started. You will be worse off because you
can't really expect that your enemies will not want to take
some
revenge. What happens is that the class that was formally
oppressed
forms its own state and then proceeds to oppressed the former
oppressors. As time passes this can ease off but as long as
there
are regressive forces about both domestic and foreign who
would
reestablish their own form of a state as soon as you abolish
yours
then you have to maintain the workers state. When objective
conditions ease to the point that there s is not possibility
that
these regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for
then
the state can start withering away, as Lenin put it He then
said
that the state will gradually cease to administer people and
will
start administering things. By things he meant commodities and
services that are necessary to human needs and comfort. When
it
administers only things it is no longer a state.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the
Bermuda
triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in
anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in
observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent
observers.
I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if
there
is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something
is,
however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to
be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/25/2018 11:54 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, I've heard this scenario before, and just for the sake
of
discussion, I'll grant its vallidity.
The problem is what happens after the revolution of the
oppressed
class. From the many examples we have seen, what always
happens
is
that the formerly oppressed class simply becomes the new
ruling
class, and the cycle starts all over again. I could go into a
long
litany of revolutions, some called themselves Communist, some
called themselves Socialist, where this has been played out,
but
I
don't think I need to.
When I asked you where this has been tried and how it worked
out,
the only example you mentioned was Cuba. And even there, how
much
freedom do the people have? When was the last time they were
permitted to choose their leaders? How much criticism of
their
government are they permitted?
The reason for this is that dominance hierarchies are wired
into
our genetics. You can see it in our chimp relatives and ape
ancestors. It goes back much farther than that into our
mammalian
ancestry though.
Until or unless humans get a genetic makeover, the notion of
a
classless society will always remain a pipe dream.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:58 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, let me explain the inevitability of revolution in more
detail.
In
a class society the people who find themselves in the
oppressed
classes will resent this. Despite the fact that ruling class
ideology permeates society as a whole on an individual level
and
collectively when the individuals combine their actions
resentment
is there and people will take actions to lessen the
disparities
that they are subject to. These actions may take the form of
organizing unions or it may take the form of engaging in
political
action, but the whole point is to make the social system more
fair. During most of the time the organizers of the
resistance
do
not even see the necessity of overthrowing the entire system,
but
think they can reform it into something that will be more
fair.
Because of fluctuations in a class economy these disparities
may
be greater at some times than at other times and the amount
of
resistance may be greater than it is at other times. This is
all
called the class struggle. Sometimes the oppressed classes
will
make gains and the rulers have to make concessions to
maintain
their rule and at other times it is the oppressed classes
that
have to make the concessions.
One
thing the oppressed classes do not want to do is to get
involved
in a revolution. Let's face it, revolution is not only to the
great disadvantage of the class that is being deposed, but a
lot
of workers die and a lot of infrastructure is destroyed and
it
is
to the great disadvantage of everyone. However, as the class
struggle ebbs and flows the point comes that the rulers see
that
they may be in actual danger of being deposed. They will
resist
that by any means necessary.
Concessions
is one means, but if the push for an equitable system
continues
other means are used. That means violence. In every
revolution
in
history the violence was initiated by the rulers in an
attempt
to
maintain their rule. What are the ruled to do? They have to
defend
themselves. If they do not defend themselves they lose every
bit
of progress they have made up until that time and they are
likely
to lose their lives too. As they defend themselves against
violence with return violence the violence escalates. This
becomes
a process that cannot be stopped by either side because each
side
stands to lose everything if they give up. It is something
like
a
natural disaster. When a hurricane, for example, approaches
you
cannot stop the hurricane no matter what you do. You can only
deal
with it. A lot of planning and preparation make it easier to
deal
with with, but whether you deal with it well or poorly it is
still
going to happen. That is what a revolutionary party is for,
to
deal with the revolution when it happens. That is where the
responsibility comes in. It is responsible to have a cadre of
people who are trained in how to deal with revolution and who
will
step in to guide the revolution when it comes to make sure
that
the best outcome is arrived at.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the
Bermuda
triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in
anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in
observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent
observers.
I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if
there
is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something
is,
however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to
be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 11:03 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sorry, but that sounds like a ducking of responsibility to
me.
So Lenin had no choice when he committed his oppression? Was
it
all just an inevitable product of ineluctable historical
forces?
He was just a tool of history, and had no responsibility for
what he did?
You may consider that too many questions, but they're all
related, so they really boil down to one: Do humans have
responsibility for what they do or not?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As I have said before, you don't get a choice of whether you
get
a revolution or not. When Trotsky was asked if all the
destruction and death was worth it he said that the question
was
teleological. When class contradictions sharpen to the point
that
revolution breaks out the best you can do is to steer it and
guide it into the best outcome you can and ameliorate the
destruction that occurs along the way.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you
believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the
Bermuda
triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany
of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in
anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in
observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent
observers.
I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if
there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence
will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 9:45 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the
only
kind of revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't
seem
as if powerful social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan
Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy,
which
is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues
I'm
definitely left of center, but on economic issues I'm in
the
center, or maybe even a bit to the right. I support the
current
economic system. I defend the "capitalist running dogs"
around
here. (Yes, some people actually talked like that in the
20th
century.
Fortunately, humanity has moved on since then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about
shortcomings of the current economic model and how to fix
them,
but I'm not interested in revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction, Don'tcha know that you
can
count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure,
you've
come to the right list. We do try hard to stay on target
and
not fall into name calling, as happens on the ACB chat list
at
times.
But a good sense of humor and a moderately thick skin, and
you'll soon be right at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self
proclaimed
Progressive, an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I
provide services to older blind and low vision folks on the
Great Olympic Peninsula, through our organization named,
Peninsula Rehabilitation Services. We've been at it almost
24
years and have worked with well over 3,000 clients. I'm
totally
blind...for the past 55 years.
Cathy and I work as a team since living here in the deep,
dark
forest does not allow a blind man the ability to travel to
many
of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working,
vacationing
and breathing the same air day after day finds us still
deeply
in love with one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the
vet
and is trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy
a
new keyboard today, but it's looking as if I'll have to
make
do
with these sticky keys for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two
new
members and will, I believe, be acquiring another one.
It's
an
ill wind that blows no good, they say. I do believe we can
thank Mr. Trump for the rejuvenation of this list. At any
rate,
I'll forward one of the Real News Network digests to the
list.
It's a website which has excellent little news videos that
you
can listen to and also, there's a text of each one, I
believe.
I'll forward one of the digests. You go to the heading of
the
story in which you're interested, which is also a link,
and
then, you move down until you find a play button and press
enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own
digests.
The website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes
from
Canada, and it does national, international, and local
Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal,
Ben
Norton, Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary
Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea
until
a friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of
the
BARD lists, where this list was mentioned. I recognize
Miriam's
name from the bookshare list of many years ago. We liked
lots
of the same books on political/historical topics. Anyway,
I
joined out of curiosity to see what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real
news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
