Carl,
Thank you. I think that usually, Roger and I do end up with the same opinion
about current events. We just get there by different paths.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:59 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-july/
Miriam and Roger.
Miriam, you and I, while not a perfect fit, are much closer in how we process
information, than are Roger and I. But I certainly appreciate Roger's
contributions to this list. It not only helps shape my thinking, but often
brings a different slant on issues I had thought I'd resolved.
Roger, your thought processing is very different than mine. You are both
brilliant and stubborn,. You remind me of a Stat Professor whose class I
attended after becoming blind and returning to college. He would lay out
information and then pause and ask, "Any questions?" So of course I had
questions. I didn't understand what he just said. I asked, "Could you clarify
what you just said?"
He then repeated exactly what he had said, only louder, and with a bit of
annoyance. I finally figured out that if I wanted any sort of a passing grade,
I'd better check in with the teaching assistant. That did not work out well at
all. The T A was a young man fresh off the plane from Japan. His mind may
have been sharp, but his English had a long way to go before being
understandable.
My solution was to go to Plan #3. I hired a woman who had just completed the
same Course, and had pulled an A. She and I worked together until she finally
got me a C.
Anyway, I set out to simply say that regardless of how our brains process
information, I value you both.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/7/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:20 AM
To: 'Roger Loran Bailey' <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-jul
y/
I guess I will just stumble along with my strong adherence to humanist
values and my distrust of rigid belief systems.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:50 PM
To: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-jul
y/
Well, let me assure you that scientific socialists have always
defended any historical movement that has moved humanity along toward
ultimate liberation wherever that ultimate is. That means that
scientific socialists defend not only the American revolution, but
also every other bourgeois revolution. It is a defense of the
transition from feudalism to capitalism and as much as we are opposed
to capitalism in the current historical stage it was still a progressive
movement when it originated.
We also defend the transformation of slavery to feudalism, the
transformation from barbarism to slavery and the transformation of
savagery to barbarism. Given the social and economic relations at the
time of their inception all of these systems were progressive in their
historical contexts. As for not having a framework, I would suggest that you
need one.
I really think it should be the scientific framework because science,
at its most basic, is simply the recognition of reality. It does not
always give you the truth. That is because there are just too many
factors to consider that the human brain cannot wrap itself around all
of them. However, all philosophical idealist frameworks in some way
deny reality. A scientific framework will get you closer to the truth
than any other framework. If you go without a framework and just pick
and choose any stray idea that might come your way without their
necessarily even being related, without a theoretical framework
through to evaluate them, you have no built in bullshit detector. But,
at least, don't be surprised when socialists defend a revolutionary movement
in its historical context.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond
all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to
compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive,
many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others
are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands
of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be
so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will
automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural
state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons
and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you
won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no
good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/6/2020 3:38 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger, You're correct. I don't read socialist analysis and I don't
see the world or history through that lens. I guess you could say
that I'm eclectic. I see things through different frames of
reference. I've described myself many times as rebellious.
I know that you're not going to appreciate this analogy, but perhaps
Carl will. When I was in college, for a period of time, I used to go
to activities and classes at the Hillel Foundation. I guess that I
was still identifying as Jewish, sort of, and I liked the rabbi. He
was part of a particular branch of Judaism a division of the
Conservative branch of Judaism called Reconstructionist, and I thought the
ideas were intriguing.
So I went to classes and I read the book by the founder of
Reconstructionism. The point of Reconstructionism was that Jews
would always be despised by non Jews and they would always be in
danger. Jewish religious ceremonies and symbols had little to do with
God. God was the goodness and health and each individual. However,
since the rest of the world would see the Jewish people as separate,
it was our responsibility as part of the Jewish people to make Jewish
identity a positive and meaningful experience and to hold our way of
life up to the world as an illustration that no one, not the Nazis or anyone
else could destroy us.
That all sounded really intriguing to me, at least in theory. The
problem was that Rabbi Kraft expected us to put the theory into
practice. But on the Wednesday afternoon during the free hour that
the college set aside for extra curricular activities when Hillel was
having its Hanukah party, the Anthropology/Sociology Club was having
a talk about India in which I was interested so I chose to attend the
talk. The next time Rabbi Kraft saw me at Hillel, he took me aside to
ask why I hadn't been at the Hanukah party. When I explained why, he
scolded me, reminding me of my duty as a Jew to celebrate the
religious holidays of my people. That was the last time I was ever at Hillel
House.
I had similar difficulties accepting all of the tenets of
psychoanalytic theory when I attended social work school. Some of it
battled with my beliefs about the equality of the sexes. But some of
it seems helpful. So I'm not disciplined enough to study and accept orthodox
socialist theory.
Miriam
u-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 3:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-ju
l
y/
The American revolution was most certainly a bourgeois revolution and
it was conducted for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. At the time the
bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class even if it was in the late
stages of ridding the world of the last vestiges of feudalism. As
such the American revolution along with the other bourgeois
revolutions was a progressive step forward for humanity. If you are
surprised that a socialist would defend bourgeois revolutions in
their historical context then, for one thing, you do not have the
vaguest idea of socialist analysis of the broad view of historical
materialism and the stages through which the class struggle has
passed over time. For another thing you apparently have never
bothered to read all the libraries full of socialist historical
analysis of the rise of slave society out of barbarism and the feudal
revolutions that led humanity forward from one oppressive class
system to other less oppressive class systems. For another thing, if
you are surprised by this then you have apparently never read Marx
himself on the subject of historical materialism. For another thing,
if you are surprised by something like this you have apparently never
payed the slightest bit of attention to much of anything I have ever
posted on this list. If you would bother to learn something about
what socialists actually have to say then you would not be so
surprised when they say them. It amazes me that socialists can be saying
things for centuries and it still surprises someone.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is
beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me
to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive,
many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others
are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands
of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be
so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will
automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural
state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of
electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are
going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor
any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,
no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/6/2020 9:22 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I am surprised that a socialist would defend a war that was
fought so that businessmen in the colonies could stop paying taxes
to the king of England. They weren't fighting for freedom. They
were fighting so they could keep all of their profits and continue slavery.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 9:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-j
u
l
y/
Okay, Canada is politically not that different from the United
States and they did not have a revolutionary war. I guess I will
have to say this again. It was not the American revolutionaries who
woke up one morning and said, we are going to wage war on the
British in order to get our way. Asking if that revolutionary war
was worth it when Canada wound up in virtually the same situation is
just like the question that was asked of Trotsky about the Russian
revolution. Was it worth it considering all the lives lost and all
the destruction? Trotsky said that the question was teleological.
The point is that the war was forced on the revolutionaries. They had to
fight back or end up dangling from ropes.
However, whether it was worth having a war or not independence was won.
Canada has a significant amount of de facto independence too even if
it was never officially separated from Britain, but it might never
have achieved that de facto independence if the U.S. independence
had not been achieved first. It still remains, though, that even
though you may have plenty of adventurists and terrorists scattered
through history no actual revolution has ever happened because
revolutionaries went out spoiling for a war. A revolutionary war is always
a war of self defense.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is
beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me
to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten
alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with
fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping
parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst,
and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this
very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population
until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a
universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and
genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in
it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/5/2020 1:59 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well said. Of course all we can do at this late date is speculate.
Still, we have had 244 years in which we might have built a nation
that really served all the people, rather than the mostly white,
male property owners.
We listened to yesterday's Fourth of July speech this morning,
because we got up too early and needed something to warm us up.
It's not normal July weather, very wet and a bit on the chilly side.
But we're doing our part in saving the atmosphere by not burning
propane or wood. Funny thing about Donald Trump's speeches, I used
to wish that we had anyone other than George Bush II to listen to.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/5/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I don't know how you can stand to listen to him. I can barely
tolerate hearing the short clips of what he says that are played
on podcasts. I could never sit through a whole speech.
Yesterday, I heard someone question whether or not our war of
independence was necessary in order to achieve a workable
democratic society. It was pointed out that Canada has done at
least as well as the US, perhaps even better if you look at their
medical system and their lack of a history of slavery, than the
US, without declaring their independence from Great Britain in a
revolutionary war. And I'm not convinced that our constitution is
better than most. In practice, our political and legal system has
turned out to be deeply flawed.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 12:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of
-
j
u
ly/
Richard Dawkins speaks truth...as far as we know it to be at this
present time.
I just finished listening to a speech by Donald Trump that sounded
as if it came straight out of my grade school history book(1940-1949).
Donald Trump regaled us with stories of the four great faces
carved upon Mount Rushmore. Of course it was a Whitewash lesson
as told by a White Supremacist.
There can be no question that the Constitution was heads and
shoulders above any other documents of the day. But it did not
mean that it was cast in concrete, never to be changed. As with
any document, changing times make them obsolete, if not adjusted.
And of course, that is exactly what has happened to our Constitution.
While it might be recognized by its drafters, much of the language
in the amendments would shock some of them, and be strongly
opposed by others.
And what does it do for us to raise up those Founding Fathers as
if they were perfect men? They were men of the times they lived in.
Some believed that rank and file Americans should not be allowed
to vote.
Some who stood tall for the Rights of Independence were slave
owners, and did not include their human property in such Rights.
And some were certain that women should not concern themselves
with Men's Business, such as politics.
In 244 years from now, as folks look back on these troubled times,
how will they describe our actions?
Will we be trashed because we did not think in "modern terms"?
Let us respect our Founding Fathers as the men they were,
struggling to carve a nation out of a vast continent, beset on one
hand by an oppressive British King, and on the other hand facing
the anger of the Indigenous Occupants of the land they were
attempting to take over.
Can't we simply accept that they did what they did due to the
world as they found it? Does that make America any less desirable
as a place to live?
Does pointing out our current short comings make us any less
Americans?
And by the way, just who is Donald Trump speaking for? I was
highly embarrassed by his speech. It was a political rallying
call, declaring many dedicated Americans as a threat to our nation
because we take exception to much of Donald Trump's behavior.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/5/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
UNAC: On This Fourth of July
https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-jul
y
/
h tt
ps://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-july/
--
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is
beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes
me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten
alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with
fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping
parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation,
thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of
plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in
the population until the natural state of starvation and misery
is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind
physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to
get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find
any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
