It occurs to me that if a Communist revolution takes place and then things
don't go as they should, according to Marxist theory, one can always explain,
as Trotsky does. Then everyone continues to believe that the theory accurately
describes what ought to happen. Another revolution takes place in another
country and perhaps again, things don't work out as they should, and someone
else will write a book explaining why, in this case, things didn't go as they
should have. Saying that human nature is complex and that those in power almost
always abuse their power, is a simpler explanation as to why things don't work
out as they should have.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:21 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
