Indeed, I agree with this.
And it's not that any particular philosophy or ideology is automatically a
secular religion per se, it's how many people treat it. So whatever Marx may
have thought or said, millions of people have treated his theories as a
secular religion. Thankfully, many fewer than there used to be.
That all being said, some ideologies lend themselves to being adopted as
secular religions. Certainly Communism is one, Nazism is another.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:21 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
The people who see things through a particular filter, tend to be very
committed to their way of seeing things. Psychoanalysis is another frame of
reference with adherents whose belief in it is as strong as Marxism. There
are really good, important insights in all of these ways of looking at the
world. The problem arises when one becomes inflexible.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:27 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
With respect to there being no such thing as a secular religion, well, that
just isn't true.
Now you can disagree if you like, but many people admit the concept of
secular religion, and Marxism, as well as capitalism, among other things,
are often considered as being among secular religions.
You can read the Wikipedia article about them at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
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
