Hi Frank, Miriam, Roger, Sylvie, and all,
The real benefit to this list is our ability to share our views and learn from
each other. I like the king Arthur round table analogy since it is very apt to
the discussions. Let's remember to smile and go with the flow since we all
have much to share and learn from each other.
Charlie Crawford.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 2:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of political
physics confirmed
Miriam, I realize that was directed to Roger but if I can pop in, please bear
with me. I honestly feel badly that you believe that any of us who share our
areas of expertise is assuming some sort of superior position. I have never
viewed it like that. We each have our passions andindividual strengths. When I
offer my knowledge in an area of my expertise I never believed it to be
anything but a peer to peer information exchange, and vice versa, remember King
Arthur's round table where no Knight was at the head of the table? Knowing what
you just let us know may may me think differently before sharing my own
knowledge and experiences.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 9:53 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of political
physics confirmed
I guess that one of my problems is that I resent anyone on this list, feeling
that he is "educating" me. I appreciate exchanging points of view and arguing
about them. But when someone says that he's trying to educate me, he is
assuming a superior position. I understand that you know more about Marxist
theory than I do and I don't mind hearing references to it or reading the
articles that you post. But I feel as you might, if a devoted Christian was
participating on this list and felt that it was necessary to teach us the
Christian interpretation of each issue that comes up. And if he reminded us
that many of our opinions are antiChrist and we are, therefore sinners. I
understand that you believe that you are educating us about a scientific point
of view and that, therefore, there is no comparison. But, that is how it feels.
In spite of your wish that I omit feelings from our discussions, feelings are
an inate part of human perception and behavior and they even creep into what
you consider to be, factual discussion. They are what makes communicating by
email so difficult because email omits the nuances of communication which help
it along like tone of voice, gesture, facial expression. Well for us, it's just
tone of voice.
And, since I absolutely don't accept our capitalist system as it presently
exists , even though you think I do, I have difficulty understanding why you
think that I can't think , "out of the box", as you put it. Of course, since I
don't accept a classical marxist system either, and I expressed some ideas
about the kind of system I'd like, I don't think that I fit into these
categories to which you're assigning people. Of course, the kind of system that
I want is sort of mixed. It comes from the ideas of many people. But I
surrender to your need to place me in one of your boxes so long as doing that
doesn't end a discussion of more importrant issues like whether Sanders sold
out, or could have done something different, or what the reaction of his
supporters is now, or what influence he has, or hasn't had on the the
Democratic Party. You perhaps inadvertently, shut off a discussion, once you
say that "he's always been a bourgeois liberal anyway" because that term only
has meaning to died in the wool Marxists.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey ;
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of political
physics confirmed
It would work a lot better if you would talk about the ideas and leave the
feelings out. In this email you are again attributing things to me that are
simply not true and that are positions I have never taken. To focus on only the
one that sparked this discussion you say that I used the phrase bourgeois
liberal to demean Sanders' position. I did not. In response to Charlie's
mention of those who think Sanders sold out I said that I don't think he sold
out. He has been a bourgeois liberal all along. For whatever reason you decided
that was a phrase of insult. As a matter of fact, I sure don't consider it a
compliment, but it describes exactly what he is. Again, I have explained that
before, but in response to your assumptions about it that ignored everything I
had said about bourgeois liberalism before I explained exactly what it is. It
is not just an insult like pig face or donkey dick. It actually means
something. Now, you said that you do not like to debate just for the sake of
debate. The same applies to me and I was not trying to debate for the sake of
debating or for any other reason. What I was trying to do was to educate just
like most of the things I say on this list are for. I have information to
impart and I impart it. Deliberate misinterpretations of what I am trying to
teach do not help with that though. Now, you said that I would probably
describe you as a bourgeois liberal too. You described your own position and
you do qualify as a bourgeois liberal. Ever since I first subscribed to this
list that has been clear to me. I have commented before that you have been
confined in that liberal box for so long that not only do you not think outside
the box, but you do not even realize that there is an outside of the box to
think about. I kind of wonder if that is the reason you have such a difficult
time understanding what I have to say. It does seem to go right over your head.
But worse than going right over your head is when you misrepresent what I say.
As a bourgeois liberal, though, you should be aware of this. The word bourgeois
in bourgeois liberal does not refer to the class status of the bourgeois
liberal. It is an adjective that modifies the word liberal as an ideology. The
word liberal can and is used in other senses and so as to avoid
misinterpretations of the word the word bourgeois is attached. A bourgeois
liberal is someone who adheres to the bourgeois ideology of liberalism. A
billionaire can be a bourgeois liberal, in which case the person in question is
actually bourgeois as well as ideologically bourgeois, or a bourgeois liberal
can be a farm worker who is breaking his back in a field. The latter would, of
course, not be a very advanced worker. In any case, it would be well for you to
take me to mean what I actually mean. If you don't know what I mean you can ask
me just like you did this time despite the fact that I had explained what I was
talking about so many times before. When You ask I will explain. But then what
you have to do is to accept it. Do not claim that I mean things that I do not
mean and explicitly say that I do not mean. When I explain exactly what I mean
by, for example, bourgeois liberal do not claim that I really mean something
else. When you do that you are calling me a liar without any evidence to
support the charge. If I call you a fart face then I am insulting you. If I
call you a bourgeois liberal it is not an insult. It simply is what you are and
you have shown repeatedly that it is what you are. To claim that I am using it
as an insult simply totally misrepresents what I am saying.
On 7/16/2016 9:43 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I'm sorry. I just talk about ideas and feelings. I don't even know how to
participate in a debate for the sake of debating. You don't like my answer
because I resist the Marxist framework which you are imposing on the
discussion. I'm refusing to stay within the definitions of reality that you
provide and I'm resisting the Marxist labels that you are assigning to
various people in the discussions we have.
Yes, you gave the classic definition of the term, bourgeois liberal. I get
that. You used it to demean Ssanders' position. At the moment, I'm not
exactly delighted with what Sanders did, although I suspect I know why he did
it. You would also use that term to describe me, I imagine, although my
position on politics and economics is different from Sanders in many ways.
But if neither of us accepts what I call, "state capitalism" and what you
call, "socialism", you will use the same term to describe both of us. That's
like describing a Quaker, a Unitarian, and a born again Christian, as being
"religious Christians", and seeing no difference between them.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran ;
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 8:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of
political physics confirmed
Miriam, you explicitly asked me to explain what I meant by bourgeois liberal
if I was not using it as an epithet. I answered you. It has a specific
meaning and you went right ahead in your next message and said that I am
using it as an epithet anyway. At least when I have explained this concept
before you have waited a while before acting like I never explained it, but
this time you did in the very message that was a reply to my explanation.
Then you gave a long list of things that you claim that I said that I never
did say. I don't care to go through each and every one and show how you are
trying to straw man me, but let me explain how a straw man argument is made.
When you can't refute a position you make up another position and represent
it as the position that you are claiming to refute and then refute that
position. An example would be someone claiming that chocolate ice cream
tastes good and then you saying that the person must be a vanilla fanatic
because he said that vanilla ice cream tasted good. This works when your
audience has never heard the original position made by the person who you are
parodying. In their ignorance they might assume that you are refuting the
actual position of the person in question. When it does not work is when you
distort the position right back to the person who made it and to people who
were right there when that person took that position.
That is exactly what you have just tried to do. You are telling me what I
have said that I know very well I have not said and you are persistently
claiming that I am using a phrase as an epithet right after I have explained
that the phrase has a specific meaning and explained what that meaning is.
On 7/16/2016 5:23 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You get that feeling because, although I understand your explanation, I
don't accept your using the term as an epithet and because I don't think
that because an individual accepts Capitalism as an economic system, that
means that he inevitably accepts the exploitation of workers. What I think
is that if Capitalism is properly regulated, it is no worse for the average
person than "state capitalism" which is an alternative term for what you
describe as "socialism". The "socialist"state can be just as arbitrary and
can crush individual rights as can the capitalist state. A socialist state
can be bureaucratic and heartless. Yes, I would like workers to operate the
businesses in which they work, and I would like to get rid of for profit
corporations and stock holders and the financialization of the economy. But
I don't want to stop people from owning small businesses or their own farms.
I don't want anything that resembles any of the Communist countries that
I've known about, even if they were supposedly moving toward a withering
away of the state. Human beings' need for power and control won't ever let
that happen. So whatever it's called, I want it to be regulated. I want
checks and balances, and I want it to be small. Small banks, small
companies, local control. And that doesn't make me a reactionary or
anti-human or whatever you mean when you say bourgois liberal because when
you say that, you are being judgmental. You're saying that if I don't agree
with the model of socialism that you espouse, I'm sort of beneath contempt,
or, at least, that if what I want doesn't fit your definition of socialism,
then I have no right to use the word, socialist. But you know, there are
people writing about other kinds of socialism like Richard Wolfe. There are
people who don't use the Marxist model as if it were the Gospel, the one and
only truth. It's just a concept, Marx conceptualized it one way. People have
other ideas about it. An analogy is Psychoanalysis. Freud gave us a very
useful conceptual framework through which to view human psychology. Some
people refuse to deviate from Freudian theory. Other people have used it as
a useful basis for moving on and widening their understanding of human
behavior.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:02 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of
political physics confirmed
Okay, I'll explain it again. It seems like I have explained this many, many
times now. A socialist is one who advocates for the public ownership and
democratic control of the means of production. This is the minimum to be a
socialist. It does not mention any ideas of how this state of affairs might
be achieved. It is just the most basic of definitions of socialism. One who
does not advocate for that state of affairs is not a socialist and if he
calls himself a socialist he is playing the same game that the right-wingers
who call Obama, Clinton or Biden socialists are playing. Among capitalist
ideologues there are varieties too. One can be a capitalist ideologue by
advocating blatantly for capitalism or one may be a capitalist ideologue
just by accepting it and never even considering an alternative. Either way
one is either promoting or accepting the rule of the capitalist class which
is the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois liberals are most often in charge of granting
concessions when the bourgeoisie deem it necessary in order to pacify
attempts by the masses to relieve their own plight. Bourgeois liberals seem
to think they can make capitalism somehow nicer and that will solve all the
problems that capitalism causes. It does not even enter their minds that
capitalism is an exploitative system. It does not enter their minds that we
might be better off without capitalism. It is their acceptance of the rule
of the bourgeoisie that makes them ideologically bourgeois. This describes
Bernie Sanders perfectly. He has never advocated in the slightest bit that
the majority of the people, the workers, should control the means of
production and the economy. He does claim to admire Eugene Debs, but Eugene
Debs's politics were radically at odds with any of the politics that Bernie
Sanders has ever promoted.
If Debs was alive now he would be declaring Bernie Sanders an enemy of his
class. Now, at your request I have explained this again. Why is it that I
get the feeling that the next time I mention bourgeois liberals you will
repeat the same thing and say that I am just using the term as an insult or
demeaning phrase as if I have never explained what a bourgeois liberal is
before?
On 7/16/2016 3:26 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
That's because, in my view, you are stereotyping everyone who isn't a
Marxist. When you call someone a "bourgeois liberal", it is as if you are
using a dirty word to describe them, as if there is no difference among
people who consider themselves to be Liberals or Progressives, and as if
whatever position they take, they have no moral sstanding. It's demeaning.
If you meant something different by your comment, perhaps you can explain
what it was.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of
political physics confirmed
I didn't even think he was selling out. He has never been anything but a
bourgeois liberal anyway.
On 7/16/2016 10:49 AM, Charles Crawford wrote:
Hi Alice, Miriam, Roger, and all,
I listened to the Sanders endorsement of Clinton and while the
idealistic side of me was saying he was selling out, the practical side of
me acknowledged he did a really good endorsement of Hilary and most
importantly, she stands the best chance of defeating Trump. I fully know
that there are those who will say that my political calculus is too cynical
and perhaps it is, but I just cannot stomach the idea of Trump and I think
Sanders has had a positive effect on the Democratic Party.
Short and not so sweet, but that is how I see it.
Charlie Crawford.
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman ;
Humel
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:19 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of
political physics confirmed
that’s one thing that never seems to change…all those who have
even a glimmer of hope find themselves bitterly disappointed...
On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
One of the articles I posted last night said it all. Basically, Sanders
did not follow through on his promise to take the fight to the convention.
Had he not endorsed Clinton, he might have had leverage to get a better
deal on the platform. He might have asked about the uncounted California
votes. He might have made the case to super delegates that he could get
more votes than Clinton in order to keep the Presidency out of Trump's
hands. But he caved to pressure. I know that most probably, had he done
that and actually won the presidency, not much would have changed. But all
of those young people who had faith that they could have an impact, that
they can change the system, would not have been so bitterly disappointed.
Only the most motivated and dedicated will keep fighting for change now.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran ;
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of
political physics confirmed
https://socialistaction.org/2016/07/12/sanders-endorses-clinton-laws
-
o
f-political-physics-confirmed/
Sanders endorses Clinton: Laws of political physics confirmed
/ 13 hours ago
June 2016 Clinton-Bernie
By JEFF MACKLER
— Jeff Mackler is the Socialist Action candidate for U.S. president
$33+ million and one year later, Bernie Sanders’ orchestrated
“political revolution” fell back to earth with a dull but expected and
pitiful thump, as he endorsed Wall Street’s corporate-funded Hillary
Clinton with a resounding “The future will be shaped more on November 8
[Election Day] than by any event in the world.”
Those who believed that Sanders was never a conscious sheepherder for
the ever-discredited Democrats will now march with him to the beat of the
“lesser evil” Clinton drum, even as she pledges to find common ground with
her Republican colleagues.
Those who are awakening to the inherent horrors of capitalism’s racist,
sexist, warmongering twin corporate duopoly will not be surprised. For
them, the future will be shaped not by those who profit from climate
catastrophe and endless wars against poor and working people abroad and at
home, but by the millions who take their lives into their own hands and
struggle on every front for humanity’s cause and for the socialist future.
Join the vote for Socialist Action in the 2016 campaign!
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 27Share on
Facebook (Opens in new window)27 Click to share on Google+ (Opens
in new
window)
July 12, 2016 in Elections, Vote Socialist Action. Tags: Clinton,
Sanders
Related posts
Socialist Action sponsors election debates
Jeff at mike
Interview with Socialist Action’s presidential candidate, Jeff
Mackler
June 2016 Grumpy Bernie
Bernie Sanders’ demise: What are the lessons?
Post navigation
← Socialist Action Campaign Platform 2016
Vote Socialist Action!
Jeff Mackler for President and Karen Schraufnagel for Vice President
More information:
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month July 2016 (7) June 2016 (14) May 2016
(9) April 2016 (12) March 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016
(11) December 2015 (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September
2015 (10) August 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015
(10) April 2015 (12) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015
(10) December 2014 (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September
2014 (6) August 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014
(11) April 2014 (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014
(11) December 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17)
September 2013 (13) August 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May
2013 (14) April 2013 (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January
2013 (17) December 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012
(19) September 2012 (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012
(3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012
(19) January 2012 (17) December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011
(14) September 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011
(19) May 2011 (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011
(16) January 2011 (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October
2010 (6) September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010
(2) May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009
(16) September 2009 (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2)
May 2009 (7) April 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January
2009 (10) December 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008
(16) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008
(3) May 2008 (2) April 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11)
January 2008 (11) December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1)
June 2007 (1) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December
2006 (11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September
2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006
(14) April 2006 (6) March 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006
(2) December 2005 (9) November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September
2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005
(16) April 2005 (12) March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005
(15) December 2004 (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19)
September 2002 (22) August 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April
2002 (21) February 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001
(17) October 2001 (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001
(18) October 2000 (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000
(16) June 2000 (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28)
February 2000 (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November
1999 (26) October 1999 (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July
1999 (38) June 1999 (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999
(26) February 1999 (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
Get Involved
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter View SocialistActionCT’s
profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
