The problem is that most people are not using these words as precisely as you
are. Well, that's the first problem. You have a very sharp mind. You read a
lot and you use the abstract concepts that you read about, in order to
understand the world. And I'm sure that there are other people who do that
also. But the majority of us don't. I talked about the kind of world I'd like
to see. I was describing my values and I was talking about how I would like
life to be for people. I was not talking about which system I thought would be
best to arrive at my goal because honestly, I don't know which system would be
best and that's why I don't like labels. My feeling is that human beings, with
all their fallibility, their need for power, their fears, the individual
psychology that drives them, will most probably mess up any system we adopt.
The idea of the public owning the means of production sounds benign, but it
depends on what that word, "public" means or I guess, how this is actually put
into practice. Does it mean an authoritarian state or does it mean that workers
own their workplaces and run them democratically. Somehow, it seems like
bureaucracies inevitably become rigid , unresponsive, and self perpetuating. I
don't think that this would be different under socialism than it is under
capitalism. But never having had first hand experience with socialism, I don't
know.
About Communism, you said:
Communism is the situation in which the state itself has been abolished. That
is, the state has turned from an apparatus that administers people into an
apparatus that administers things, things like commodities.
I honestly don't understand what that would look like in real life. I guess
it's too abstract for my brain, but I would appreciate it if you could give me
an example of what that might be like.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:06 PM
To: miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders
Label is another name for noun. It is a part of speech and it is a major part
of speech. It lets you know what you are talking about. You can say I walked
across and picked up and took. But it makes a lot more sense to say I walked
across the floor and picked up a coffee cup and took a sip of coffee. If you
reject labels you cannot form a coherent sentence. In stead of saying that you
feel uncomfortable with labels try learning what they mean and then it will be
a lot easier to discuss things. Now, I do not mean communism when I say
socialism. If I meant communism I would say communism. Lenin described
socialism as the lowest form of communism, but it is low enough that the two
can be easily distinguished. Socialism is a form of state. It is the situation
in which the means of production is under the ownership and democratic control
of the public. If someone advocates this situation then he or she is a
socialist. If a person does not advocate that then no matter how much he or she
calls him or herself a socialist he or she is not a socialist. Socialism simply
is not regulated capitalism. Even the outright capitalists accept some amount
of regulation by their state.
Otherwise their profit system would collapse in the extreme competition that
would result without any restraint. If a capitalist who is consumed with making
profit accepts some regulation so as to not be eaten alive by his or her
competition then that does not make that capitalist a socialist. Socialism is
simply not any government regulation or program that happens to exist. If you
use socialism that way then you render the word socialism completely
meaningless. Communism, on the other hand, is the situation in which the state
itself has been abolished. That is, the state has turned from an apparatus that
administers people into an apparatus that administers things, things like
commodities. If you would just drop your aversion to labels you would know that
and you would not have to get the impression that I am talking about anything
when I use a word like socialism. You would simply know what I am talking
about. And I do not use words to give impressions anyway. I use words to
communicate and I use words to communicate specific ideas.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence
as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell
him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who
will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every
incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what
so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/19/2020 9:16 AM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I do have a lot of problems with all these labels, capitalism, socialism,
communism. I guess I don't care what you call it so long as everyone has a
comfortable home, good nutrition, good complete health care, access to as
much education as that person wants, and an opportunity to work if he or she
is willing and able. I think that the world should be run for the welfare of
people, not for profit, and I think that there should be a ceiling on the
income that any individual family should have. But I'm not bound to a
particular political philosophy. I don't care how we get there. I believe
that you are advocating communism when you use the word "socialist", but I'm
not sure and it doesn't matter a whole lot. I do know that when a lot of
other people use the word, "socialism, they mean a variety of things by it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
It remains that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and no social
democrat government in those countries have made a move to abolish
capitalism. If you think you can just regulate capitalism into being nice
capitalism you are a pretty poor socialist.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence
as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell
him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who
will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every
incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what
so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/18/2020 9:35 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
There is really a difference between how the Scandanavian countries function
and the way the US does. It has to do with the fact that citizens of those
countries pay a much higher tax rate and the money which those taxes raise,
are used to provide many benefits to families that Americans don't have.
Universal medical care, child care, paid family leave, a lot of vacation
time, all sorts of things that make life easier for working people. That's
the kind of thing that the Democratic Socialists here, or whatever label you
choose to assign to them want. In the US, the term, "liberal", has come to
mean progressive social values, as opposed to conservative social values
like being anti choice or anti gay. It isn't a derogatory term. It's just
that it doesn't necessarily mean that the people whom you call liberal,
understand the enormous exploitation of working people and the incredible
inequality. However, people who are working for positive change, understand
that you don't get it by dividing people. You get it by showing them what
they have in common and helping them find ways to work together to reach
goals. Calling people "liberals" as a derogatory term, or "deplorables" or
"the uneducated masses" separates them. It's the kind of thing that Trump
does, only he uses other words.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bob Hachey (Redacted sender
bhachey for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
I think your BC professors were referring to the social democrats, not
socialism. It is really hard to distinguish between a liberal and a social
democrat. So they may as well just say liberalism instead of socialism.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much
evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you
give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to
require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/18/2020 8:00 PM, Bob Hachey (Redacted sender bhachey for DMARC) wrote:
Hi Miriam,
Good article here. The more negative I see on Bernie, the more
likely I am to vote for him in the primary despite my fears that he
may not be electable. And, seems to me that more of the negativity
on Bernie now comes from the left rather than the right. What a mess and a
farce as well.
IF someone wants to argue that Bernie's policy positions may not be
supported by the majority of Americans I can live with that as a
possibly reasonable argument. What I hate most is the tired old rant
that "He's a socialist" and how awful that is. Also, many trot out
the lazy definition of socialism that appears on dictionary.com
which says socialism promotes ownership or regulation of the means of
production.
I was taught that it is communism that promotes ownership of the
means of production. Socialism promotes the regulation, not
ownership of the means of production according to my BC professors.
Bob Hachey
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:16 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] The Escalating Class War Against Bernie
Sanders
The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders By Norman Solomon,
Reader Supported News
18 February 20
More than ever, Bernie Sanders is public enemy number one for power
elites that thrive on economic injustice. The Bernie 2020 campaign
is a direct threat to the undemocratic leverage that extremely
wealthy individuals and huge corporations constantly exert on the
political process. No wonder we're now seeing so much anti-Bernie
rage from leading corporate Democrats - eagerly amplified by corporate
media.
In American politics, hell hath no fury like corporate power scorned.
Flagrant media biases against Sanders are routine in a wide range of
mainstream outlets. (The media watch group FAIR has long documented
the problem, illuminated by one piece after another after another
after another just this month.) In sharp contrast, positivity toward
Sanders in mass media spheres is scarce.
The pattern is enmeshed with the corporatism that the Sanders
campaign seeks to replace with genuine democracy - disempowering
great wealth and corporate heft while empowering everyday people to
participate in a truly democratic process.
Big media are continually amplifying the voices of well-paid
reporters and pundits whose jobs involve acceptance of corporate
power, including the prerogatives of corporate owners and sponsors.
And, in news coverage of politics, there's an inexhaustible supply
of former Democratic officeholders and appointees who've been
lucratively feeding from corporate troughs as lobbyists, consultants
and PR operatives. Their corporate ties usually go unmentioned.
An important media headquarters for hostility toward the Sanders
campaign is MSNBC, owned by Comcast - a notoriously anti-labor and
anti-consumer corporation. "People need to remember," I pointed out
on Democracy Now! last week, "that if you, for instance, don't trust
Comcast, why would you trust a network that is owned by Comcast?
These are class interests being worked out where the top strata of
ownership and investors hires the CEO, hires the managing editors,
hires the reporters. And so, what we're seeing, and not to be rhetorical
about it, but we really are seeing a class war underway."
Routinely, the talking heads and go-to sources for mainline news
outlets are far removed from the economic pressures besetting so
many Americans. And so, media professionals with the most clout and
largest megaphones are quite distant from the Sanders base.
Voting patterns in the New Hampshire primary reflected whose
economic interests the Sanders campaign is promising to serve. With
10 active candidates on the Democratic ballot, Sanders "won 4 in 10
of voters with household incomes under $50,000 and nearly 3 in 10
with incomes between
$50,00 and $99,000," The Washington Post reported.
Meanwhile, a trio of researchers associated with the Institute for
New Economic Thinking - Thomas Ferguson, Jie Chen and Paul Jorgensen
- found that "the higher the town's income, the fewer votes cast" for
Sanders.
"Lower income towns in New Hampshire voted heavily for Sanders;
richer towns did the opposite."
The researchers saw in the data "further dramatic evidence of a
point we have made before: that the Democratic Party is now sharply
divided by social class."
It's a reality with media implications that are hidden in plain sight.
The often-vitriolic and sometimes preposterous attacks on Sanders
via powerful national media outlets are almost always coming from
affluent or outright wealthy people. Meanwhile, low-income Americans
have virtually zero access to the TV studios (other than providing
after-hours janitorial services).
With very few exceptions, the loudest voices to be heard from mass
media are coming from individuals with wealth far above the
financial vicinity of average Americans. Virtually none of the most
widely read, seen and heard journalists are on the low end of the nation's
extreme income inequality.
Viewed in that light - and keeping in mind that corporate ownership
and advertising dominate mainstream media - it shouldn't be
surprising that few prominent journalists have much good to say
about a presidential campaign fiercely aligned with the working class.
"If there is going to be class warfare in this country," Bernie
Sanders told the Iowa AFL-CIO convention last summer, "it's time
that the working class of this country won that war and not just the
corporate elite."
To the corporate elite, goals like that are unacceptable.
