If other people are not using words as precisely as I am then that is as
if we are speaking separate languages. That would mean that they are
only receiving vague impressions while I am talking about something
specific and if I started speaking only vaguely then I would not be
communicating what I am trying to communicate. I don't see what is so
difficult about learning one's own language including the vocabulary of
that language. It is not even necessary to read dictionaries. All you
have to do is to pay attention to how words are used and you learn the
meanings of those words. That's how I do it. A major interest of mine is
socialism and communism and so I read about it. Sometimes I will read a
book with a glossary, but I rarely need it. I can tell by context what a
word means and when the context consistently shows the word to mean the
same thing every time I have learned what a word means. That means that
when I come across the word again I have no need to just interpret the
word as a vague emotional impression. It is really difficult for me to
understand why other people do not do the same thing. As for whether a
socialist state is authoritarian or not, that is something else that I
have discussed on this list time and time again. It depends on how the
socialist state is achieved. As I have explained before, we would prefer
to just get our candidates elected and to change the constitution and
laws to legislate socialism. That is what the social democrats started
out to do, but there is an aphorism that when you try to change the
system from within the system it is not the system that gets changed. It
is you who will change. The social democrats are a perfect example of
that. When you give up trying to abolish capitalism in favor of just
regulating capitalism then you have given up being socialist. But when
the capitalists get to feeling really threatened they lash out violently
and because of exercising the right to self defense a civil war is
likely to result. Once the capitalists are overthrown then in order to
keep them from walking right in and reestablishing their capitalist
state then the new socialist state has to be somewhat authoritarian to
survive. It should never be forgotten, however, that this is only
temporary until there is no chance that the capitalists can regain
power. Furthermore, any state is authoritarian. Again, the state is the
apparatus by which one class exercises power over other classes by
violence or the threat of violence. That is what police forces and
standing armies are all about. Like it or not, you are living in an
authoritarian state. But once everyone in society plays a role in
maintaining society, that is, when classes have been abolished, the
state no longer has a reason to continue to exist. The state apparatus
can then be transformed into an administrator of things rather than
people. That is, there will still have to be some kind of coordination
to get products produced. Factory committees will still have to meet to
make plans for how they will produce products and then there will still
have to be an organized way to distribute the products. So imagine
people working together to do all of this. On a small scale imagine a
barn raising. That is a practice from agrarian cultures that refers to a
barn needing to be built and so everyone in the community comes together
and build a barn without expectation of remuneration other than that the
next time they need a barn to be built the community will come together
an build that one too. Imagine a family that cooperates to bring in a
household income and to do the housework. The members of that family are
working for themselves, but not as individuals for their own personal
needs. They are working for the collective good of the family including
themselves as individuals. That is communism. Instead of being against
human nature as it is so often accused of, it is human nature. If you
look around you then you will see that mutual cooperation for mutual
benefit is one of the most prominent parts of human nature. I am sure
that you have cooperated with others many times throughout your lifetime
in ways that benefited yourself and the others too. Just imagine that on
a large scale and with no one forcing you to do it and you can imagine
communism.
___
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 9:34 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
