I think that the reason that Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi both promoted
passive resistance as a method to attain positive social change is that they
both looked at the historical record, at the results of what happened when
people fought back in their own self defense. It's one thing for a woman to
fight off a rapist, or a man to defend his home against someone with a gun,
threatening his children in order to steal his money. But it's a very different
matter when your organizing people to demand a better life for themselves. If
those people use violence to counteract the violence used against them, the
violence escalates and the very thing they started out demanding, gets lost in
the battle. That seems to be what the historical record tells us.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 9:52 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders
Well, if you disagree with the path to socialism that I describe it would be
helpful if you would try to understand it. It is not a matter of
revolutionaries feeling like they have to use violence to overthrow the
capitalists and then impose an authoritarian state. As I have said time and
time again, that is not what happens historically with all revolutions. It is
not a matter of those in power not wanting to give up their power and so you
have to take it from them by force. It is a matter of their not being willing
to give up their power and they will not give it up by peaceful means. They
strike out with the violence. I certainly hope that you don't think that the
targets of violence should just lie down and let themselves get killed losing
not only their lives but also losing everything they have fought for up to that
point. Self defense means that you have to shoot back or you lose everything.
As for the authoritarian state, Again, all states are authoritarian. That is
what a state is. If you don't think so then try behaving as if it doesn't
exist. Just try doing something minor like picking up a loaf of bread in a
grocery store without paying for it and do it right in front of a cop. Then at
every turn try to reject state authority over you. It will not take long until
the situation escalates to the point that they kill you. And then, suppose you
engage in self defense and a revolutionary war breaks out over the people in
power refusing to give up their power. Suppose you manage to get the upper hand
over them and you win. Then just what are you going to do with them? If you do
not exercise some authoritarian power over them then everything you have won
will be lost as they just step in to reestablish what they had and kill you in
the process. There is a big difference between wanting to overthrow the ones in
power by force and violence and being forced into it. Again, read Socialism On
Trial by James P. Cannon. He makes it very clear that he and his comrades would
very much prefer to achieve socialism by peaceful means, but that he still
defends the right to self defense.
___
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 2/20/2020 4:21 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
I have a feeling that this is a discussion which, although we've had it many
times, will not be resolved.
First, and unrelated to the rest. People's usage of language is not precise.
It's often very inexact and it changes. Culture is fluid and language, as
part of culture, is also fluid. Another way to put it is that it's
idiomatic. For example, younger people use expressions that I never used when
I was their age. One new thing they've been saying when they make a mistake
is, "My bad". In their place, I would have said something like, "Oh, I made
a mistake" or perhaps, "I'm sorry. I got that wrong." People say, "It's me"
when the correct grammatical statement is, "It is I". So in that same way,
all of these people who are supporting Bernie Sanders, have adopted his mis
characterization, as Paul Krugman describes it, of his position, and
regardless of what their precise political views are, they say they are
socialists. And my response is, even though you disapprove of it because you
think it hampers communication, "labels aren't all that important". What is
important to me is that they all want things to change for the better. They
are opposed to the extremes of financial inequality that have been increasing
in America for the past 40 or more years. They are opposed to institutional
racism. They want a more democratic society.
Now for the next part. This is why you and I keep running up against a wall
that appears to divide us. I have no problem with the goal that you describe,
although I think that European Democratic Socialism might serve people
equally well. My problem is with the path that you describe, that people
would need to follow in order to achieve the goal because it is certainly
true that the powerful elites will not easily give up their power. So if
revolutionaries feel that they need to use physical force to take power from
those who have it, and then create an autocratic state in order to prevent
the elites from taking back the power, from my point of view, we, the people,
have lost precisely what it was that we were trying to get when force was
used to overthrow the system. We've seen this happen over and over again
whenever people have a vision about making life better and they wage war in
order to make that vision reality. The dream is corrupted, as are the people
who use it. If we put democracy and individual freedom and choice aside
temporarily, in order to make things better, we lose.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
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.
