Well, that professor sounds like a particularly obnoxious type, but if
he got frustrated at not being understood I can understand his problem
in that respect, at least. Consider my situation. I have explained over
and over on this list what I mean when I use the word socialism. To a
lesser extent, but still over and over, I have explained what I mean
when I use the word communism. Then along comes Miriam who tells me that
she gets the impression that when I use the word socialism I mean
communism. There is simply no room for impressions. If I have explained
what I mean by that word so many times then why get any impressions? She
should know exactly what I mean by now. And on top of that, her
impression is wrong too. I don't know what I can do other than just
explain it another time on top of all the other times I have explained
it. Now, she called herself stupid. I will avoid that word. For one
thing, it is a common insult word and I am not into throwing insults
just because someone does not understand what I am saying. In fact, I
hardly ever use an insult for anyone anyway. But secondly, what is
stupid anyway? Everyone thinks that they know what it means, but it is
another word that has been over used to the point that it has become
another vague concept. I shy away from vague words precisely because
they lead to misunderstandings. But putting aside that I do think that
she should work on paying attention. It would help her understand me for
one thing and for another thing it would be a lot easier on my own blood
pressure.
___
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 2/21/2020 8:51 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Ah yes(great big grin), I knew I could count on you, Roger, for a wee
bit of sympathy for my old elitist professor. After all it was
beneath his greatness to have to stoop to "teaching" an introductory
course in Statistics. And, viewed from his high perch atop his ivory
pedestal, being set upon by the Institution to stoop to being wet
nurse to a bunch of Chimpanzees, I can certainly understand his
irritation, having been treated with such indignity.
Most of my professors, fortunately for me, were teachers. Most of
them saw their job as one of instilling their knowledge and wisdom in
the heads of youngsters still wet behind the ears.
However, mine was not to question why. Mine was but to try and try.
And after all, I could not complain too loudly since tuition was a
mere $50 a quarter for a full 15 hours of credit. Back in those long
ago days I'll bet that the University of Washington could put its
teaching staff up against any public university in the nation, and
come out on the plus side.
Incidentally, three blind students took that Stat course. One took a
pass/fail, and another took the course three times before she snuck a
C out of the lofty professor. The third, me, earned a B.
In spite of the professor's attitude of being put upon for having to
teach such basic courses, my two colleagues went on to become Social
Workers, while I spent a few years teaching Food Service to blind
students, and Braille and Daily Living Skills, before winding up as
Assistant Director of the Washington State Department of Services for
the Blind.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/21/20, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I can feel some sympathy for your professor. If you say something as
clearly as you possibly can and it is still not understood then what can
you do but repeat yourself. It is a bit frustrating to say the least.
___
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 2/21/2020 12:16 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Now here's something I understand. Roger wrote, "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."
Speaking of Labels, I have said, I don't care for labels. But I
should have said, "I don't like Some labels, in particular those that
are used to dismiss entire groups of people".
While I appreciate Roger's careful explanations, often he sounds like
a professor who is fast running out of patience. Although Miriam and
I are much looser with the use of words, we seem to bumble about until
we understand what we're trying to get across. Language is fluid.
Label meanings change over time.
I had a professor who had a super high IQ...he told us so...and when I
would raise my hand and ask for an explanation to something he just
said, he would raise his voice and loudly repeat, word for word, the
same information that I still did not understand. So, just to prove
to you that I'm not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer, I went to
his office and attempted to explain what I thought was quite obvious.
"If you can't speak the King's English", he clipped, "Then what the
Hell are you doing at the University of Washington?" That was back in
1968. He was about my dad's age, so I can safely say that he is long
gone. But here I am, bringing him up as an example, and getting all
hot under the collar just remembering that rebuke. I do recall the
course was the Sociology Statistic class. But all I learned was to
keep my mouth shut and nod my head.
I did locate a student from a previous class, and paid her to coach
me. She was not only a better teacher, using language in a way I
understood, but she also offered to read my exam for me. I will not
suggest that she and I cheated...just that she was super helpful.
I almost forgot the other part of my story. After I realized the
professor was not interested in my problem, and before I hunted down a
former student to coach me, I said to myself...Self, you'll just bring
up the question again in Sections. We had the professor three days a
week and went to Sections two days a week, where we had a Teacher's
Assistant (T A)to help us understand the process. The T a rushed in
and said, "Harrow! I am...", and his accent was so strong those were
the only words I understood.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/20/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
