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.
