I think that is a point well taken Miriam. I know Roger doesn't quite get
that being the purely, logical sort. But I do understand your point
Miriam.\\
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 10:53 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
Roger,
You are purposefully mischaracterizing what I'm saying. And you are being
insulting. That is an unfair way to have a discussion. Over sseveral years,
in the heat of argument, you have said some very unkind things about me when
I fail to see things from your point of view. I try not to trade insult for
insult. I can write a whole paragraph describing what I think your point of
view is and I can do it in such a way that it will be purposefully hurtful
to you. But I don't think that's how we should communicate with each other
on these lists, and although I may slip sometimes, I try not to do it. You
insult me when you say that I see things from the colonizer's point of view
or from a capitalist's point of view. Even if you think this is so, you also
must know, from all the things I've written, that my values are very
different from that and that calling me names will be upsetting to me. Could
you please try to make your points without insulting me?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 8:51 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
Exactly right, Joe. Miriam is basically viewing colonized cultures from the
colonizer's perspective. That is, if they are not white European then they
are just primitive and can all be lumped together. From that point of view
any differences in levels of development can be seen as just random
differences and because they are all at the same level, just primitive, that
proves that no social or economic evolution took place.
It is another manifestation of ethnocentrism.
On 3/3/2016 10:00 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Land as property was not a concept among North American Indians until
long after Columbus.
It does not mean however that they were "primatives" for lands were
highly cultivated and even forest lands were managed. But they were
"owned" so-to-speak in common, not by individual land holders, and for
the common good.
Now again I'm talking about North American cultures. There are
differences in some of the Mezo=-American (Aztecs, Mayans) and Inca
civilizations.
By the way before Columbus there were cities and cultures more
advanced and more populated than in Europe at the time. In fact there
were one hundred million native americans before Columbus. But guns
and germs and steal destroyed about 98 percent of that population in
less than one century.
98 million people! The holocaust was astounding.
have to scoot but there are some excellent books on this history and
they are "objective" too.
Joe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miriam Vieni"
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:48 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
But in some, people did own things and they used them as tokens of
wealth or power. Sometimes it was cows or shells. Some groups had
elaborite systems for evaluating wealth. I studied all of this stuff
in college so I can't remember all the details but there was great
variation in cultures.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz
Comcast
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 7:09 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
Again correct for the most part for these were for lack of better
words mutualist/communal societies.
Also in many indigenous societies there were no real notions of
private property including ownership of land itself.
It wasn't even a concept this private ownership of property that is.
Itwas indeed owned by all in common.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:11 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
If you are not using the word class in the same way that I am then youhave been considered to be of different nationalities. Nevertheless,
are talking about a different subject and using the same word to talk
about a different subject to someone who is talking about one subject
at the same time that you are talking about a different subject is a
recipe for a failure to communicate. Anyway, a classless society does
not deny the existence of leaders or even bullies. What makes preclass
societies classless is that all members of the community participate
in labor and the labor is conducted for the collective good of the
community. It would be a stretch of the definition of exploitation,
but if there is any exploitation of labor then it is a mutual
exploitation. One feature of the Australian social system before the
European colonization is the lack of clear lines in regard to where
one community ended and another began. In most cases of preclass
societies the limit was the limit of language. Even in nearby New
Guinea there were and still are hundreds of languages in a very small
area. These languages were unintelligible to each other and
effectively made a barrier that defined the community. There are a lot
of indications that prior to ancient imperialist conquests the
proliferation of languages was similar over the entire planet. Of
course, the necessity of common origins of humanity means that even
prior to that there must have been only a few or even one universal
language. The linguistic distribution in Australia was a bit
different, though, and may well be closer to what the situation was
prior to the extreme proliferation of mutually unintelligible
languages. In one area the people spoke in the same way while just a
few miles away some of the words were different and inflections were
slightly different, but there was no problem in understanding each
other. The neighbors were considered part of the community and aided
each other. A few miles further along the people spoke a little bit
more different from the first group and less different from the second
group and to the second group were no more difficult to understand
than the first group and so were treated as just as much of the
community as the first group. The first group would have noticed more
profound differences in their speech, but would have had not much
trouble understanding them while having less contact with them. Then
just a few miles even further away the same kind of pattern was seen.
Once you got about half way across the continent the people would be
speaking so different from the first group that they would not be able
to understand each other at all and so they would effectively be
speaking another language. But would it really be a different language
since each adjacent group would be able to understand one another
perfectly well? On the rare occasions that people from one side of the
continent interacted with one another they would have considered each
other to have been different communities and in the modern world would
each
adjacent group considered itself to be one community. They just lived in
slightly different areas.
What this led to was that effectively the whole continent waswas mutually beneficial too.
cooperating with each other for mutual benefit with no coercion and no
coordinating government. The whole continent was living in anarchy,
the same kind of anarchy that the anarchists advocate. It functioned
because the people of one locale saw each other as friends and
neighbors and realized that mutual cooperation with the people around
oneself was beneficial to oneself and the others too. They also had
every reason to understand that cooperating with the people over the
hill
That is, they had mutual interests and few conflicting interests. Thensomething in common.
the Europeans showed up and started deporting their criminals into the
continent and insisting that the natives adopt the European culture or
else and that kind of messed everything up.
On 3/2/2016 9:28 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I don't know anything about the social organization and culture of
the indigenous population of Australia. But I do know how little
children behave in a play area. Some kids are more aggressive than
others. Some take toys from others. Some push others out of the way
in order to be first going down the slide. I suspect that those folks
in Australia had a power structure with some being the leaders or
the elites or whatever, even if that meant that they were the ones
who decided how the food would be divided up or how tasks would be
allotted. I'm not using the word, "class", in the precise manner that
you are. But I am saying that in any group of people, you'll end up
with some individuals who are more dominant, who are leaders in one
way or another. The power is never distributed equally.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
If you claim that the main barrier to a classless society is human
nature then you will have to explain all of the classless and
stateless societies that have existed. About the only way I can see
that you can do that is to exclude them from being humans. To pick
out just one example, I would expect that all of the people who are
descended from the residents of Australia before the European
colonization might rather object to such a characterization.
On 3/2/2016 10:59 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think the main barrier to a classless society is human nature, notanarchist.
the stae. But other than that, I suppose I could call myself an
Miriamwill gradually transform from a means of administering people into a
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
Anarchism and socialism are very similar. I have explained on this
list before that anarchists and communists have pretty much the same
goal.
Anarchists just call that goal anarchy and communists call it
communism.
Both tendencies are for the eventual abolition of the state. The
main difference is that the anarchists see the biggest obstacle to
that eventual goal to be the state itself. They have the idea that
class society is caused by the existence of the state and that if
the state were abolished then class society would go away. Lenin's
book, State and Revolution, was mainly a polemic against the
anarchists. He argued that their stance that a classless society
could be attained by the abolition of the state would not work
because those who had an interest in the state's continued existence
would just reestablish it on the instant that it was abolished. I
will counterpose scientific socialism to anarchism now because even
though I said that socialism and anarchism are very similar it is
more accurate to point out that anarchists have always been
considered to be socialists, just not of the scientific variety.
Scientific socialists hold that class society causes the state, that
the state is a way of regulating and administering class
relationships and that if class society is abolished then the
objective conditions for the continued existence of the state will
have been removed and the state will fade away. That is, it
means of administering things.
By the way, it is important to remember that anarchists call
themselves libertarians. They were calling themselves libertarians a
long time before the right wing libertarians started calling
themselves libertarians. That is why I cringe whenever the word
libertarian is used on this list as if right-wing libertarian was
the only kind of libertarian. Insofar as they advocate the abolition
of the state or its minimization, though, the right-wing
libertarians and the left-wing libertarians, the anarchists, have
Bakunin ...The main difference between those two camps is that the left-wingtalking about and that Chuck does not know enough about it himself to
libertarians are in favor of the abolition of capitalism and class
society in general and the right-wing libertarians are for the
elimination of the state, but have no problem with capitalism and
with class society in general. Still, though, there are a whole lot
of complete misconceptions at large about what anarchism is and,
unfortunately, that is true among a lot of people who falsely call
themselves anarchists. That is probably why Chuck says that all the
anarchists he knows seem so selfish. The point is that the people he
knows who call themselves anarchists probably do not know what they
are
recognize that.
On 3/1/2016 9:57 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:Re:
Emma Goldman was an anarchist. There's a book about her on BARD and
one on Bookshare. I haven't gotten through much but she sounds very
close to being a socialist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy]
anarchy.[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
My comment about bringing on the anarchy was intended as a
sarcastic response to your elevation of property over justice for
human beings and the then disparaging indication that otherwise you
would have
But, actually, I wonder if you have really ever known an anarchist.
Most of the people I have known who call themselves anarchists do
not know what they are talking about. I remember one who was a
singer in a punk band who called himself an anarchist and I asked
him which anarchist tradition he adhered to. He didn't seem to know
what I meant so I offered some suggestions, Kropotkin, Proudhon,
what anarchism is.who?
anarchist.He then said that he was not an old anarchist, he was a newvote for Bill Clinton.
anarchist.
Then he threw around some words like death and destruction. I just
shut up having satisfied myself that he did not have the slightest
idea what an anarchist was. Then there was the woman who claimed to
be an anarchist and when I tried to explain to her where I thought
anarchist politics went wrong she also seemed to not know what I
was talking about and then went on to tell me about how important
it was to
The list goes on. There have been a few, though, who did adhere to
traditional anarchist collectivism. I worked with a man in the
anti-draft movement who was well grounded in anarchist politics and
history. At a later time I got peripherally involved in the defense
of a high school student who was expelled from school for being an
I had some conversations with her and while I found her a bit naive
she was definitely learning about and following anarchist politics.
Later she sued the school board and even though I was not present
in the courtroom I caught a report on television and was surprised
that my old comrade in the anti-draft movement testified as a
friend of the court and as an expert on anarchism. He turned out to
be a university professor by then. Since you describe the
anarchists you have known as selfish people I suspect that they
were of the variety who claim to be anarchists but do not understand
weapons," it reports.agitators.And if you take their claims of being anarchists as good coin Ifact, anarchist philosophy is completely incompatible with
suspect that you don't know much about it either. I do happen to
have some very strong reservations about anarchism, especially the
position about abolishing the state by decree and the theory that
capitalism is a manifestation of the state rather than the state
being a manifestation of capitalism or some other class system, but
it is undeniable that many anarchists have dedicated themselves to
anarchist collectivism as both a revolutionary goal and as a way of
life. That is far from selfishness. In
selfishness.
On 3/1/2016 12:54 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman forfarmers.
DMARC) wrote:
what has anarchy ever done for people? The anarchists that I knowcops.
of are extremely self-serving and operate out of a very narrow
perspective, their own!
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] 'The truth will come
out:
Finicum was flat murdered'
Property before people? How capitalist. Bring on the anarchy.
On 2/23/2016 6:38 AM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman
for
DMARC) wrote:
the real issue here is how one chooses to fight for injustice.
When one crosses certain boundaries such as property lines there
are potential consequences. We live in a society where anarchy
does not rule.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
And what does one risk when one chooses to not fight back against
injustice?
On 2/19/2016 9:26 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman
for
DMARC) wrote:
when one chooses to live as an outlaw and adopt the ways of the
wild west taking over property that doesn't belong to them they
run the risk of being killed or murderedd if one chooses to use
the melodramatic rflare.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
http://themilitant.com/2016/8007/800755.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 7 February 22, 2016
'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered'
BY SETH GALINSKY
Working people should denounce the cold-blooded Jan. 26 killing
of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum by Oregon State Police and the FBI;
the frame-up conspiracy charges against Ammon Bundy and others
who took part in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge; and the frame-up of Dwight and Steven Hammond, two
Harney County, Oregon, cattle ranchers, imprisoned for a second
time on the same bogus arson charges dating back to 2001 and
2006.
"The truth will come out. LaVoy was just flat murdered," Tad
Houpt, the owner of a small logging company, said by phone
Feb. 7.
Finicum and Bundy were traveling to a Jan. 26 community meeting
that Houpt helped organize in John Day, Oregon, when they were
intercepted by the
Bundy initiated the refuge occupation Jan. 2 to draw attention
both to the frame-up of the Hammonds and to U.S. government land
policies that have been undermining the livelihood of ranchers
and
up.ranch.The persecution of the Hammonds outraged small ranchers and
farmers throughout the West - controlled burns are common to
control invasive plants and to prevent the spread of wildfires.
Despite serving the sentence imposed by the trial judge, the
Hammonds went back to jail Jan. 4, because of a U.S. Appeals
Court ruling that their sentences didn't meet federal minimum
rules.
After the trial the U.S. Bureau of Land Management vindictively
revoked the Hammonds' grazing permits, threatening the survival
of their
Meanwhile, the Oregonian reported Feb. 6 that the scanty
official information and one grainy video released on the
killing confirm many aspects of the accounts by Shawna Cox and
Victoria Sharp - who were in the pickup truck driven by Finicum.
According to both of them, the cops first fired one shot at the
vehicle they were in after Finicum initially pulled over.
Finicum then shouted out to the cops, "I'm going to see the
sheriff," a reference to Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County,
who was also scheduled to be at the John Day meeting and has
been quoted in the press as saying the Hammonds should be freed.
Finicum tried to drive away, but was soon forced off the road
again.
The
Oregonian reports that the FBI admits lethal force was used when
the truck "approached the checkpoint," that is, even before the
vehicle crashed into the snow bank and Finicum gets out with his
hands
Much of the capitalist press justifies the killing and
prosecutions by labeling Finicum and Bundy as extremists and
outside
land policies."To his detractors," the New York Times said, "he was a
doctrinaire leader of an illegal protest that is deeply opposed
by many who live near the refuge." The paper conveniently leaves
out that most people in the area support the demand to free the
Hammonds and are sympathetic to their opposition to the
government
Many local residents visited the refuge, met Finicum and Bundy
or donated food and supplies to the occupiers.
Some 1,000 people attended Finicum's funeral in Kanab, Utah,
Feb .
5.
While pretending to be objective, the Times' description of the
scene plays on many of its readers' prejudices. After the
service there were "cowboys on horseback and members of
so-called patriot groups wearing camouflage and carrying small
97720.discussion.
The Times did quote one rancher from Nevada, Diana Clark, at the
funeral. "All of us ranchers feel like we're backed into a
corner,"
she said. "And it's hard to get anyone to acknowledge our needs,
and so they gave us a platform."
At least 22 smaller protests against the killing of Finicum took
place Feb. 6, from Florida to Washington. One common placard was
"Hands Up, Don't Shoot," a slogan first popularized by
protesters against police brutality after the killing of Michael
Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. At events in John Day and
Prineville, Oregon, dozens of local ranchers participated.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have now indicted 16 supporters
of the occupation with conspiracy to "prevent by force,
intimidation and threats, officers and employees of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service . from discharging the duties
of their office" at the wildlife refuge.
The list of what the indictment calls "overt acts" to further
the conspiracy is proof itself that the prosecution is a
frame-up.
The first "act" it lists is an Oct. 5 meeting where Ammon Bundy
warned Harney County Sheriff David Ward that if the Hammonds
went to jail there could be "extreme civil unrest."
Although the occupiers are not accused of pointing their weapons
at anyone, the indictment claims that they "brandished and
carried firearms." Oregon law allows the open carrying of
firearms.
Bundy released a statement from prison Feb. 6, noting that the
occupation was civil disobedience. He encouraged those "who
disagree with my speech" or dislike his ideas to engage in civil
"If you do not advocate for government to tolerate ideas that it
hates, then the First Amendment and free speech mean nothing,"
he said. "Arm yourself with ideas. . Argue and disagree. Be
free."
Supporters of the Hammonds continue to organize. A new online
petition calling on President Barack Obama to free the Hammonds
had
3,341 signatures as of Feb. 9. The Oregon Cattlemen's
Association is asking that donations be sent to: The Hammond
Family, c/o Sandra Carlon at US Bank, 493 N. Broadway, Burns,
Oregon
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
