You start out saying that this is rather long. It is. While reading it I
thought for quite a while that it was from Mostafa. It is too long for
me to address it point by point, but most of it I have already
addressed. Just for example there are the points about Marx having
advocated violent revolution and I have explained more than once that is
not true, but the claim is teleological. But at least try to break up
things like this into smaller bits so that I can contemplate one thing
at a time.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst
out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how
wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/12/2018 2:58 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I've finally changed the subject line to something more relevant.
This is kind of long.
A few things:
You say "the bulk of Marx's writing", and "bulk" is the word. He wrote a lot!
You say he was too rational to divine the future. I would say that he was a very foolish man. Of course, noone can really divine the future, but to advocate the overthrow of the current economic system, with all of the likely death and destruction that would entail, did, in fact entail in 20th century failed attempts to implement his theories, without at least a somewhat detailed idea of what to replace it with is foolish in the extreme. Did he expect some kind of spontaneous self organizing principle to somehow magically replace the capitalist system with his idea of a better one?
As far as specific critiques of his labor theory of value, good old Wikipedia comes through again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism#Labor_theory_of_value
*
The
labor theory of value
is one of the most commonly criticized core tenets of Marxism.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
The
Austrian School
argues that this fundamental theory of classical economics is false and prefers
the subsequent and modern
subjective theory of value
put forward by
Carl Menger
in his book
Principles of Economics
. The Austrian School was not alone in criticizing the Marxian and classical belief
in the labor theory of value. British economist
Alfred Marshall
attacked Marx, saying: "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory [...]
is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour,
together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed".
[32]
Marshall points to the capitalist as sacrificing the money he could be using now
for investment in business, which ultimately produces work.
[32]
By this logic, the capitalist contributes to the work and productivity of the factory
because he delays his gratification through investment.
[32]
Through the
law of supply and demand
, Marshall attacked Marxian theory of value. According to Marshall, price or value
is determined not just by supply, but by the demand of the consumer.
[32]
Labor does contribute to cost, but so do the wants and needs of consumers. The shift
from labor being the source of all value to subjective individual evaluations creating
all value undermines Marx's economic conclusions and some of his social theories.
[33]
*
I have not yet checked out the notes documenting these criticisms, but I will.
I would add that I mentioned one of these criticisms before, although in slightly different form. The capitalist risks his money to fund a business, or invest in trade, or whatever, and the word "risk" implies loss of some or all of that money. And it does indeed happen. Without money, no work for workers. So Marx's theory, although insightful and important, is incomplete and therefore not agood basis for overthrowing the current system.
As for his prescription for what to replace capitalism with: You say that those 20th century states I named didn't really implement Communism, but that position doesn't really stand up. For your statement to be true, you would also have to be claiming that those who said they were implementing Communism, or said they were trying to implement it, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, the leaders of the former Soviet Union following Stalin, (we'll leave him out of this), all of them didn't really know what they were talking about. Either that, or they were lying when they said they were creating Communist states. Now, as power seekers, I can actually buy the plausibility of the argument that they might have been lying, but many of the things they did try to do looked like what Marx seemed to be suggesting, lacking in detail as he may have been. So your position that they weren't really trying to implement Communism is tenuous at best. Given that, the diagnosis of those catastrophes as failures of the implementation of Communism is perfectly reasonable.
Now, as having moved on some of my views on Marx: I had a bit of an epiphany this morning. I assuredly do not subscribe to his solution, but after some more reading, I find that his critique of capitalism has a lot going for it. I found this interesting article on the Harvard Business Review. Yes, you heard that right.
https://hbr.org/2011/09/was-marx-right
*
Was Marx Right?
Umair Haque
September 07, 2011
In case you’ve been on Mars (or even just on vacation), here’s a surprising idea
that’s been
making the rounds
lately: there might have been something to Marx’s critiques of capitalism after
all.
Now, before you leap into the intertubes, seize me by the arm, perform a citizens’
arrest, and frog-march me into the nearest FBI office, exclaiming “See this suspicious
looking brown guy? He’s a card-carrying communist!!” please note: I’m, well, not.
I’m a staunch believer in capitalism (hence, the title of
my book
.)
Yet, I do think — and after reading the dismal, dreary headlines every day, not to
mention checking the value of your 401K, house, job, economy, society, and future
lately, I’d bet you do too — that prosperity as we know it might be lazily circling
the glowing inner rim of the burbling event horizon of a massive supergalactic black
hole. And when it comes to doing much about it (wave hello to your new friend, “double-dip”),
well, the status quo’s pretty much out of options, out of ideas, and running out
of time (hey, is that a Congressional “super-committee” being
stalked by lobbyists
I see? Who came up with this brain-melter of an idea?).
Hence, indulge me for a paragraph or two. Now, please note: This is a hugely divisive
topic, and by “was Marx right?” I
don’t
mean “Communism is the glorious future of humankind, my brothers in arms!! (And
I am your leader — bow!!)”. For, of course, I think we’ve had plenty of compelling
demonstrations that it wasn’t. Rather, I mean: “Was there maybe a tiny mote of insight
or two hidden in Marx’s diagnoses of the maladies of industrial age capitalism?”
Let’s take Marx’s big critiques of industrial age capitalism, one by one (and with
a grain of salt: since I’m far from a Marxist economist, it’s entirely possible my
quick, partial descriptions leave much to be desired).
Immiseration.
Marx claimed that capitalism would immiserate workers: he meant that labor would
be “exploited” — not just in a purely ethical sense, but in a narrower economic one:
that real wages would fall, and working conditions would deteriorate. How was Marx
doing on this score? I’d say middlingly: wages in many advanced economies — notably,
the most purely capitalist in a financialized sense — have failed to keep pace with
productivity; not for years, but for decades. (America’s median wage has been stagnant
for
roughly 40 years
.) In macro terms,
labor’s share of income has plummeted
, while the lion’s share of growth has accrued
to those at the very top
.
Crisis.
As workers were paid less and less, capitalism would be prone to chronic, perpetual
crises of overproduction — for they wouldn’t have the means to purchase or invest
in enough goods to keep the economy humming. As Marx put it, there was likely to
be “poverty in the midst of plenty.” How’s Marx doing on this score? Not bad, I’d
say: the last three decades have in fact been characterized by global crises of what
you might crudely call overproduction (think: too little demand chasing too many
disposable widgets, resulting in a massive global debt crisis, as vanishing middle
classes took on more and more debt to compensate for stagnant real wages).
Stagnation.
Here’s Marx’s most controversial — and most curious — prediction. That as economies
stagnated, real rates of profit would fall. How does this one hold up? On first glance,
it seems to have been totally discredited: corporate profits have broken through
the roof and into the stratosphere. But think about it again, in economic terms:
Marx’s prediction concerned “real profit,” not just the mystery-meat numbers served
up by beancounters, and chewed over with gusto by “analysts.” When seen in those
terms, Marx might be said to have been onto something: though corporations book nominal
profits, I’d suggest a significant component of that “profit” is artificial, earned
by transferring value, rather than creating it (just ask mega-banks, Big Energy,
or Big Food). I’ve termed this “thin value” and Michael Porter has described it as
a failure to create “shared value.” Replace “declining real profit” with “shrinking
real value” and it’s analogous to what Tyler Cowen and I have called a Great Stagnation
(though our
casus belli
for it differs significantly from Marx’s).
Alienation.
As workers were divorced from the output of their labor, Marx claimed, their sense
of self-determination dwindled, alienating them from a sense of meaning, purpose,
and fulfillment. How’s Marx doing on this score? I’d say quite well: even the most
self-proclaimed
humane modern workplaces
, for all their creature comforts, are bastions of bone-crushing tedium and soul-sucking
mediocrity, filled with dreary meetings, dismal tasks, and pointless objectives that
are well, just a little bit alienating. If sweating over the font in a PowerPoint
deck for the mega-leveraged buyout of a line of
designer diapers
is the portrait of modern “work,” then call me — and I’d bet most of you — alienated:
disengaged, demoralized, unmotivated, uninspired, and about as fulfilled as a stoic
Zen Master forced to watch an endless loop of
Cowboys and Aliens
.
False consciousness.
According to Marx, one of the most pernicious aspects of industrial age capitalism
was that the proles wouldn’t even know they were being exploited — and might even
celebrate the very factors behind their exploitation, in a kind of ideological Stockholm
Syndrome that concealed and misrepresented the relations of power between classes.
How’s Marx doing on this score? You tell me. I’ll merely point out: America’s largest
private employer is Walmart. America’s second largest employer is McDonald’s.
Commodity fetishism.
A fetishized object is one which is more than a symbol: it’s believed to have actually
the power the symbol represents (like an idol, or a totem with magical properties).
Marx claimed that under industrial age capitalism’s rules, commodities became revered
talismans, worshipped through transactional exchanges, imbued with mystical powers
that give them inherent value — and obscuring the value of and in the very people
who’ve worked labored over them in the first place. It’s one of Marx’s most subtle
and nuanced concepts. Does it hold water? Again, I’ll merely pointing to societies
in furious pursuit of more, bigger, faster, cheaper, nastier, now, whether it’s the
retail temples of America’s mega-malls, or
London rioters
stealing, not bread, but video games.
Marx’s critiques seem, today, more resonant than we might have guessed. Now, here’s
what I’m not suggesting: that Marx’s prescriptions (you know the score: overthrow,
communalize, high-five, live happily ever after) for what to do about the maladies
above were desirable, good, or just. History, I’d argue, suggests they were anything
but. Yet nothing’s black or white — and while Marx’s prescriptions were poor, perhaps,
if we’re prepared to think subtly, it’s worthwhile separating his diagnoses from
them.
Because the truth might just be that the global economy is in historic, generational
trouble, plagued by problems the orthodoxy didn’t expect, didn’t see coming, and
doesn’t quite know what to do with. Hence, it might just be that if we’re going to
turn this crisis upside down, we’re going to have to think outside the big-box store,
the McMansion, the dead-end McJob, the bailout, the super-bonus, and the share price.
The future of plenitude probably won’t be Marxian — but it won’t look like the present.
And if we’re going to trace the beginnings of better, more enduring, more authentic,
more meaningful, fundamentally more humane paradigm for prosperity, perhaps it’s
worthwhile exploring — even when we don’t agree with them — the critiques and prophecies
of those who already challenged yesterday’s.
Umair Haque
is Director of Havas Media Labs and author of
Betterness: Economics for Humans
and
The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a Disruptively Better Business
. He is ranked one of the world’s most influential management thinkers by
Thinkers50
*
Now if you've gotten this far, I will just finally mention that both of these books are on Bookshare. I have them, and I will get to at least one of them soon; although I always have too many irons in the fire. I have a long trip coming up next month though, which might be a good time to tackle one of them.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
The bulk of Marx's writing was an analysis and critique of capitalism.
Marx was too rational to engage in divining the future. There are a
number of ideas about it in the Gundresse though. Most of that material
was never really intended for publication and consisted of notes. But
you say that it was Marx's opinion that profit is stolen labor. Well, I
have explained the labor theory of value at least twice to you and you
have not shown me where it is wrong. I didn't really expect you to
because bourgeois economists don't either. They just ignore it. But if
you are going to declare it just an opinion then you really should show
how other opinions that take into account the same economic facts can be
just as valid. As for Marx not saying how new businesses can be started
under a communist system, to even ask that question seems to show that
you miss the whole point unless you have a concept of business other
than the capitalist concept of business. If a business is a profit
making enterprise then starting new ones is exactly what we do not want.
It is the entire business system of exploitation that has to be
abolished. As for how humanity would advance under communism, let's look
at what it is. One of the most fundamental characteristics of humans is
that they can cooperate for mutual benefit. Under the current system
workers are exploited to extract profit and the human needs that are
produced by those profit making enterprises are incidental. The point is
to replace that with a system in which the human needs are made primary.
It will still be necessary for work to be performed in order to produce
those products that we need or want, but that can be done in a
cooperative way. Actually, it already is. You can go to most any factory
and watch workers cooperating with one another in organized production.
And the production will continue to have to be organized too, but with
it in mind that the work is being done for oneself as well as for the
others who are also working for their benefit as well as yours. By
progress I suppose you might mean technological innovation. That would
be done pretty much in the same way too. If someone thinks of a better
way to do things he reports it to others involved in the same kind of
work and if it is determined to have merit it is implemented. Also, I am
sure that there will be meetings in which workers collectively work on
coming up with ways to do things better. And with secular and scientific
education available for all there would be scientific research projects
proposed, discussed and implemented all the time
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/5/2018 3:57 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, yes, I understand that that was Marx's opinion, that profit is stolen labor under capitalism.
So far as I have heard, he seems to have not said much about how an economy would work otherwise. For example, how would new businesses get started?
A more general way of asking the question is, how does humanity progress under a Communist system? Or is Communism taken to be the apotheosis of humanity, thereby mitigating the need for further progress.
From what I have heard, Marx didn't say much about what a Communist society would actually look like.
I would be delighted to be proved wrong about this.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 3:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
No, I'm not forgetting it. I'm just trying to keep things simple. But,
yes, there is the cost of the raw material and there is the cost of the
overhead. You asked who would pay for the overhead costs, the workers?
Well, yes, it is the workers who pay for it in the form of their labor.
All wealth is created by labor. Even if it is picking up fruit from
under a tree and transporting it to where others can consume it there is
labor involved in that picking up and transportation. If you just let it
lie without applying labor to it then it would rot and be worthless. So
no matter how much the overhead costs might be for running a business if
there is any profit at all that is the value of the labor that has been
stolen from the ones who added their labor to create the value.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/2/2018 9:49 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
You seem to be forgetting something.
You assume no investment by the guy supposedly stealing the labor of the worker. But anybody who starts a business does indeed invest. If it isn't his own money, then it is someone else's money, which he must return at some point. The "raw material" in your example has to be purchased before it can be worked on by the slave, or the paid worker. The worker, or more realistically workers, must have someplace to add the value of their labor, which also requires money, for factory space or office space. Then there's money for electricity, equipment, whatever else is needed to create the product that will be sold. All that stuff has to be paid for.
Are the workers going to pay for that? If so, where do they get the money? If not, who is going to pay for it?
Remember, this stuff has to be paid for before any useful product is created. And there's no guarantee that anyone will want to buy the product being created. So there's a significant risk that none of the money put into creating the business will come back in the form of revenue from selling a product.
So again, who's going to take that risk? Are the workers going to take it?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 9:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
It is not exploitation to sell one's labor to someone else. I try to be
patient, but when what I have said is twisted into something like this
it is difficult. Okay, let me be patient and explain this again. I
especially like explaining the labor theory of value this way because it
just so happens that I did so to an adherent of the Libertarian Party
once and it was very effective. I was involved in an organization called
Committee Against Registration and the Draft. The Libertarian Party was
involved on the basis that they considered military draft to be
involuntary servitude, that is, slavery. There was a certain woman who
could not shut up about it being slavery, but she had no problem
defending capitalist exploitation. This explanation left her unable to
answer me and I think it ultimately led her to rethink her position.
Suppose you have a slave. Let's make this an ideal slave who does not
have to eat nor be protected from the elements. You hand him some raw
material that has no value because you cannot sell it alone. The slave
adds his labor to it and makes something of value. The value of the
product is determined by how much you can sell it for. Since you
invested nothing into the product's creation then 100 percent of the
value is your profit. What was invested was the slave's labor and that
means that you have stolen one hundred percent of his labor value from
him. Now, let's suppose that this slave is more realistic and that he
does need food, shelter and some kind of clothing and the necessities
that will allow him to continue to live and to add labor to your raw
materials. Those necessities will cost something and the cost must be
subtracted from the value of the product. The slave gets something back.
What is left over after the slave has gotten something back is the
profit and the profit represents the value of the labor that you have
stolen from the slave. Now, let's suppose that instead of a slave you
have a wage worker. The same formula applies. The worker may get
benefits. The worker may get union scale wages. But no matter how much
the worker gets in compensation for his labor if you make a profit at
all that profit is the portion of the worker's labor that has been
stolen. Because there is no point in staying in business if you don't
make a profit that means that the whole capitalist system is an
organized system of theft. When you put someone to work to steal a
portion of his labor that is exploitative. If the worker has no capitol
of his own then he has no choice but to sell his labor power in order to
make a living. Selling that labor power is not exploitative. It is the
buying of it at less than it is worth that is exploitative. Furthermore,
the worker is not free of exploitation just because he is free to quit.
If he is to make a living he still must sell his labor power to some
other exploiter.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/29/2018 11:10 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, so I am wondering, how is it exploitation to sell one's labor to someone else? If you buy a product from a person or a business, are you exploiting that person or business by exchanging your money for the product or service you want to buy?
In the same way, if I sell my labor to another person or a business, how am I being exploited? Is it because, unless I get a disability check or some other form of payment from the government, I need to work to eat?
Would everything be free in a system where noone is exploited?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Libertarian capitalism cannot achieve the goal of maximizing man's power
over nature and minimizing man's power over man simply because
capitalism is an exploitative system by definition. That is like asking
if you can extend someone's life by electrocuting him in an electric
chair. You cannot steal labor value from people and pretend that you are
granting them freedom. Well, on the other hand, I suppose you can
pretend. They pretend it all the time. But it can't be done. But again,
science has nothing to do with whether you should do something or not.
It has to do with facilitating your doing it. If libertarian capitalists
apply scientific method to what they really are doing they are being
scientific. But I happen to think the would also be using science to
accomplish anti-humanist goals.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/28/2018 10:39 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, so if libertarian capitalism were to achieve the goal of maximizing our power over nature, and minimizing man's power over man, would that be considered Marxism?
Now we don't currently have anything like libertarian capitalism, but the version of capitalism we have right now has gone much farther in increasing our power over nature than any other economic system previously tried. It would be ironic if the zenith of capitalism turned out to achieve the goals of Marxism. If he were a real scientist, then he should have no objection to that.
As for being close to infallible, he thought the revolution would come in his lifetime. In 1857 in fact.
You should move on. Most of humanity already has.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Marx was most certainly extremely influential. I suppose we will have to
wait a couple thousand years to see if he was as influential as Jesus or
Mohammad. And as anathema as I find religion it is a case of objective
reality that those religious leaders were extremely influential. But
there is no such thing as a secular religion. The phrase is
contradictory. I suppose that there are people who look to Marx as
infallible and so far he has come pretty close to being just that. That
probably has a lot to do with how he became so influential. But if you
regard Marx as infallible then you are not a Marxist. He analyzed
capitalist economics and he made predictions that did come true and
there were some things that he did not foresee and could not have
foreseen that pushed other predictions off to the future and that have
also required further analysis by his successors. But when it comes to
the goals that he set out your demand for prediction does not really
apply. I am not really so sure that it is all that important in any
scientific endeavor. In an investigative science you make hypotheses
which I suppose you can call predictions. Then you test them and show
that they are either true or false. If your hypothesis is false that
does not mean that you were not being scientific. The point of
conducting the experiment is to find out if it was correct or not. Using
scientific method in order to achieve a goal is another matter though.
Anyone can use scientific method for that purpose, even capitalists. The
CEO of a company may set a goal for his company to make X number of
sales in the next quarter. If this goal is approached scientifically
that means that objective reality is recognized and that may mean that
the history of sales under similar conditions may be looked at. The
methods that caused the sale goal to be accomplished in the past may be
considered and when failures have been made that should be considered
too. But it is hardly ever possible to know every possible variable and
so if all the employees act according to the sales theory the goal may
not be accomplished. In that case it is necessary to figure out what
went wrong and incorporate that information into formulating a more
refined sales theory. This process does have its failures, but that does
not invalidate that it was scientific or that it should be thrown out
entirely. Marxism applies the same process to another goal. Now, let me
remind you what that goal is. When Trotsky was asked about it he said
that our goal is the maximization of man's power over nature and the
minimization of man's power over man. Now just how can we tell when that
goal has been reached? Can it ever be reached? Is there ever a time that
we will be able to say that we have manipulated reality to the point
that no further manipulation will bring about any further freedom? That
would mean that we knew everything there is to know about reality and so
far every time we have discovered something about reality that was not
known before that discovery has opened whole new questions about reality
that were not even thought of before. Does that mean that the objective
quest to understand reality is not scientific? Furthermore, is
capitalist economics has been analyzed, even very thoroughly, and there
is more to be investigated does that mean that the original analysis was
not scientific? I think it is important to recognize science as the
objective study of reality by objective methods rather than to repeat
the step by step simplistic algorithm that you are taught in high
school. And, then again, science is as neutral about human endeavor as
it can be. We have to decide what we want to accomplish with the
information we gain with science and use that information to achieve our
goals. Science doesn't care if we do or not. It is our tool to use.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/28/2018 3:38 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, I would agree with some of this. I am certainly a humanist, and
indeed, Marxism is a product of humanism.
Also, I am a materialist, and Marxist is assumes materialism.
But there are a couple of problems with the idea that Marxism is scientific.
Firstly, the followers of Marx didn't treat it as a science. They treated
Marx as a religious figure. I can't say it any better than Peter Singer did
in his book, Marx: A Very Short Introduction, so I will quote him:
"Marx's Impact can only be compared with that of religious figures like
Jesus or Muhammad.
For much of the second half of the twentieth century, nearly four out of
every ten
people on earth lived under governments that considered themselves Marxist
and claimed
- however Implausibly - to use Marxist principles to decide how the nation
should
be run. In these countries Marx was a kind of secular Jesus; his writings
were the
ultimate source of truth and authority; his image was everywhere reverently
displayed.
Does that sound like a scientist?
The second problem is that a real science makes testable predictions, and if
they are correct, then the scientific theory is valid. So let's say that
Marxism is in fact a scientific theory. And further, let's say that it makes
testable predictions. When the resentment of the oppressed class reaches a
sufficient level blah blah.
So how have those predictions turned out? Even you say that there is no
Communism anywhere on Earth. The closest to it is Cuba, which is socialist.
The Communist manifesto was published 170 years ago. Since Communism has
been tried, or at least those who took power in various nations said that's
what they believed in, (I have my doubts), but let's grant that they were
all honest and really wanted to implement Communism. So what happened? The
scientific theory turned out to be wrong.
So how has it been modified since then? You don't seem to quote anybody
except these old guys, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, who, in the case of Marx, was
the original creator of the theory, or, in the case of the others, were
part of those failed implementations of the theory.
You have told me to think outside the box. I think you are in a box that was
created in the 19th century, and has failed to deliver what it claimed to be
able to deliver. Maybe you should let it go. Few people take it seriously
anymore.
True, as Singer says, Marxism's impact on humanity is the equal of that of
the most influential religious leaders. He did indeed have a tremendous
impact on thinking about economics, his ideas brought about modern
sociology. I don't dismiss his influence on many aspects of modern society.
But that doesn't mean we have to believe everything he said, just as we do
not have to believe what those religious leaders said either, especially
when it turns out that they were wrong about something, just as Marx clearly
is about the historical process of the arrival of Communism.
You explain this maximum capacity of production concept as when the
revolution is most likely to break out. You have it exactly wrong, or rather
Marx does. It is when capitalism is at its booming best that the revolution
is least likely to occur because people are living as well or better than
they have before. It is when capitalism is in trouble that people get
restive because their quality of life is threatened. The reason Communism is
nowhere to be found is because, despite its many imperfections, capitalism
has delivered more to humanity than Communism. The modern capitalist system
has given a higher standard of living to more people, billions in fact, than
any other economic system in all history. That is why few people really
believe in Marxism anymore. Even those regimes, such as China or Vietnam,
which still use the word "Communism" in their vocabulary don't believe in it
anymore.
So, I will be generous, for the sake of discussion, and grant that Marxism
is scientific. However, as you say, a real science must modify its theories
when the predictions of those theories don't pan out. Marx's predictions
haven't panned out. So where are the modifications?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, first let me explain maximum capacity. Capitalism is subject to a
boom and bust cycle. Because the capitalists are always striving for
maximum profit they try to extract the maximum amount of labor out of
their workers that they can and that tends to result in overproduction.
That is, they make more than they can sell. Then when they can't sell
they scale back. It is when the overproduction is at its height in most
all of the competing businesses and when the capitalists are trying to
expand their markets outside of their own country that maximum
production has been reached. That is an ideal time to transition to
socialism because there is simply plenty of goods to distribute while
the new order is being constructed and transitioned to. Now, simply
claiming that something is pseudoscientific without understanding what
the basis of claiming it to be scientific is rather unscientific itself.
Here is how Marxism is scientific. Before Marx there were many
philosophers who postulated what they thought a perfect society would
look like. Most of them just wrote treatises or novels without making an
effort to bring it about or even formulating a way to bring it about.
Some of them founded utopian communities that most often lasted no
longer than their founders did. Some had a little more staying power and
I am thinking of the Shakers, but they did themselves in by prohibiting
reproduction and relied on recruiting orphans. Foster care really wiped
them out. But it is interesting that most all of these postulated
societies looked a lot alike. They can be lumped together as utopian
socialism. I would suggest the book, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
by Frederik Engels to learn a lot about the difference between
scientific and utopian socialism. The main problem with utopian
socialism, even the varieties that were put in practice was that there
was no program to transform society as a whole. They seemed to think
that they were doing something great by just withdrawing from society
and living a so-called superior lifestyle. Then along came Marx who
founded scientific socialism. The scientific method had been around for
a long time before he came along, so it is a bit surprising that no one
had proposed this before. But the point was to look at the real world as
it really is and that includes the real world as it has been
historically. Then take note of how great social and economic changes
happened before and what they resulted in and why they resulted in what
they resulted in. That is, the first step is to assess objective
reality. It is necessary to realize that the way any of us, individually
or collectively, get what we want is to manipulate reality. Praying
doesn't do it. Incantations don't do it. Magic doesn't do it. It is
reality that must be manipulated. And then every time we manipulate
reality we change reality and have to reassess it. There is also the
problem that it is not possible to know every aspect of reality and so
any manipulation stands the chance of resulting in unexpected
consequences that have to be accounted for in the next assessment. But
the assessment has to be made in the first place. Once the assessment of
reality is made then based on that assessment we then have to make
theories based on reality and apply those theories. Once the theories
have been applied we have to examine the new state of reality and assess
where we went wrong and where we went right and develop new theories
accordingly. The goal is socialism and communism beyond that. That means
that we assess reality insofar as how much progress we have made toward
that goal. You might say that each application of theory is an
experiment and the development of new theories is done according to the
outcome of the experiments. Now, I want to say that even as I was
writing this I understood that I was giving a wrong impression because I
was describing the process linearly. That is because I am a bit
constricted by the language. In practice it is not a simple matter of
step one followed by step two followed by step three and so forth. That
is because reality changes on a minute by minute basis and on a second
by second basis and on a basis of even smaller measures of time. We do
not have the ability to effect change and formulate new theories on such
an incremental scale, but we have to understand that the reality we are
working in and our goals are all moving targets. That means that the
assessments, the reassessments, the theorizing and the actions are all
taking place at the same time. But the important point is to recognize
reality. Science is the study of reality. Reality is too vast and
complex to fathom all at once and so the study of reality is a never
ending process. Science in and of itself is a neutral thing too. It does
not include value judgements like what is the desired kind of society.
That kind of thing has to be arrived at by other philosophical means.
The philosophical basis for Marxism is humanism. If you are a humanist
then you see humanity as the ultimate and you adjust your behavior to
effect whatever is best for humanity and even the word best is subject
to your philosophical foundations. There are a good many subdivisions of
humanism too. Marxism falls into secular humanism. That is, humanity is
considered the ultimate without regard to religious or other idealist
considerations. Secular humanism is also divided into other
subphilosophies too, but there is no point just now to drill down into
exactly which subdivisions Marxism belongs to. But to be scientific it
must be secular and it must be materialist. What the science does,
though is not to determine just why humanity should be the ultimate nor
why any particular action should be moral or immoral. The neutral
science is only used as a tool to get what we want. It helps us to
decide which actions we should take in order to move closer to our
goals. Pseudoscience is a different matter. Pseudoscience is idealist
philosophy dressed up to look like science. Astrology is an example. It
uses lots of charts and lists of data which look like tools that a real
science uses, but it is not the least based on objective observation and
it does not recognize that new things can be found out about the reality
in which it functions and thereby cause the astrological theory to
change. For that matter, it does not even recognize the precession of
the Earth and so the astrological charts are about a couple of thousand
years out of date and as a result the sun sign you may have been taught
that you were born under is about a month off. Alchemy is also a
pseudoscience. It uses reagents and laboratory glassware and so gives
the impression of something like the science of chemistry, but then
relies on the same kind of static assumptions that astrology does.
Marxism is dynamic, though, and recognizes the possibility of being
wrong at every turn and then deals with the objective reality that
results when it does turn out to be wrong. It is not a precise science
like physics or chemistry are though. All science has to deal with
variables because reality is in a constant state of change, but in
something like chemistry you can count on the mixing of certain reagents
to result in the same chemical reaction every time. In Marxism the
experiments are much slower in being made and every time they are made
the conditions change considerably before the next experiment can be
done. Instead of taking a precise action under a precise set of
conditions and observing a precise outcome that can be repeated exactly
the next time it is necessary to take similar actions under similar
conditions and observe the similar results and explain the dissimilar
results. That does not mean that it is a pseudoscience. It just means
that it is a science in which it is a lot harder to get precise answers.
Still, though, the recognition of objective reality, the action on
objective reality and the objective consideration of results is what
makes it a science. Sometimes I think of psychology as a pseudo science.
But it is not really a pseudoscience. I think psychoanalysis is though.
I am inclined to think that talk psychotherapy is a pseudoscience too.
But psychology as a whole is actually scientific. Its problem is that it
is also a science that is not as precise as the so-called hard sciences.
The results are harder to trust and may change under differing
conditions. But that does not mean that psychological researchers do not
recognize reality and investigate it objectively. The same applies to
Marxism.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/27/2018 10:52 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It is scientific to make historical observations, note commonalities, and then recognize what human behaviors lead to those commonalities. The corruption of the Soviet revolution may have had unique conditions, but so does every historical event. I'm sure one could explain the objective conditions of Mao's corruption of the Communist revolution in China. But the underlying cause was the same. Ditto for Pol Pot.
Besides, Marxism isn't even scientific. It is pseudoscientific at best. Some call it more of a religion with some justification. Humans are under the control of historical forces rather than being under the control of a deity, but the underlying mode of thinking is the same.
Just one example: What is this "maximum capacity of production" you refer to? Is that the maximum capacity of production on the planet, the solar system, or the galaxy? Even if you want to restrict this maximum capacity of production to the planet, how much of the planet's material would have to be involved before this maximum capacity has been reached? The entire surface? All the material down to what depth? There's no such thing as a "maximum capacity of production". It's not a scientific concept.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:21 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
You might want to consider the objective conditions that lead to the
corruption of a revolutionary state rather than just assume that
corruption is as natural as the sunrise. In the case of the Soviet Union
I would refer you to a book by Leon Trotsky entitled The Revolution
Betrayed. He offers an analysis of what went wrong. First, Russia was
not the ideal place to have a socialist revolution. Marx himself had
said that it would be better to wait until capitalism had reached a
maximum capacity of production. However, as I have explained, we just do
not have the fine control to decide when to have a revolution and when
to wait. If we had control of social forces that precise we could just
skip revolution altogether and start building a new socialist society
without it. As I have also explained, that is the way we would really
prefer it. But again, revolution is like a natural disaster. When it
comes we have to deal with it and try to control it as well as possible
in order to get the best outcome that we can. The reason Russia was not
the best place to have a socialist revolution was that it was still
economically backwards. Germany or England would have been much better
choices. Russia had an underdeveloped capitalist economy and was still
largely under the influence of the remnants of feudalism. The serfs had
been freed by an earlier tsar, but without an effort to educate them and
to relieve them of the effective enslavement they labored under there
was simply no yeomanry to work with. Then, Russia had just been involved
in the greatest interimperialist war that had ever been fought. It was
such a large conflagration that it had earned a name that had not been
applied to any other war, the world war. This Russian participation in
that war had pretty much devastated the Russian economy by itself and
Russia was far from free of physical destruction. When the bolsheviks
took power they immediately unilaterally withdrew Russia from the war,
but undoing the damage was not so easy. Then tsarist forces and the
white Russians rather objected to the bolshevik government too and waged
civil war against it. Well, what does more war do after just getting out
of another war? It causes even more destruction. So we had a new
revolutionary government that was dedicated to equality for all, but
there was not enough to go around for all. If all the consumer goods and
food that was available was distributed to everyone equally then
everyone would have been destitute and starving. As hard as it was to
make such decisions it was necessary to prioritize distribution and
production too. Then there was the problem of who was going to do the
distributing. If there is not enough to go around for all and you are in
charge of the distribution then, of course, you are going to include
yourself and your family in a high priority category. This created an
instant privileged layer in the economy. Then along came Stalin. I have
some suspicions about his having been a clinical sociopath and a
solopsist, but whether that is true or not he was a very strong
authoritarian with his own ideas of how the social system should be
arranged and he had no scruples about forcing it no matter what
obstacles were in the way. He tried to rebuild the Russian productive
capacity by brute force without any regard to other things that should
have been taken care of. By decree he rescinded very many gains of the
revolution to suit himself. But on what basis did he rest his power? It
was upon that privileged caste that had been born as the layer who had
been in charge of distribution. They had accrued power and could lose it
very easily and if they lost it it would not be like just having to get
a new job with lower pay. Stalin rewarded them and severely threatened
them at the same time and so was able to consolidate his own power. By
the way, it did take some consolidation too. Despite the image you have
probably absorbed from capitalist depictions of the Soviet Union he did
not instantly become the absolute dictator. Eventually he did
essentially do that, but for some time his position was pretty perilous.
I could go on about how he distorted the whole world communist movement
and subordinated it to his theory of socialism in one country and made
foreign communist parties instruments of his own foreign policy. I could
go on about a lot of nefarious things he did. But suffice it to say that
the rise of Stalinism was a complete betrayal of the communist movement.
The task of the uncorrupted communists became examining where the
Russian revolution went wrong and being careful to not repeat the
mistakes that led to Stalinism. This objective examination is all part
of being scientific socialists. Of course it is still necessary to take
whatever revolution you can get, but if you get one in a country that is
less than ideal it is still well to examine the specifics of what went
wrong in Russia. What you should not do is to ignore the objective
conditions and just make pronouncements like it is just human nature to
be corrupted by power. It is more of a matter that already being corrupt
makes one strive for personal power. But one really should not just
ignore the objective causes for things going wrong. That falls far short
of being scientific.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/26/2018 11:30 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, well, the problem arises when those who are running the state get corrupted by power; and we've seen that that is what happens more often than not. I'm being generous here. It would be more accurate to say that that is what happens pretty much all the time.
That being the case, it is hardly a plausible notion that the state will stop oppressing, as you put it: "When objective conditions ease to the point that there s is not possibility that these regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for then the state can start withering away, ..."
What is overwhelmingly more likely to happen, and which history will verify ad nauseam is that the state will go on oppressing just for the sake of oppressing, because the people running it have gotten corrupted by power. They will invent new class enemies, new regressive forces, scapegoats for why things haven't turned out as well as was promised, et cetera, et cetera, and the whole sorry cycle will repeat itself.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As a matter of fact, upon the completion of a revolution the oppressed
class does become the ruling class. I would recommend that you read
State and Revolution by Vladimir I. Lenin to learn how the dynamics of
this process plays out. That book was written as a polemic against the
anarchists who wanted to just abolish the state by decree upon the
triumph of the revolution and Lenin explained that would be throwing
away the entire revolution and all of its gains. The reason is that
civil war or not and winning the civil war or not it is impossible to
kill each and every person who benefited from the old order. Let's look
at what the state is. Lenin explained this, but if you read Hobbs you
will see that he was well aware of it too. The state is an apparatus by
which one class exercises power over another class by means of violence
or the threat of violence. The armed forces and the police force are the
instruments of violence that the state uses to wield that violence. If
you don't believe this just try to defy the state. Pick out a minor
crime against bourgeois law. Make sure you are observed violating it
because it is possible to get away with minor crimes if you are careful.
Try, say, jaywalking in front of a cop. When he tries to give you a
ticket tell him that you do not recognize the authority of his
government nor his authority either. Then when he arrests you resist the
arrest. Defy the power of the state at every turn. When you are taken to
court repeat that you do not recognize the court's authority and try to
walk out. When you are taken to jail do your best to escape. Continue to
resist and defy at every turn and just see how long it takes for you to
get shot. Anyway, abolishing the state by decree would mean abolishing
all armed forces and police and to do so right after the revolution. If
you do that the very next thing that will happen is that the people who
benefited from the old order will instantly reestablish the state again
and the revolutionary struggle you just went through will be instantly
defeated and you will be worse off than you were before the revolution
even got started. You will be worse off because you can't really expect
that your enemies will not want to take some revenge. What happens is
that the class that was formally oppressed forms its own state and then
proceeds to oppressed the former oppressors. As time passes this can
ease off but as long as there are regressive forces about both domestic
and foreign who would reestablish their own form of a state as soon as
you abolish yours then you have to maintain the workers state. When
objective conditions ease to the point that there s is not possibility
that these regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for then
the state can start withering away, as Lenin put it He then said that
the state will gradually cease to administer people and will start
administering things. By things he meant commodities and services that
are necessary to human needs and comfort. When it administers only
things it is no longer a state.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/25/2018 11:54 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, I've heard this scenario before, and just for the sake of discussion, I'll grant its vallidity.
The problem is what happens after the revolution of the oppressed class. From the many examples we have seen, what always happens is that the formerly oppressed class simply becomes the new ruling class, and the cycle starts all over again. I could go into a long litany of revolutions, some called themselves Communist, some called themselves Socialist, where this has been played out, but I don't think I need to.
When I asked you where this has been tried and how it worked out, the only example you mentioned was Cuba. And even there, how much freedom do the people have? When was the last time they were permitted to choose their leaders? How much criticism of their government are they permitted?
The reason for this is that dominance hierarchies are wired into our genetics. You can see it in our chimp relatives and ape ancestors. It goes back much farther than that into our mammalian ancestry though. Until or unless humans get a genetic makeover, the notion of a classless society will always remain a pipe dream.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:58 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, let me explain the inevitability of revolution in more detail. In
a class society the people who find themselves in the oppressed classes
will resent this. Despite the fact that ruling class ideology permeates
society as a whole on an individual level and collectively when the
individuals combine their actions resentment is there and people will
take actions to lessen the disparities that they are subject to. These
actions may take the form of organizing unions or it may take the form
of engaging in political action, but the whole point is to make the
social system more fair. During most of the time the organizers of the
resistance do not even see the necessity of overthrowing the entire
system, but think they can reform it into something that will be more
fair. Because of fluctuations in a class economy these disparities may
be greater at some times than at other times and the amount of
resistance may be greater than it is at other times. This is all called
the class struggle. Sometimes the oppressed classes will make gains and
the rulers have to make concessions to maintain their rule and at other
times it is the oppressed classes that have to make the concessions. One
thing the oppressed classes do not want to do is to get involved in a
revolution. Let's face it, revolution is not only to the great
disadvantage of the class that is being deposed, but a lot of workers
die and a lot of infrastructure is destroyed and it is to the great
disadvantage of everyone. However, as the class struggle ebbs and flows
the point comes that the rulers see that they may be in actual danger of
being deposed. They will resist that by any means necessary. Concessions
is one means, but if the push for an equitable system continues other
means are used. That means violence. In every revolution in history the
violence was initiated by the rulers in an attempt to maintain their
rule. What are the ruled to do? They have to defend themselves. If they
do not defend themselves they lose every bit of progress they have made
up until that time and they are likely to lose their lives too. As they
defend themselves against violence with return violence the violence
escalates. This becomes a process that cannot be stopped by either side
because each side stands to lose everything if they give up. It is
something like a natural disaster. When a hurricane, for example,
approaches you cannot stop the hurricane no matter what you do. You can
only deal with it. A lot of planning and preparation make it easier to
deal with with, but whether you deal with it well or poorly it is still
going to happen. That is what a revolutionary party is for, to deal with
the revolution when it happens. That is where the responsibility comes
in. It is responsible to have a cadre of people who are trained in how
to deal with revolution and who will step in to guide the revolution
when it comes to make sure that the best outcome is arrived at.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 11:03 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sorry, but that sounds like a ducking of responsibility to me.
So Lenin had no choice when he committed his oppression? Was it all just an inevitable product of ineluctable historical forces? He was just a tool of history, and had no responsibility for what he did?
You may consider that too many questions, but they're all related, so they really boil down to one: Do humans have responsibility for what they do or not?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As I have said before, you don't get a choice of whether you get a
revolution or not. When Trotsky was asked if all the destruction and
death was worth it he said that the question was teleological. When
class contradictions sharpen to the point that revolution breaks out the
best you can do is to steer it and guide it into the best outcome you
can and ameliorate the destruction that occurs along the way.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 9:45 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the only kind of revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't seem as if powerful social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy, which is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues I'm definitely left of center, but on economic issues I'm in the center, or maybe even a bit to the right. I support the current economic system. I defend the "capitalist running dogs" around here. (Yes, some people actually talked like that in the 20th century. Fortunately, humanity has moved on since then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about shortcomings of the current economic model and how to fix them, but I'm not interested in revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction,
Don'tcha know that you can count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure, you've come to the right list. We do try hard to stay on target and not fall into name calling, as happens on the ACB chat list at times. But a good sense of humor and a moderately thick skin, and you'll soon be right at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self proclaimed Progressive, an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I provide services to older blind and low vision folks on the Great Olympic Peninsula, through our organization named, Peninsula Rehabilitation Services. We've been at it almost 24 years and have worked with well over 3,000 clients. I'm totally blind...for the past 55 years. Cathy and I work as a team since living here in the deep, dark forest does not allow a blind man the ability to travel to many of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working, vacationing and breathing the same air day after day finds us still deeply in love with one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the vet and is trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy a new keyboard today, but it's looking as if I'll have to make do with these sticky keys for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two new members
and will, I believe, be acquiring another one. It's an ill wind that
blows no good, they say. I do believe we can thank Mr. Trump for the
rejuvenation of this list. At any rate, I'll forward one of the Real
News Network digests to the list. It's a website which has excellent
little news videos that you can listen to and also, there's a text of
each one, I believe. I'll forward one of the digests. You go to the
heading of the story in which you're interested, which is also a link,
and then, you move down until you find a play button and press enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own digests. The
website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes from Canada,
and it does national, international, and local Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal, Ben Norton,
Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea until a
friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of the BARD lists,
where this list was mentioned. I recognize Miriam's name from the
bookshare list of many years ago. We liked lots of the same books on
political/historical topics. Anyway, I joined out of curiosity to see what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
