Roger,
The flaw in your argument is that Americans lack an innate sense of class
difference. It isn't exactly something you can teach unless you get to teach
kids when the really little. Until then you're kind of pissing in the wind.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:51 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You still haven't gotten it out of your head that Roosevelt was not a good
and benevolent godsend to the working class rather than the administrator of
a program of concessions. It's not a matter of gentle and benevolent
Democrats versus mean and hateful Republicans though. Oh, they may represent
different factions within the ruling class, but they still have the class
interests of the rulers in mind when they do anything. And when concessions
are made they are taken back at the soonest as it is possible to take them
back. What you have been seeing that you blame on the mean old Republicans is
that taking back. As class antagonisms sharpen there may be more concessions,
but the only way to make sure that they are not taken back is to make the
ruling class no longer the ruling class. Then we won't have to worry about
precarious concessions. We will have taken all of them for ourselves.
On 9/22/2015 10:20 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I know that is one of the arguments. I've read it in several articles. This
is one of the stances that the far left takes that I don't agree with. I
don't agree with it because the left is fragmented and disorganized and
because whenever someone like Sanders comes along who is actually having a
little success in organizing masses of people around issues that are of
importance to them, the Left makes the criticism that you're making. So if
he disappears, people on the left will continue talking to each other about
the issues, addressing small groups of people, writing emails, sending
petitions, finding the party that they believe deserves support, fighting
with each other about which party or person should be supported, who isn't
an enemy, and nothing will happen to make life better for folks. And you
will tell me that this is fine because it's a quiet time and at some point,
there will be a real revolution, and we should just all prepare for that
time. That requires a whole lot of patience and faith and an attitude that I
will not lend my support to anything or anyone that doesn't meet my very
high standards. The fact is that whatever FDR's motive was and even though
he was forced to his position by a lot of restless and angry poor and
working people, the New Deal was a good thing. It wasn't perfect and it
didn't benefit everyone that it should have, and it wasn't socialism, but it
was very good for a very large number of people. It was so good that the
Republicans have been working to dismantle it ever since it came into being.
I would have liked more. But given the limitations of just who Americans are
and how the world works, I am willing to accept compromises in order to get
as much as we can for as many as we can, as soon as we can.Unfortunately,
I'm afraid that, that won't work anymore. But that's what Sanders is
attempting, and it's more than anyone else is able to do at the moment.
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, September 22, 2015 9:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
I will not vote for either Bernard Sanders or Jill Stein. And I can just
about guarantee that whoever the Democrat nominee is I will completely
disapprove of that nominee. Declining to vote for Sanders or other bourgeois
candidates is not a matter of purism. I noticed that the first time you made
that purist charge was in reply to an article I posted from Socialist Action
in which the charge of purism was addressed and refuted. You went ahead and
called it purism, but you did not address the answer the article had to that
charge. I will briefly address it again. When you herd workers to support a
bourgeois party you are just asking for them to be co-opted. When they
support a bourgeois party they are supporting a party of their own enemies
and their own struggles become subordinated to the goals of that bourgeois
party which are not the interests of the workers. If you are going to talk
about what has been accomplished over the past fifty years, or the past
hundred years, or even longer, you will see that process repeated over and
over. The labor bureaucracy has long led the working class into support of
the Democrat party and what has happened. The workers struggles have been
constantly sidelined. What we should be doing is to encourage the working
people to act independently in their own interests. This is not just purism.
This is rejecting one of the main ways in which the bosses maintain control
over the working people.
On 9/22/2015 5:03 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:is on making life better for everyone.
Bob,
I must admit that my main concern is that everyone has a decent place
to live, enough nutritious food to eat, and people to love and be
loved by. I want peace in the world. If those goals can be achieved, I
don't care if some folks have more money or power than others. The
problem is that if people do have more money and power, their power
needs to be regulated. I believe that real socialism would be more
conducive to the welfare of people than capitalism, even regulated
capitalism. However, my focus isn't on changing the system so much as it
That's why Roger doesn't approve of my political views. As for votingdecision.
for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. if I vote for Jill stein it will be
because I completely disapprove of the Democratic candidate and my
vote willl be a protest vote. If Sanders is the candidate, I'll vote
for him. But I'll do it knowing that whatever good intentions he may
have, it is unlikely that he can accomplish much unless there is a
very big change in the political consciousness and activity of the
American public at the point at which he takes office. Given what I've
seen and heard, I don't think there's much hope for that.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Hi Miriam,
All good points. I do wonder though if folks like Sanders and FDR make
it easier for the ruling class to remain in control as Hedges
suggests. No doubt, they've both made life better for lots of low
income folks. If, somehow, sanders is on the final ballot for
president, I still may be tempted to vote for Jill Stein. That may be
a decision made in the voting booth. Let's hope I get to make such a
Bob
