[blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist

  • From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:30:25 -0700

On 9/22/15, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Socialist Workers Party was founded in 1938 when the Left Opposition
in the Socialist Party - which had entered some years before with the
dissolution of the Communist League of America into the Socialist Party
- fused with the Workers Party. It has been running candidates ever
since that 1938 founding.

On 9/22/2015 9:40 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bob,

I think they're both right. I think that Hedges is right ethically and,
perhaps, in the long run. But in practical terms, in this real world, I
think Kaufman is right. The fact is that thousands and thousands of
people
are listening to Sanders. That's why I contributed money to his campaign,
because I wanted his message to be heard and it will only be heard if he
works through one of the two corporate parties. Chris Hedges, on the
other
hand, gave that speech to the Green Party. I am contributing a little
money
each month to the Green Party because I would like them to be able to
attract more people. But Chris Hedges speaks only to the Left. And Green
Party candidates do not have audiences of thousands and thousands of
people
hearing them. The Socialist Workers' Party has been quietly organizing
and
having candidates forever, at least for the past 50 years which is all I
know about, but longer than that, and they don't even get on the ballot.
Ask
anyone in the street who Jill Stein is and they'll look at you blankly. I
don't care how correct one's political theory is or how true his message,
if
it doesn't reach masses of people and isn't embraced by them, it means
nothing at all in terms of real change.

Miriam

-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:09 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist

Hi Miriam,
Wise words here from Mr. Hedges.
I am wrestling in my mind. In this corner we have Chris Hedges and his
definition of a socialist. He argues that Sanders is not a good choice for
a
leader because he enables the military industrial complex and other
corporates.
In the opposing corner, we have William Kaufman arguing that the left
needs
to relax and support Bernie Sanders.
Seems I'm waffling back and forth between those two sides. No doubt that
sanders had done a good job identifying the scourge of income inequality
and
that he has pulled Clinton slightly to the left.
AT this point in time, I'd say my heart is with Hedges and my head is
sort
of with Kaufman. My heart is more committed to Hedges than my head is to
Kaufman.
IS that trying to have it both ways? If so, then you may lable me guilty
as
charged.
Bob Hachey






The bigger issue for me is the need to affix labels to what we stand
for, rather than to simply demonstrate through our actions and
proclamations.
Once we have a label, say Baptist, then a bunch of us gather and
discuss what being a Baptist is all about. Some of us agree that in
order to be real Baptists, we must be dunked in a pool of water. Soon
there are a few who believe the real way to baptize a person is to
dunk them three times backward. So we form the Southern Baptists.
And another group form the Reformed Baptists. And another bunch
splinter off and become the Reformed Open Bible Baptists, showing the
world that other so called Baptists don't bother to open their Bibles.
And so it is with our political divisions.
As Marx and Engels explored and defined a new social order, communism
was a very fine word. And until this new thinking threatened
Capitalism, it was used to define people who believed in putting the
people first and sharing for the good of the all. But the threat
caused governments such as England and the USA to create sinister,
evil undercurrents to define the word. Some folks decided that they
were no longer Communists. They were actually Socialists. And some
became Socialist Workers, while others became the Socialist Labor
Party. Each group defined itself in order to demonstrate how correct
they were. And in the eye of the growing Capitalist Empire, no one
cared. Most people still believed that anything left of Ronald Reagan
was suspect, and at least deep Pink.
In church, we put up a Cross and we worshipped it. In government, we
put up a Flag and worshipped it. Each sub division puts up its own
banner and sings its praise, and defends it to the death. And now we
must walk carefully and speak properly about such divisions as Black
Rights, Gay Rights, and even Animal Rights. And each group gathers
around their leaders and decide just why they are the most important
of all...except the animals.
And when the dust has settled and all the weapons are broken and
tossed aside, nothing will have changed.
Until we are all able to embrace one another within our individual
differences, and respect one another for our differences, and lean
upon one another despite our differences, we will be doomed to repeat
our errors again and again.
Labels are a major stumbling block. We don't need them in order to
tell ourselves apart. Labels pull us apart when we so desperately
need to find ways of drawing together.

Carl Jarvis

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. blind-democracy
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2015