In religion we begin with an absolute. The Great Pooh Pah
The Great Pooh Paw has laid it on our hearts, or on lost clay/golden
tablets, His Absolute Word. From there we build outward, proving over
and over His Greatness through His very own Word. And for many of us,
that is enough.
But others of us are curious by Nature. We begin with a known, like
why does the tide rise and fall. We set aside all preconceived
notions, such as our belief that it is due to the Great Pooh Paw.
Through trial and error we finally prove beyond any serious doubt,
that the tides are reacting to the movement of the Moon. And through
this trial and error method we learned that our Earth was not the
center of the universe. We proved that huge distances exist between
the billions of Suns. We built up a vast warehouse of information
from which we could draw in our further explorations. All of this was
due to our open-minded approach. But of course we are mere Mortals.
We began to understand that this gathered knowledge could be very
useful in controlling other people. From our dabbling, we learned
that figures may not lie, but liars sure can figure...and manipulate
figures.
Because we have come to Worship the Almighty Dollar over Human Needs,
we can buy any scientific conclusion we want.
If we were able to stay true to our approach we would challenge all
conclusions, demanding step by step proof of their validity.
However, since we have been conditioned over thousands of years to
accept absolutes, like the existence of the Great Pooh Paw, we simply
accept the word from some Mighty Authority, and turn our attention to
defending it rather than giving it a close examination.
If we could step back and apply scientific methodology to any of our
religions, or if we did so to our wonderful Corporate Capitalism, we
would soon begin to unravel the fundamental lie in both.
But we will only be objective to that with which we disagree, choosing
to defend our own beliefs. And in that, we are doomed.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/23/15, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When theories in these cases are not supported they are dropped too.
There is a difference from the hard sciences though. In cases like
astronomy, physics, chemistry or biology. the point of the science is to
determine what is true, that is, the nature of the universe. Applying
the discoveries that are arrived at by this scientific method is usually
called technology. In scientific socialism it works a bit differently,
but it is still a matter of applying scientific method. You might say
that the science and the technology are combined. The main difference is
that a purpose is explicated. In the other sciences there is purpose to
the investigations too, but it is not necessarily explicit. The purpose
of investigations in chemistry, for example, are usually the profit of
chemical companies or pharmaceutical companies or something similar. In
scientific socialism the purpose is to bring about a world in which
humanity can relate to each other as equals who collectively determine
their future for the collective good of all, a world society where
everyone is free as possible by being collectively free. The process of
achieving this is scientific in that it requires recognition of the real
world and the real situation at all times. It requires a study of
history and an examination of how historical social and economic systems
arose and how they fell. It requires examination of the current
situation and how it relates to historical situations that were similar.
By considering the real world, both historically and current, theories
are developed about how to change the current situation into a more
favorable situation. Then the theory is applied and in part it is likely
to be successful and in part it is likely to fail. But then it becomes a
part of the history that must be studied. Again, there are just too many
variables to get the theory exactly right before applying it. That is,
no action is going to turn out exactly the way we want it to turn out.
If it did then we could accomplish our ultimate goal instantly. But
since it doesn't we have to examine where we went wrong and apply the
lessons we learn to future actions. Now, that is not even the slightest
bit like a religious cult. In a religious cult the nature of reality is
irrelevant. All proclamations are claimed to be revealed truth rather
than something that has to be found out by observation.
On 9/23/2015 9:47 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I do understand your explanations. It isn't that I don't understand what
you're describing. It's that I don't think that it's the only, nor the
most
realistic way to conceptualize the proper political response for us in
this
time and place. I know that you see the theory as being science. But it
isn't like the physical sciences. Physical science is exact. Theorems are
tested and when they're not supported by data, they're dropped. But in
the
case of the social sciences, people follow a variety of theories and they
adhere to them regardless of the data. They explain why the theories are
correct and why they seem not to apply, but that the theories actdually
do
apply. Each of the socialist and communist groups seem to me, like
religious
cults. I realize that this idea horrifies you. But the slavish adherence
to
a set of beliefs and the faith that things will work as outlined by those
beliefs, and that there is absolutely no compromise, is like religion.
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 10:41 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Ah, the frustration of having to explain the same thing over and over
again!
It is not a matter of manipulating the workers. It is a matter of
providing
leadership when the revolution comes. As I have explained before, social
and
economic forces lead to periodic crises that are usually called
revolution.
That happens whether we like it or not and it does not always result in
an
advantage for the working class. There is a necessity to join with the
working class to manipulate the revolution to try to ensure that it
results
in the best deal for the majority of humanity as possible. Again, it is
like
being behind the wheel of a car hurtling down the highway when the brakes
completely fail. You can either sit back and let whatever will happen to
just happen or you can steer. Steering will not necessarily get you the
exact results you want, but I would suggest steering anyway. And no, it
doesn't work like clockwork. As I have explained over and over there are
just too many variables to keep track of. Approaching the matter with a
scientific perspective does help steer the calamity in the direction that
is
desired, but it is not guaranteed that you will get exactly what you
want.
If you do not apply scientific principles, though, and if you do not work
hard to steer it is pretty much guaranteed that you will end up in
disaster.
And again, what happened to the Russian revolution has been analyzed and
I
have explained that over and over too. In order to get socialism out of
capitalism when capitalism collapses capitalism really should have
reached
its productive limits. In 1917 Russia was not the preferred place to have
a
socialist revolution. Germany or England would have been better. In
Russia
capitalism was still rather primitive and a lot of feudal relations
still
existed in full force. But, again, we do not get to choose where a
revolution breaks out. We have to take it wherever it happens. One did
break
out in Russia and a vanguard party did exist to take advantage of that
revolution. The trouble is that with a less than fully developed
productive
capacity and what with an ensuing civil war there were severe shortages
of
material goods to be distributed. Someone has to do the distribution.
When
there are shortages of everything, of course, the ones in charge of
distribution are going to ensure that they get enough of what they are
distributing.
That is what allowed for the establishment of a privileged bureaucracy.
It was also responsible for the NEP which was a significant step
backward.
It was a necessary evil, but it was still an evil. All of this set the
stage
for a takeover by Stalin. In the future if a revolution breaks out in an
economic situation like that one then steps can be taken to avoid a new
Stalin coming to power. Whatever the economic situation, though, we will
still have no power to determine where there will be a revolution nor
when.
Despite your claims that I am proposing that we have such fine control
over
these things we simply do not. If we could actually account for all the
variables such that it could work as a clockwork process that was
completely
predictable then certainly we could bypass revolution altogether.
Revolution
results in destruction and in people getting killed and in suffering. If
we
could avoid that and still liberate humanity then we most certainly
would,
but we just do not have that kind of fine control. Trotsky was once asked
if
all the death and destruction was really worth it for what he was
participating in building. He answered that the question was
teleological.
Back when I first read that I did not understand what this had to do with
teleology.
Now I understand completely. His point was that the death and destruction
was going to happen anyway with or without him and his political
movement.
It was his political movement that played a big part in ameliorating it.
But
to bring it back to the question of whether the workers should support a
bourgeois party, that is class collaboration and it does not ameliorate
suffering. It just perpetuates it and when the shit hits the fan it will
lead to a revolutionary defeat of the working class.
On 9/22/2015 9:59 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
OK. Now that you've explained the "outside the box", I believe Iwhoever, it will all work like clockwork. Only, so far in real life, it
understand and it scares the hell out of me. You're talking about
training an elite cadre who will then go out and propagandize and
manipulate the masses, for their own good, of course, so that
hopefully, when the time is right and there is what the elite cadre
defines as a real revolution, the masses will be properly trained as
to how to behave. And the assumption is that these people who have
become the elite, have studied, and are now a ruling class, will be a
ruling class only so long as their expertise is needed. They won't use
their power and knowledge on their own behalf. They will be altruistic
and true socialists, and they will work solely for the common good.
And all this working for candidates in the meantime, putting them on
the ballot and voting for them is just sort of a game, a warm up for
real life when the revolution really comes. And this is all very
scientific. If we follow the steps as outlined by Marx or Engels or
hasn't worked out that way, has it?
The revolutions in Russia and China somehow became corrupted by realis a beautiful, internally consistent theory.
human beings and outside forces and greed and people's lust for
power,etc. Given the nature of America, its history, its racism, the
religiosity of its people, its military might, the influence of
corporate powerand the degredation of the environment, I have grave
doubts that the theory you propound will play itsself out as you
describe. I know that you think that if I truly understood what you
are telling me, I would, of course, see the truth of it. I can see that
it
But so far, the data don't always support it because human behaviorattention and so it leans more toward propagandizing than toward
can't be analyzed in the same ways that the physical world can be.
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 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Miriam, you don't sound harsh. You sound clueless. There are crises
and there are crises. The kind of crisis I am talking about is a
revolutionary situation. What you describe as a crisis - and I don't
really deny that it is some kind of crisis - is the kind of economic
situation that pushes social forces towards a revolutionary situation.
It is not a smooth and direct process though. If it was we could
predict with some precision exactly when the revolution would occur
and possibly even bypass revolution at all. The false solutions that
many people are arriving at that you describe are examples of what I
have explained before as the dangers of fascism in an approaching
revolutionary situation. That danger is especially a possibility when
there is not a revolutionary vanguard that has successfully prepared.
Again, the apparent quiescent phases of the class struggle are times
in which a revolutionary party has three main jobs. The two that are
most frequently stated publicly are propaganda and agitation. The
other is internal and so does not get that much attention on the
outside. That internal task is the training of a revolutionary
leadership. Yes, when you join the party you do find yourself
attending classes. The classes are for inculcating a good theoretical
foundation though. Theory must be combined with practice and so the
party member also participates in workers struggles on picket lines,
in marches and demonstrations and in organizing. In external relations
the party engages in propaganda and that is mostly designed to
recruit. Agitation is to encourage workers to be militant and to fight
back against the assaults they must endure. It may take only one spark
to start a prairie fire, but it is hard to tell which spark it will
be. You can walk through a prairie waving your sparkler and not start
a fire, but if you keep it up then eventually you will have a
conflagration. It is necessary to use theory to determine which
struggles are the most likely to be the spark and to deploy forces to
take advantage of that situation and to encourage and to help
organize. If you read the party press and take note of which struggles
are being covered it is those that are being concentrated on at any
given time. Now, despite that I have repeatedly explained, you still
do not understand the point in running candidates who will not win.
Let me go through this again. The point of fielding a candidate is not
to get elected even though under other conditions that might be a
goal. The point is to use the election campaign as another vehicle for
propaganda and agitation. An electoral campaign tends to get broader
agitation,
but any opportunities it presents for both should be taken advantage of.
Furthermore, if our candidates do happen to get elected that comrade'scapitalism to make it some how a nicer capitalism.
job would not then be to administer the bourgeois state. That is the
trap the social democrats fell into. That is, those who work within
the system to change the system are doomed to be changed by the system
instead. The social democrats have been changed by it so much that
they are, for the most part, socialist only in name. It is more
accurate to call them bourgeois liberals who think they can reform
There are few social democrats who still have the perspective ofdo you explain Cuba?
putting an end to capitalism. When the revolutionary socialist is
elected to a post in the bourgeois state his or her job is to decline
to administer that state, but instead to use the post to conduct more
agitation. If any revolutionary socialist does get elected that means
that there is a revolutionary or pretty near revolutionary situation
anyway. Of course, if a revolutionary socialist was actually elected
to, say, the presidency he or she would likely be impeached in short
order, but that itself would be a really big agitational opportunity.
So when you say that we have had no success in the past fifty years or
more you mean no effect in the bourgeois reformist sense. As I have
said before, you have been imprisoned in that bourgeois liberal box
for so long that not only do you not think outside the box, but you
can't quite understand that there is an outside to the box to think
outside of. Consider this though. If we have never had an effect then
how
On 9/22/2015 4:40 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:make real change.
OK. So a lot of industrial workers are aware of the party. But we'rereal crisis and the real revolution, distresses me.
in a crisis now! Working and poor people have been especially feeling
that crisis since 2008 and it's getting worse. People don't have
places to live and they don't have enough to eat. And a lot of those
people think that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton is the
answer. A lot of those people don't think that there's a political
solution, but they think that getting rid of immigrants and all
Muslims might help them out. The SWP is quietly, slowly working away,
and there is a select few that know about them and understand their
program. In the meantime, the TPPP is about to come into being with
even more jobs gone and more regulations gone and higher medication
prices on the way and more desperate people joining the armed
services in order to earn a salary and more killing going on. What
kind of a crisis do you have in mind? Sorry, I don't mean to sound so
harsh, but this talk of how the people who truly understand are
preparing for the
Miriamprepare for that event.
-----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 3:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
No, if your only source of information is the bourgeois and liberal
news outlets then, indeed, you don't know it exists, but if you keep
abreast of the left press and if you are an industrial worker it is
kind of hard to miss it. It is true that a lot of industrial workers
have a hard time sorting out the various left tendencies - it was
always frustrating for me when the coal miners I was reaching out to
confused the SWP with the Revolutionary Communist Party or the
Communist Labor Party - but they are well aware of the SWP anyway.
And, again, if you think the party is accomplishing nothing you are
still unaware of what it is trying to accomplish. The real test of
what is being accomplished will only be realized when a major crisis
of capitalism is in progress. In the meantime the task of the party
is to
On 9/22/2015 3:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I figured it was older than 50 years. But it proves my point. It
runs candidates that don't even get on the ballots of many states.
It has conferences and it organizes, and it has publications, and
its candidates and positions are unknown and unappreciated by a
majority of people. Hardly anyone, except a tiny minority of
adherents, knows it exists. So while it can feel very satisfying to
be part of it and work for its goals, it isn't reaching enough people
to
ballot.Miriamhearing them.
-----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 2:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
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
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
Ask anyone in the street who Jill Stein is and they'll look at youby them, it means nothing at all in terms of real change.
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
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
