No, you are getting things backwards. If theory came first it would only
be something made up out of nothing. That would b more like religious
doctrine. A theory is basically an explanation of what has been observed
in reality. You see reality and then you try to explain it and what you
come up with is a theory. As new information comes in the theory may
have to be revised or replaced. In a case like one in which you are
trying to manipulate reality to achieve a desired outcome the theory
must account for what manipulations have been applied before and what
the effect has been. When you come up with an explanation for these
dynamics you apply the theory in action and observe what the next result
is and revise your theory accordingly. As for talking as if theory and
action are the same, that is not too far from the truth. Even though
they can be described separately they have to be combined. The reason is
that the universe is dynamic. That is, it does not hold still for you
and you are in a constant state of trying to hit a moving target. I have
described it as make observation, develop theory, apply theory, make new
observation. That largely reflects the limitations of language and
efforts to make things clear. However, the universe will not hold still
while you formulate a theory, consider a plan of action and then start
up the universe again to apply what you have learned. Instead it is
necessary to combine theory and practice in an ongoing process. The
combining must be so thorough that it actually does amount to their
being the same thing. And even if somehow you could stop the universe
until you were ready and completely divorce theory from practice it
would be defeatist. That way theory becomes just so much intellectual
exercise and practice becomes a frenzy of activity for no purpose.
On 9/24/2015 6:39 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
My computer has been out for 26 hours but...
You said
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
But all that studying and considering that you talk about is done through
the lens of a theory which cannot ve validated in the way that scientific
theory in the physical sciences can be validated. It doesn't matter whether
the motives for the investigations are the same or different. The methods
are vastly different. You are talking about theory and action as if they
were the same. Theory comes first and then action follows.
Miriam
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
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 understandbeliefs, and that there is absolutely no compromise, is like religion.
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
Miriamagain!
-----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
It is not a matter of manipulating the workers. It is a matter ofusually called revolution.
providing leadership when the revolution comes. As I have explained
before, social and economic forces lead to periodic crises that are
That happens whether we like it or not and it does not always resultbut it is not guaranteed that you will get exactly what you want.
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,
If you do not apply scientific principles, though, and if you do notdisaster.
work hard to steer it is pretty much guaranteed that you will end up in
And again, what happened to the Russian revolution has been analyzeddistributing.
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
That is what allowed for the establishment of a privileged bureaucracy.revolution nor when.
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
Despite your claims that I am proposing that we have such fine controlHe answered that the question was teleological.
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.
Back when I first read that I did not understand what this had to dopolitical movement.
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
It was his political movement that played a big part in amelioratinggood.
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 I
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
win.And all this working for candidates in the meantime, putting them onwhoever, it will all work like clockwork. Only, so far in real life,
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
it 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 behavior
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
advantage of.Let me go through this again. The point of fielding a candidate isattention and so it leans more toward propagandizing than toward
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
Furthermore, if our candidates do happen to get elected thatcapitalism to make it some how a nicer capitalism.
comrade's 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
