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 prepare for that event.
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 make real change.
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 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,by them, it means nothing at all in terms of real change.
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
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
