I listened to the first 3 minutes of it which is pure insanity, as far as I
can tell. I really didn't want to waste my time to find out if it is a spoof
or actually serious.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:00 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Hi
I don't know did you have chans wach this video,
jus try, this is something like documentary.
http://survivetheenddays.com/dvoi_i4/?t=
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
But your Marxist theory doesn't appear to change. You still seem to be
basically saying the same things that Marx said. It seems to me that
societies change, technology changes, new conditions arise, and yes, I would
certainly think that if one is an activist, one's tactics change and
perhaps, goals change as new situations arise. Or put another way, Marxist
analysis seems to stay static. One thing that stays static is class
analysis. I don't think that the definition of classes that you keep
repeating and explaining, actually fits contemporary American society. I
think you are taking a very complex and changing reality and insisting on
defining it in terms that were applicable in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries in european industrial nations.
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: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
The theory of relativity is not a complete theory in the least. It has
conflicts with quantum theory and needs to be revised. Just how it needs to
be revised depends on the outcome of research. One change that has been made
is what Einstein himself called his greatest blunder. that was the
cosmological constant. It turned out to not be such a blunder after all and
had to be added again. Remember that even though Einstein knew that
relativity was not the theory of everything - that is, the grand unified
theory - it was an attempt to approach that. Current work in string theory
as well as quantum theory is continuing to approach the grand unified theory
and in the future it is likely that they will have to be combined and parts
of all of them be scrapped. This all deals with the question of why there is
something rather than nothing, though, and that is another way of asking how
the universe came into existence at all. Like I have said, every time we
find answers to questions the answer opens up new questions and I really
don't think there will ever come a time that all questions have been
answered. In that sense I don't see that there will ever be a grand unified
theory. In another sense there might be in that all of these cosmogenic and
cosmological theories might be combined into something that approximates a
theory of everything. Still, though, I expect that there will be holes in it
that will require further investigation and further refinements. But
remember that theories like relativity or other cosmological theories are
theories of a very grand scale and even though the universe will not hold
still for physicists any more than it will hold still for anyone else it at
least moves more slowly for them. When you are applying theory to something
as immediately dynamic as human social and economic relations you are
immersed in day to day and hour to hour changes.
Looking at history over the long term will bring you closer to what
physicists are dealing with. That is, you can observe how one social system
was supplanted by another hundreds or thousands of years ago and that does
not change for you. But the science of social change and revolution are
sciences of action and purpose. The physicist is not trying to change the
universe, just figure it out. The political activist is trying to change it
and is trying to figure it out in order to be better at changing it. That
rather complicates matters.
On 9/24/2015 9:36 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
But, for example, does Einstein's theory of relativity keep changing?doctrine.
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: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
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
A theory is basically an explanation of what has been observed in reality.and action are the same, that is not too far from the truth.
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
Even though they can be described separately they have to be combined.a frenzy of activity for no purpose.
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
method.
On 9/24/2015 6:39 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
My computer has been out for 26 hours but...situations that were similar.
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
By considering the real world, both historically and current,action follows.
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
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
observation.You might say that the science and the technology are combined. Therecognition of the real world and the real situation at all times.
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
It requires a study of history and an examination of how historicalwant it to turn out.
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
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
force.
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 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
distribution.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
situation.backward.When there are shortages of everything, of course, the ones indistributing.
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.
It was also responsible for the NEP which was a significant step
in building.It was a necessary evil, but it was still an evil. All of this setrevolution nor when.
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
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
He answered that the question was teleological.class.
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 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
On 9/22/2015 9:59 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:good.
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
And all this working for candidates in the meantime, putting themwhoever, it will all work like clockwork. Only, so far in real life,
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
it hasn't worked out that way, has it?
The revolutions in Russia and China somehow became corrupted byis a beautiful, internally consistent theory.
real 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
prepared.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
really big agitational opportunity.win.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 of
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
anyway.So when you say that we have had no success in the past fifty yearsdo you explain Cuba?
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:
OK. So a lot of industrial workers are aware of the party. Butreal crisis and the real revolution, distresses me.
we're 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
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 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
left.make real change.And, again, if you think the party is accomplishing nothing youprepare for that event.
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 atby them, it means nothing at all in terms of real change.
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
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
