When I attended college, I majored in Anthropology/Sociology. Somehow, I paid
more attention to the Sociology part. But if I'd paid more attention to
Anthropology, I could remember if there was at least one small primitive
society with a cooperative culture, no hierarchy, no war, no need to acquire
and hoard for the sake of acquisition. If such a society existed, we could say
that those unpleasant tendencies now apparent in late stage Capitalism, aren't
wired into human nature. The Communist countries that we've known, were all
responses to capitalist injustices, and they were surrounded by capitalist
countries that wanted to destroy them. So their authoritarian qualities may not
have been intrinsic to Communism, but rather, a response to external pressures.
We don't know.
It's really difficult to step outside of ourselves, our own frame of reference,
our history, and imagine something different.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Well, I guess I would have to agree with you that I would be in favor of
replacing our current economic system with a better one. But perhaps we might
disagree in that I do not believe that better economic system has been invented
yet. And, I am doubtful that any economic system could work any better than one
similar to what we have now, given the nature of people.
I am thinking that perhaps a better economic system is out there, but not for
humans as we are currently constituted, given, as I said, that hierarchy seems
to be wired into us at the genetic level. I am open to being proved wrong about
this, but it would have to be a new economic theory, not one that has failed
every single time it has been tried, as Communism has.
Now if technology ever advances to the point where material scarcity is
eliminated, then people would not have to work to obtain food and shelter, and
as much entertainment and information as they can shake a stick at.
There are people who believe that that is actually coming. If that ever does
happen, then perhaps a better economic system will replace the one we have now.
Who knows? It might even look something like Communism. Until that time, I
think we have to work toward improving the system we have.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 4:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
That's because you don't know what I really think. You and Evan make
assumptions about what I think by contrasting the words I write with your point
of view. But I would absolutely be in favor of replacing our current economic
system with a better one. I'm not sure that State Socialism would be the one
I'd choose, but then, I don't claim to have expertise in that sort of thing.
But what you are sensing is that I think that we have to be realistic and work
with what we have toward a complete change. If you listen to Alan Nearn on
today's Democracy Now, he's describing what I think we need to do right now. We
can't ignore the political system we have, no matter how bad the corporate
Democrats are, they are not the outlaw gangster party that the Republicans have
become. So yes, I think that people need to do what Bernie Sanders is trying to
do. At the same time, I think there needs to be organizing outside of the
system and building of movements. The difference between you and me is that you
have studied Marxism and you see history and change necessarily through a
Marxist framework. My ideas of cooperation and socialism are unschooled and
much less doctrinaire. But I do listen to Richard Wolfe each week who's a
Marxist economist and is attempting to teach his version of Marxism to the
masses, and when I listen to Brian Becker on Loud and Cleare, I'm being
influenced by him. He's clearly a socialist organizer. I don't know which
socialist sect, but he's interpreting facts according to socialist theory. And
I don't have any problem with either of them. I'm liberal, in the old fashioned
sense, being willing to learn and read various points of view, well, some
points of view. But as I've mentioned numerous times, I'm rebellious, and I
don't fit neatly into foxes, not the Jewish box or the Caucasian box, (I did
racially integrate my family), or the suburban box, (I love nature but I hate
the suburbs and I'm now living in a place that I despise), or the old woman box.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 3:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I don't think I ever used the phrase true leftist. When I mention liberalism I
usually call it bourgeois liberalism and contrast it to radicalism. I call it
bourgeois liberalism because it is a bourgeois ideology. That is, it defends or
assumes the permanence of the current class system, capitalism.
It is an ideology that concentrates on making the system somehow nicer without
any perspective at all of replacing it.
Radicalism, on the other hand, proposes the complete replacement of capitalism.
By that measure I have never known Miriam to be anything but a bourgeois
liberal.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence
will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/30/2018 9:10 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Haha, a liberal instead of a true leftist. I like that. It is
certainly easy to get overly concerned about labels.
I've been writing too much here. I need a break.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Evan,
I feel like we are arguing instead of talking. I'm not sure that I've
always said negative things about our country on this list. Of course,
I've been here for at least 11 years and I was on it for a few years
previous to those eleven years. And it's difficult for me to know how
what I write comes across. I've had debates with various folks on the
list before. Roger has often accused me of being a liberal rather than
a true leftist. Carl and I have quibbled over whether or not to use
the term, "middle class", in certain contexts. I use the term. He does
not. I once got into trouble with someone who is no longer on the list
because I said that I didn't think the White House should have a
Christmas tree lighting because I thought that a Christmas tree is a
symbol of a religious holiday and we are supposed to have a separation
between church and state. I've had differences with Richard over a
number of things, specifically, the Koch Brothers about whom his
feelings are more positive than mine. Frank and I have quarreled about
the Green Party and about Bernie Sanders. So certainly, I've had
disagreements with folks. But I don't think that I was accused of
being negative. You've indicated that all of us on the list sound
negative and you do remind me of Ted. Ted was a list member for many
years and he was kind of politically in the center. He'd been farther
right politically previously.
He left the list and accused us all of being, "left wing radicals"
which, to
him was a very negative thing to be. I think that perhaps, you mean
somewhat the same thing when you call me, or us, negative.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Hmmm, if you think I have ever said that people should only say good
things about our country or our economic system, you just aren't
reading what I've said.
There is a huge difference between being critical and being ONLY
critical.
That's the difference between me and most people here.
If you take all my messages together, you will find that I have been
critical, but not only critical. By the same token, if you take all my
messages together, you will find that I have been positive, but not
only positive. Any positive thing you say is grudging at best, and
only after serious prodding. That is a very large difference.
Evan
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
You know, a Democracy requires varying opinions, dissent, give and
take. You are defining criticism as being negative. Paul Jay isn't
negative. He runs a news organization which is attempting to give
balanced, honest reporting of local, national, and international news
to people. He's describing, in part of this Q &A, his view of the real
issues in our country. Being critical of what is happening and trying
to make things better for people is actually what good citizens should
do. I don't want to be insulting, but in a way, you're sounding like
Mr. Trump who thinks that everyone around him, including the press,
should say only positive things about him and what he's doing. You
think that everyone in the US should say only positive things about
our economic system. I note that in your response to Mary's email
before, you mentioned something about how the Scandanavian countries
do more for the, I think you said, "unfortunate people", in their
population.
Maybe
that wasn't the word, but you ad the population divided up. The point
is that we need to have a society where people are treated equally
well and have equal access to goods and services, regardless of their
backgrounds or particular skill sets. We all need good medical care,
adequate housing, nourishing food. There's no reason for one person to
own 5 homes with full staffs in each while some people are homeless
and starving.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:27 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Well if you agree with it I'm sure it'll be all negative then.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 4:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] about Real News
I just forwarded a digest. I recommend you listen to the discussion
between Ben Norton and Paul Jay. Paul Jay describes are current
political and economic situation in a way with which I pretty much
agree.
Miriam
