But Cuba depended only on Russia after having been refused any kind of friendly
trade relations with the US. If you read that Peter Kornbluh book, you'll see
that Castro hoped to build friendly diplomatic and economic relations with the
US after the Cuban revolution. The US rebuffed his advances. The other issue is
that all of the countries with whom it sought economic relationships are
Capitalist. It wanted an end to the US embargo and what that would mean, I
suppose, is that the nature of its socialism might very well be corrupted.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 9:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I'm not sure that the beach is a very desirable place to build a house.
Beach front property is highly volatile and in the next storm you might lose
your house. But I suppose you might be talking about how to allocate luxuries.
I think Cuba can give us a clue to that too. When the Cuban revolution happened
there were a number of luxury hotels and resorts on the island. Until the
revolution they catered to foreign rich people who had only contempt for the
working people of Cuba. In other revolutions such institutions were converted
into housing for the poor.
In Cuba, however, it was decided to keep them as luxury resorts. Of course,
they could not accommodate everyone. So these resorts were used as rewards.
When an opening became available in a luxury resort the workers in a factory or
farm would vote on which of their coworkers would get to spend a vacation in
such a resort. Let me add, though, that something very unfortunate has
happened. The Cubans did make a serious error in trading almost exclusively
with the Stalinist states of eastern Europe and with their collapse these trade
agreements collapsed too.
Cuba then entered the special period. They found themselves scrambling for new
trade agreements and having to make other changes to recover from that special
period. Unfortunately that also meant selling vacations for the foreign rich in
the luxury hotels again. I really hope that Cuba can make enough of a recovery
to put a stop to that. It actually means employing Cubans to serve these rich
vacationers. That is a terrible way to run a socialist country.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/22/2018 11:15 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well maybe, but everyone needs shelter, but who decides what shelter
humans can get when more of them want a house on the beach than can
have one?
Just one example. There are many others. So again, who decides when
human needs, (or desires) clash? Or, if you prefer, who decides which
are human needs and which are simply human desires?
Everyone needs a shelter, but not everyone needs a house in their
dream location and the size they might prefer. So who decides who gets
the houses on the beach and who doesn't get one who wants one?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I think we humans are pretty good at deciding what our human needs are.
If you allow some small group to tell you then you may s well keep
capitalism.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/19/2018 9:04 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Who decides what "human needs" are? Another ruling caste. And who
gets the benefit of the planned economy? That's right, the ruling
caste in charge of the planning.
That's assuming a planned economy can work, which I have already
said, I am doubtful of.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 8:51 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
But you are not talking about a planned economy planned with human
needs in mind when you are talking about the system in the Soviet
Union fifty years later. You are talking about a planned economy
planned with the interests of a bureaucratic caste in mind. You are
talking about Stalinism.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/15/2018 6:16 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, so the former Soviet Union started out at a disadvantage. But
fifty years later, they still couldn't make central planning work.
It could not create the material standard of living that the
capitalist West had.
No group of people in a centralized location, such as Moscow, is
smart enough to make the millions of decisions that are involved in
the distribution of resources.
Now if you want to talk about some superintelligence in the future
doing the central planning, then that might be a different matter.
But people are just not smart enough to plan an economy that would
work for everyone. It might work for a few, like the Nomenklatura
elite of course. But not for everyone.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Again, the Soviet Union started out at a disadvantage. That was an
immature capitalist economy mixed with feudalism and two devastating
wars. When there is not enough to go around no matter how much
planning you implement there is still not enough to go around. And
then came the Stalinist perversion. Economic planning was done, but
human needs were not the first priority.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/9/2018 9:26 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I wonder whether conscious economic planning really can distribute
resources more efficiently.
Now you say the former Soviet Union did not implement true
Communism. But it appears that they did indeed try to implement
some form of central planning of their economy. It didn't work out
so well there.
I would imagine you've heard about the common practice of storming
that was so prevalent there because supplies did not reach the
factories in a predictable way, but the workers still had to meet
their quotas.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:10 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I like a lot of things about modern civilization too, but don't
make the mistake of confusing the level of technology with the
economic system.
It is true that the division of labor that was brought about by
class society did have a lot to do with the development of
technology, but conscious economic planning can do the same thing
more efficiently. As for the question of how disabled people were
treated in primitive communist societies, well, that depended a lot
on the available resources. I already said that if someone just
refused to work then he would likely be excluded from being able to
consume the product of those who did work. Actually, if someone
just refused to work alongside everyone else then that person would
be trying to put himself into the position of a ruler. That is
likely one way that class society came about, but the would be
ruler would have had to have had some way to enforce it. Without
some kind of force it is really hard to get others to support you
while you don't contribute. But, still, some people are going to
contribute less anyway and it won't be because they don't want to.
If it can be seen clearly that the low contributors can't help it
then they are allowed to consume just like anyone else does. In
most cases if someone does try to contribute then it might not even
be noticed that some don't contribute quite as much as others
because everyone is working for the benefit of the community as a
whole and there is no point in measuring just how much any
individual contributes.
But some people contribute significantly less and can't help it.
That would be the disabled. If there are plenty of resources the
disabled would get to share just as much as anyone else. Remember
that the guiding principle of the economic system is from each his
ability and to each his needs. Someone who cannot produce is not
the same as someone who will not produce and need not be punished.
Anyway, punishment will not increase such a person's productive
capacity. But what if resources are scarce? The more meager the
resources the greater must be the labor to produce the community's
needs and then there might still be not enough to go around. In
situations like that some pretty hard choices have to be made and
ethicists are always discussing those choices. The lifeboat with
three occupants and only enough water for two, The dog sled being
pulled by dogs and being chased by wolves and the dogs can get
enough of a burst of speed to save the sled and occupants only if
someone is thrown to the wolves and so forth. The reasonable thing
to do when there is not enough collective capacity to provide for
all is to eliminate the low producers so that the production of the
higher producers can provide for the ones who are left. I expect
you have heard of examples like the elderly or disabled person who
is left on the ice flow by the Inuit for example. But one thing has
to be noted. Both primitive communism and advanced class systems
like capitalism do not have planned economies. A more advanced
communism would involve much planning, not just to determine how
much of some commodity need to be produced and to efficiently
distribute it, but to avoid severe shortages.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/4/2018 4:21 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, interesting.
I'll be perfectly honest. I like a lot of things about modern
civilization. I like stuff like radios and computers, and
medicine. And, one thing I like most of all is being treated at
least reasonably well most of the time and having had an
opportunity for education.
I do not want to live in a primitive society. One good question
would be, how are people with disabilities treated in such
societies? Now a modern Communist society might treat persons with
disabilities very well, but that would be as a result of more
enlightened attitudes, which came about, I might point out, in the
most advanced capitalist countries. Marx was a product of that
enlightenment.
As I mentioned, if technological progress really ever does get to
a point where production is possible without human labor, then
that might bring something like a modern form of Communism about.
If I understand him correctly, Marx believed that while a person
is working for what he needs to live, he is not free. So if people
can have the goods and services they need without any labor, or
very little, then I would assume Marx would consider that a high
degree of freedom.
That is one thing about primitive communism that I don't think was
so great, people had to spend a lot of time working for their
food. During that time, they were not free.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 4:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I think most, if not all, primitive communist communities have now
been destroyed or assimilated, but if any are left the Amazon rain
forest would be a good place to look. I have heard that there are
still some small uncontacted communities left, but the government
is trying to protect them by not allowing contact. That means
keeping the anthropologists away from them too. However, there
have been some primitive communist communities that did survive
long enough to be studied by anthropologists. Some of note are the
Effay of the Ituri rain forest. I am guessing at that spelling.
That's the problem with using audio books. Not all the important
words get spelled. But they are more commonly known as the
pygmies. I am one of those rare people who reads textbooks as
recreational reading and I remember reading about them in more
than one anthropology textbook from Learning Ally. About the
closest they come to a hierarchy is something of the reverse of
what kinds of hierarchies there usually are. It is the young
people who make the political decisions. The word political is
used rather loosely here because it mostly means just dealing with
interpersonal relations or the question of which way the band
should take through the forest. These young leaders are of about
teenage age. The older people are normally glad to turn over such
things to the youth and be followers. But the fact that the word
political has to be used so loosely shows that there are no real
politics and so no hierarchy or formal system is even needed. The
production is mostly food gathering and if it isn't food gathering
it is making implements to facilitate food gathering.
Another
example was Australia when the Europeans first got there. That was
pretty much an entire content of primitive communists. The
interesting thing about the Australians was that there were no
clear cut communities. It was extremely unlikely that a person on
one side of the continent would meet a person on the other side of
the continent and if they did meet they would not have understood
each other, but they were still in indirect contact through
overlapping semicommunities. The language issue was very
interesting. It seemed that people of a few miles away would talk
slightly differently, but still be able to be understood and a few
miles from them the people would diverge in their speech just a
little more, but still be able to be understood by the people in
near regions. But the variations piled up the further away they
were, meaning that people who were distant from one another had
effectively different languages, but a message transmitted from
one person hundreds of miles away through one person after another
could make it through the chain and be understood. So where did
one language end and another begin? But that is aside from the
economic system.
The
economic system was one in which everyone produced and shared the
product with everyone else, including in the immediate community
and if in contact with them, with the adjacent community. That
effectively meant a whole continent of primitive communism except
that there was no continentwide coordination, nor any coordination
except in local areas.
The anthropologists did not get to them immediately after contact,
but it was still possible to study them before their entire
society was transformed and some of their history could be
surmised or still be related by elders still living. Others that
have been discovered have been found in places like New Guinea or
Borneo. The ones in Borneo are usually held up as the epitome of
primitive humanity, but for that tradition to have formed it meant
that advanced cultures had known of them for centuries and had at
least intermittent contact with them.
Nevertheless, they did retain that primitive communist economic
model.
Bourgeois anthropologists are loathe to use the phrase primitive
communism, of course. They prefer to name their economic system by
the specific work they do and call it a hunter gatherer economy.
Well, okay, they hunt and gather, but hunting and gathering is
productive labor. And when they produce food or implements by
hunting and gathering they come together and share it without
keeping accounts of how much wealth each and every one produced.
They just share and share alike and the ones who happened to
produce less than others still get as much of the product that
they need. Of course, if one person got particularly lazy and did
not produce even though it could be seen that he didn't really
have an excuse for being lazy then he would be likely to be
excluded. That is pretty good incentive to make some contribution
though. That is one criticism I often hear about the communist
economic model. There is no incentive. I would say that not being
allowed to eat is a pretty good incentive. But we live in a time
of class society and we are surrounded by a class system and class
systems have now existed for thousands of years. That contributes
to political myopia, the tendency to assume that the way things
are is the only way things can possibly be. But just give it some
thought and you will see that the way things are had to have had a
beginning and before that beginning there was something else and
it would just about have had to have been an economy in which
everyone produced and shared the product of that production.
_________________________________________________________________
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 11/2/2018 12:04 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I wonder. I would be curious to learn of such a community. If it
existed, or exists today, I haven't heard of it.
I think it's pretty certain that no nonhierarchical society ever
existed in recorded history. Maybe there's a tribe in the Amazon
rainforest, or there was an ancient hunter gatherer tribe that
was communistic. I'm doubtful though.
Maybe when there were no resources to share, when people were
living at the subsistence level, then no questions would arise as
to the equitable distribution of resources. Even so, other apes
and mammals have dominance and submission, so even then I am
doubtful that any human community would be free of hierarchy.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
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
