Perhaps "Dreaming and believing"will get us nowhere, but what I'm
suggesting is that the Masters of the American Empire are killing any
ability for people to Dream and Believe. Without dreams and without
belief we are without hope...without purpose. More and more, like my
example of being a spectator at a sporting event, we are being
"entertained" by the Media, telling us what is happening and which
side to root for, when to groan and when to cheer. Our children are
being "taught" how to think within very tightly controlled limits.
And that channeling is happening to each of us, once we make our
positions or our philosophy known.
Also I believe that there is no way to avoid being tainted by the
System we live in. Maybe others are stronger than I, but not a day
goes by but what I suddenly come up against some action or some belief
of mine that has been contaminated by the Empire's influence.
What can I do to avoid being swallowed up once the American Corporate
Empire(ACE) purges the Internet? And even now, how do I gain the
attention of those who disagree with me, when I am already isolated?
On another list I see what happens when people get upset by hearing
posts that they disagree with. They simply go away and find a group
with which they agree. We're all doing the same thing. Even knowing
that this serves the purposes of the ACE, how do we avoid it? How do
we reach those who disagree with us?
Carl Jarvis
Carl Jarvis
On 1/18/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:09 PM
To: 'Roger Loran Bailey' <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialis
Let's get real. Carl is an 84 year old blind man living on a peninsula in
the State of Washington. I'm an 82 year old blind, physically disabled
woman. Perhaps, because you are a good deal younger than we are, you can do
some of the kinds of actions that you're suggesting? But I would caution you
that if you believe that your way of debating with people on email lists or
posting articles from The Militant is going to convince them that they
should join the SWP or a similar group, as someone who attended a school of
social work and knows a bit about helping people to change their views,
those things won't work. It has to be done with direct personal contact and
friendly conversation.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 8:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialis
Dreaming and believing are not going to make anything happen and it also
will not prevent that which is out of our control from happening. We need to
be prepared to make the events that are out of our control to break to our
advantage as much as possible.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its
people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/18/2020 10:46 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
As a Dreamer, I've never allowed Reality to disrupt my visions of a
World of Peace and Plenty.
As a Realist, I have never allowed reality to crush my belief that one
day we will either find our way to a better place, or destroy
ourselves.
As a Spectator, I understand the difference between my Dreams and my
Reality, and know that I will make very little contribution to either
course.
But I continue to find excitement and adventure in the world. And I
continue to count new mouths at the Thanksgiving dinner table, which
encourages me to continue being the sage old grandpa, giving out
opinions whether wanted or not, whether agreed upon or not.
And I see in my son and eldest daughter and two of my grandsons and my
younger sister, understanding and agreement, and they are now reaching
out to their families and friends. So, in fact, the Dream continues,
and there exists a growing belief that one day we just might find our
future generations living in a better world.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/17/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You make a lot of assumptions that I have addressed before and right
now I don't want to take a lot of time refuting them, especially when
I have done it so many times before. But the question was whether
Bernie Sanders is a socialist as he claims. The article that I posted
refutes his claim and I refute his claim. The definition of a
socialist is really simple and it covers a lot of territory. I did
not invent the word and I did not define it. No one alive today
invented it nor defined it. It is a word that describes someone who
advocates a certain economic system. As broad as the definition is it
still does not include everyone. If it did then the word would have
no reason to exist. And as broad as it is Bernie Sanders does not
qualify. He advocates for capitalism. He advocates for a narrow
capitalist philosophy of government called liberalism. That is not
socialism. Furthermore, something else that is not socialism is the
various capitalist government bureaus or programs.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because
its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core
beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/17/2020 9:39 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I'm not disputing all the history of which you are so aware. But
your explanations don't change the reality of the world in which we
find ourselves. The people whom you would define as true socialists,
are in the minority in public life and they have little power. You
see what has just happened to the left wing of the British Labor
party. Whatever the hopes for Russian socialism, things didn't turn
out very well for the Soviet Union. So to be honest, given the real
world, we haven't seen a socialist revolution turn a country into a
place where most of us would like to live. And Capitalism has
screwed most of us, also. But for a few decades, white working class
people gained a relatively comfortable middle class income and life
style in a regulated Capitalist America. The regulations were
removed and international capitalism is continuing on its
destructive way. Human nature continues to be unchanged, which means
that there are some good, altruistic people and a lot of self
interested people, and some who are downright sociopathic and want
power. Our country continues to seek economic domination over the entire
world.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy]
Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Okay, I've gone through this before, but here I go again. The social
democrats were once what became communists. They came out of the
International Workingmen's Association that was founded by Karl Marx
and was also known as the First International. When that collapsed
they were the founders of the second International, commonly known
as the Socialist International and the Russian Social Democratic
Labor Party
(RSDLP) was part of the Second International. It was in the lead up
to the Russian revolution that the RSDLP split. It was the
Menshevik/Bolshevik split. The Mensheviks followed Karl Kautsky who
had the idea that socialism could be achieved by running in
bourgeois elections, getting elected and passing laws that would
gradually achieve socialism. Their program was at least radical
enough that they proposed to achieve their goals by any means
necessary including playing by bourgeois rules. They seemed to
ignore the fact that social democrats were being murdered by the
tsarist police for even daring to have social democratic views, let
alone taking action on them. The Bolsheviks had the position that
armed self defense was necessary. But the Mensheviks were not only
willing to play by the enemy's rules, but they actually expected
the enemy to play by its own rules and they have been betraying the
international working class ever since by doing that. In fact, the
most recent example of what happens when you do that is what you can
see in Venezuela right now. Their betrayal became blatant when World
War I started and the individual sections of the Second
International threw their support behind the governments of their
own countries. They did that even when other sections in opposing
countries were throwing their support behind their own countries
thus, effectively, making different sections of the Second
International war enemies of each other. Then during the war and
after the war they continued to electorally join bourgeois
governments and to support bourgeois governments as part of the
so-called loyal opposition. I would emphasize the word loyal in the
phrase loyal opposition. They always remained loyal to the
capitalist masters. By the way, I remember when Karl Kautsky's book
that explicated the original principles of the Mensheviks was added
to Bookshare and I just now looked for it and it is not there. I
suppose it must have been withdrawn. But it has been a long time
since they bothered to follow their founding principles anyway. Once
they started regularly winning seats in parliaments and functioning
as the loyal opposition in those parliaments they started regarding
the bourgeois politicians as their colleagues and acted like it.
They would strike deals with the bourgeoisie, back down when they
were outvoted in parliament and form coalitions with bourgeois
forces in those parliaments. That is, they entirely lost their
original class perspective. The social democrats essentially became
capitalist parties. They kept calling themselves socialists, but
were they really socialists? I will point to the British Labour
Party and ask if they are really socialists then why has the Labour
Party shied away from the word for so long now. I think there has
been a slight resurgence of the word recently, but then they back
down from it as if they are afraid of it. But let me go back to what
socialism actually is. For one thing, it is not capitalism. It is
the dialectical contradiction of capitalism. At a minimum if someone
is going to be a socialist he or she must be in favor of the social
ownership and democratic control of the means of production. If that
is not socialism then you may as well trash the word socialism
because it would mean nothing. If there is nothing to distinguish
between socialism and capitalism then there is no need for either
the word socialism nor the word capitalism. If you think that is not
socialism then the simple fact is that you know nothing about the
subject. As harsh as that might seem it is true. If you don't accept
the minimal definition of the word then there is little reason to
even suggest that you know what you are talking about at all. By the
way, you recently said something about the Marxist definition of
socialism. Actually, I am not sure that there is a Marxist
definition of socialism any more than there is a Marxist definition
of fascism. Fascism did not yet exist in Marx's time, but socialism
did and it was well known what it was. Marx simply took the word for
what it meant and proposed a methodology for achieving it. He did not
invent the word nor did he try to redefine it. I will point out again
that this minimal definition encompasses a lot of different ideologies.
It includes people that I am in extreme opposition to. It is a very
broad definition. And since you mentioned Silvy recently I will say that
it was at this point that she said what you were alluding to.
Right after I defined the word so that it included movements that I
am totally opposed to she condescendingly told me that there were
different kinds of socialism and that my little group is not the
only kind. It is incredible how exasperating it is that I can put
forth so much effort to explain things and then have someone show
that I was not the least bit being listened to. But, anyway, do the
social democrats count as socialists by that minimal definition? I will
say that some of them do.
Ever since that betrayal of the international working class in World
War I they have as a whole been drifting further and further to the
right. They have drifted so far to the right that actually most of
them do not qualify as socialists anymore. They do not even have a
perspective of opposing capitalism at all. Their perspective is
still one of reforming capitalism, but it is no longer even one of
reforming it out of existence. It is a perspective of somehow making
capitalism nicer and then only if it does not offend the right wing
capitalists. That is, not only have they become indistinguishable
from liberals, but they have become liberals. As for the ones who
are still technically socialists, those are the left wing social
democrats. Yes, some of them do still think that if they keep
getting elected and are careful to be ever so nice to the
capitalists that they can eventually reform capitalism out of
existence. I think they are dead wrong about how to abolish capitalism,
but if they do still want to abolish it then I will have to admit that
they are technically socialists.
So is Bernie Sanders one of those left wing social democrats? I
don't see any evidence that he is.
He does not even belong to a social democrat organization. At least
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can make that claim, but Bernie Sanders
does not even try. Does he advocate the replacement of the
capitalist system with socialist property relations? There is not even a
hint of it from him.
Well, if there is a left-wing of the social democrats then there
must be a right-wing of the social democrats. In Europe the
right-wing social democrats are often to the right of American
liberals, sometimes way to the right of American liberals. That
tendency is pronounced in the British Labour Party where they are
even ashamed to use the word socialism anymore. I suppose they have
good reason to be ashamed of it because they certainly no longer
make any socialist proposals nor advocate anything that is
socialist. I will say that at least Bernie Sanders is not to the
right of most American liberals, but there is nothing there to
distinguish him from a liberal. So he must be a liberal. If people
to the right of him can call themselves social democrats then I
suppose he has as much right to do so as they do, but I don't see that
either they nor him have much right to call themselves socialists.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because
its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core
beliefs.
”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/16/2020 5:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bernie Sanders is, as far as I'm concerned, a Social Democrat, or
at least, that is the kind of government he is promoting at this
point in time. He may very well have been a socialist in the past.
But what he is doing is attempting to organize a very heterogeneous
public around the necessity of reigning in the excesses of
Capitalism. And he, and others, are using the word, "socialism", to
symbolize that. And because labels are less important to me than
they are to you, and because what he has been doing is working, I'm
not complaining. There are huge numbers of young people, not just
the folks I hear on podcasts, who want things to change. Those huge
numbers of people are not flocking to the Socialist Workers' Party,
but they are flocking to Bernie. Yet again,I have this new home
health aide, a friend of the really capable young woman who left to
join the army in order to get an education. This one, also
originally from Jamaica, about 25 years old with a high school
education, was listening to the part of Democracy Now yesterday
morning with me, in which Bernie Sanders made a statement about
what he thinks is important, his goals, what people should be
concerned about. She asked me what his name is, and when I told
her, she said, "He's right. He knows what he's talking about". And
he was talking about what he always talks about, the right of
working people to have a living wage, decent housing, good health
care. He was saying that we should use our tax dollars for that and
not for war. To me, that's what matters, that someone with no
political knowledge or sophistication can hear and respond to that
message and perhaps vote for Sanders in the primaries, is important,
not that he's misusing a word.
Also, there really are different kinds of socialism. There's state
socialistm. But a small community of people living and working
together according to socialist principles is also socialism. A
business co-operative, owned and operated by the workers is socialism.
Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, and all the other fossil fuel
companies, as well as the nuclear industry, want government to help
them, and it does. It gives them subsidies. It goes to war on their
behalf. The young people on the left, with tongue in cheek, call
that, "socialism for the rich".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 3:23 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’
socialism
Okay, if it isn't right to correct people when they try to express
what they mean then you should not have started this thread out by
trying to correct the author of the article when he explained why
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. But if you want to just ignore
the meanings of words like socialism then think about this. If
Donald Trump started calling himself a socialist without making any
other changes would you just accept that he was a socialist because he
was trying to express himself?
How about the Koch brothers? Would they be socialists if they
decided to just call themselves socialists? I certainly hope you
would say no and if you say no to that then you might want to
reconsider accepting Bernie Sanders's claim to be a socialist while
he continues to defend and promote capitalism. Otherwise we may as
well start calling otters socialists or calling rocks socialists.
If you want to just ignore the meanings of words then maybe we
should start calling cyanide vanilla pudding. If someone dropped
dead after tasting it then that would be okay because it just
doesn't matter what you call something. It's just a way of expressing
yourself.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because
its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core
beliefs.
”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/16/2020 9:33 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I'm not having a debate with you about what words mean. Yes,
certainly, words have meaning. There are dictionary definitions
and then there is the way that they are used in academic
discourse, and then there is popular useage. In popular, everyday
discourse, people tend not to follow the rules set down by academics
or grammarians or other experts.
Amd I wasn't talking about what I think socialism is. But I was
saying that people use the word differently, and they will
continue to do so in order to try to communicate their ideas, and
since I think that we believe in freedom of thought and freedom of
expression, it isn't right to correct people when they're trying
to express what they mean, even if one doesn't think they're doing so
accurately.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:59 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Miriam, it is not my personal opinion. Words mean things and I
can't help what they mean. I had nothing to do with things
becoming defined the way they are. But if we are going to
communicate with each other and convey our meanings it behooves
all of us to learn what things mean rather than to talk in vague
meaningless phrases. And let me point out something else. The
phrase Marxist theory has a meaning too. It covers a lot, but it
still has meaning. Without going into all the aspects of it, it
means the process of analyzing social and economic processes in
the way that Karl Marx taught us to do, that is , scientifically.
I will point out also that Marx did not invent science, so Marxist
theory is not entirely his either. But one thing it does not mean
is every post that I, personally, make. It is exasperating when
you dismiss every single post of mine as Marxist theory when it
has nothing to do with Marxist theory. I am also reminded of what
you had to say about the Marxist definition of fascism. There is
no such thing as a Marxist definition of fascism. That is because
during Marx's entire lifetime there was no such thing as fascism.
He could not have defined it because it did not exist. It did not
come into existence until the twentieth century. It was defined by
its founders and proponents and a better understanding of it came
about by analyzing the conditions under which it took hold and how
it developed in actual history. When you started talking about the
Marxist definition of fascism that was basically the same thing
you do when you call each and every post of mine Marxist theory.
Just because I was the one who was trying to explain what fascism
is you decided that I was talking about some nonexistent Marxist
definition. Nevertheless, it means something. Fascism has a rather
broad meaning too, but it is not broad enough to just mean
someone you don't like. When you just call anyone a fascist who
you don't like you are going to have a hard time talking about
fascism when the real thing comes along. That practice is just
like using the word awesome to mean even the mildest approval.
When you do that what are you going to call it when something
really awesome comes along. Now I suppose you have the right to go
ahead and use words that have specific meanings without even knowing
what those meanings are and I suppose you have the right to just
decide that everyone else is wrong except for yourself, but when you
do that you are only hurting your own ability to communicate.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because
its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core
beliefs.
”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/15/2020 9:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You are a very literal person. But many people have a different
view.
Remember when Sylvie said something similar? You have a right to
your opinion, and I understand it. But it's your view, not shared
by everyone else, and it's OK if you privately think that
everyone else is wrong.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of
Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Nevertheless, if you defend and promote capitalism you are not a
socialist and if you defend and promote capitalism and call
yourself a socialist you are contributing to making the word
meaningless. That is also what Carl is doing when he calls every
government program socialism. When you let a word mean everything it
means nothing.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered
because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of
their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/15/2020 3:15 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Clearly, most Americans who are talking about socialism, are not
talking about communism. They're not talking about socialism as
defined in Marxist theory. Their definitions vary. Of course,
among the Marxists, definitions also vary which is why there are
Leninists, Trotskyites, and God knows what other groups. At this
point, given the military power of the US empire, the dangers of
nuclear war and environmental destruction due to global warming,
it seems imprudent to be worried about all of the theoretical
distinctions. We may never get to the point when it becomes
necessary to sort them out. We need to stop war, save the
planet, and find some way of feeding everyone. We need to stop
countries from competing with each other for financial dominance
in the world, and we need to find a way of controlling big tech
companies. If we keep arguing with each other about which is the
proper method for doing all this, rather than working together
and using all of the tools at our disposal, we won't achieve any of
our goals.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:57 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
https://socialistaction.org/2020/01/14/anatomy-of-bernie-sanders
-so
c
i
alism/
Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism Socialist Action
/
24 hours ago
By NICK BAKER
A 2019 Pew Research Center poll of Americans’ political views
found that
42 percent support socialism, up from 31 percent found by Pew in
2010.
Fully half
of youth under 30 indicated their “positive or very positive
impression”
of socialism. The biggest change that the new poll registered
was among those
30–49 years old, where 47 percent supported socialism today – up
from
37 percent in 2010. Reporting the new figures with a bit of
obfuscation in mind, the Washington Post headline read “New Poll:
Capitalism More Popular than Socialism.” No doubt the Post
editors, not to mention the corporate elite, were a bit concerned!
Over the past decade we have seen the effects of modern
capitalism operating with full force, including its inability to
provide decent, stable jobs, the crushing debt it imposes on
students and the broader population, lack of health care,
apocalyptic threat of climate change-induced destruction of the
planet and endless imperialist wars.
Fully aware that sending already radicalizing American youth to
fight in unpopular wars around the world, the U.S. warmakers
increasingly resort to “quiet” wars, to drone wars, secret CIA
wars, privatized/mercenary army wars, proxy army wars, as well
as sanction and trade embargo wars. These are accompanied by
record levels of corporate profit at the expense of workers
everywhere.
It’s no surprise that socialism is gaining in popularity in the
face of this blatant expression of capitalism’s inherent evils.
But what exactly does “socialism”
mean to people who are now turning their eyes to it? They often
aren’t sure exactly what socialism is, and the ruling class
would like to keep it that way. Last month, Pew published a
follow-up report about the reasons given by the 42 percent who said
they support socialism.
The most popular reasons:
31 percent said socialism creates a fairer, more just society
while 20 percent said that it “builds on and improves
capitalism,” with some indicating their belief that the U.S.
already had “some socialism” in the form of social welfare
programs. Others pointed to European “socialist” countries.
This kind of support for socialism, mixed with uncertainty about
what exactly socialism is beyond better and broader social
programs, will no doubt be exploited by the Democrats and
Republicans, the two main parties of capitalism, in the 2020
presidential campaign. Democrats like Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren have already gotten the message. At a time when
socialist ideas are gaining prominence, the Democratic Party,
the historic “graveyard of social movements,” will once again
aim to round up the disillusioned and disaffected with pledges
of fealty to justice and fair play. While never neglecting to
assert that their personal candidacy is the only surefire
alternative to their incomparably evil Republican opponent, the
corporate admission price exacted from all players in this
“lesser evil” charade is an unconditional pledge in advance to
support whichever Democrat emerges on top of the heap at the end of
the primary process.
Returning or delivering the disillusioned back into the fold of
capitalist politics—a dead end for the working class that
promises nothing but continued suffering—is the prime objective
of the $8-9 billion election time operation underway today.
After the unexpected 2016 election defeat of Hillary Clinton,
the Democrats have the Bernie Sanders campaign once again taking
the temperature of the masses while providing an outlet to
express their frustrations with the Democratic Party and the
Obama administration for presiding over the jailing and torture
of immigrants, the ongoing Afghanistan war of 18 years and the
suffering during the Great Recession where the bankers,
insurance companies and major corporation were bailed out to the
tune of $32 trillion while mortgage foreclosures reached modern
time highs. Former Republican and corporate attorney Elizabeth
Warren has joined the field being posed as a progressive
technocrat, while Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are assigned the role
of safe centrist stalking horses.
The Sanders campaign has a clear message: the barrier to
“socialism”
is the “Democratic Party establishment,” not the capitalist class.
Working people can “take back” the Democratic Party, according
to Sanders – as if it were ever ours – and make it a vehicle
for socialism that fights for the interests of the working class!
But this can never be. The Democratic Party is the institutional
expression of a wing of the capitalist class, and is inherently
opposed to the interests of working people. Its only “base” is
that section of the capitalist class whose method for
disciplining and controlling the workers is, at this time, to
tell them that their concerns are valid and need to be
addressed, all the while ensuring that these concerns are
channeled away from independent mass protests in the streets and
away from the formation of independent working class-controlled
organizations and parties.
Sanders’ campaign proposals
Bernie Sanders’ supporters write articles with
socialist-sounding titles like “Bernie Wants You to Own More of the
Means of Production.”
Real workers’
direct ownership and control of the means of production is at
the core of revolutionary socialism—that is, Marxism. Its
achievement requires the abolition of the capitalist system of
private ownership and its associated exploitation of workers to
ensure capitalist profit.
Headlines like Sanders’ supporters employ are no accident.
Offered as an “electoral road to socialism” and perhaps as a
Marxist-oriented government, like his “political revolution,”
they are aimed directly at people interested in socialism. But
when it comes to “owning more of the means of production,” what does
Sanders mean?
That headline referred to what Sanders calls his “Corporate
Accountability and Democracy” plan, which he says will shift
society’s wealth “back into the hands of the workers who create
it.” In this plan, companies that record more than $100 million
in revenue a year or are publicly traded would gradually
transfer 20 percent of their stock into a trust held for the
workers that pays dividends and provides voting rights at
shareholder meetings.
According
to Sanders’ campaign estimate, this would provide an average
dividend to all workers of $5000 per year. Not nothing for
workers whose wages have been declining for decades, but a far
cry from owning the means of production.
In the same plan, Sanders promotes limiting executive pay to
merely
150 times that of the average worker. CEO’s currently make 278
times what the average worker earns, so 150 is certainly
less—but it’s also a far cry from socialism. In 1965, CEOs made
20 times the average worker’s salary!
Sanders’ figure
of 150 times would be a return to mid-1990’s levels of CEO pay.
In other words, the workers create the wealth and the CEOs
should benefit
150 times more—only a modest amount.
The way Sanders proposes to promote this policy is telling as
well – by penalizing companies that pay executives above that
level by disfavoring them in the provisioning of federal
contracts. That is, he poses his plan as a market-based reform,
to be contested in the arena of the market, where the capitalist
reigns supreme.
This isn’t socialism. It’s a light reform of the most obnoxious
excesses of modern capitalism in the past few decades, totally
acceptable to the boss class and especially so when it allows
for the pretense of restricting them without disturbing in any
way their right to lord over the workers.
Sanders’ plan for the military
Sanders, who voted for the largest military budgets in history
during the Obama administration, today says he will ask Congress
to “take a hard look at the military budget” and “try to pare it
down.” He frequently says that the U.S. should not spend more on
its military than the next 10 countries combined but declines to
say anything more concrete about the military budget.
These days asserting that the U.S. military budget should be cut
at all sounds radical – but only because the preposterous
profit-fueling growth of military spending has reached such
incredible levels.
U.S. military spending has grown over 75 percent in the last 20
years – nearly doubling. And indeed it is more than the next ten
countries combined. Including the hundreds of billions each year
in the secret “black budget” and the CIA’s largely secret
expenditures, total annual U.S. military expenditures exceed
$1 trillion. After a 20 percent cut, the U.S. would spend more
on the military than the next seven countries combined. Even
after a 50 percent cut the figure would be far more than any
other country in the world—and would only be slightly less than
the war budgets of the Clinton administration.
No self-respecting Democrat would ever propose any kind of
substantial cut to the most profitable business on the planet
Earth. Anyone who even thought such a thing would be laughed out
of the Democratic Party. Here again, Sanders only proposes to
mildly pare back the absurdities of the last couple decades, to
put American imperialist capitalism on a stronger footing by
making it appear able to fix itself—without any fix involved.
Green New Deal
Not even under his Green New Deal plan does Sanders say anything
about cutting the military, even though the U.S. military is the
world’s largest polluter.
Any plan that does not begin with eliminating the world’s
largest polluter is a farce. Sanders talks a lot about “taking
on” the fossil fuel companies.
His Green New Deal plan says repeatedly that he will “end the
fossil fuel industry’s greed.” How does he plan to do it? By
nationalizing the energy industry and removing the profit motive?
Of course not.
The main thrust of Sanders’ plan is the introduction of strong
regulations and market-based reforms that will supposedly force
the fossil fuel industry to convert itself to green energy.
But the real con in Sanders’ rhetoric is the idea that the
Democratic Party, a party of the ruling class capitalist elites,
has any interest in ending the use of fossil fuels. There are
1.73 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world today,
and capitalism is incapable of doing anything but using its
already existing rigs and drills to get it out of the ground and
turn it into profit.
The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer (17.94 million
barrels per day, 18 percent of the world’s total production) and
largest oil consumer (19.69 million barrels per day, 20 percent
of total consumption—more than the next two, China and India,
combined). The U.S. is the world’s largest natural gas producer
and also has the largest oil refining capacity of any country.
All of these facts led the head of the International Energy
Agency in
2018 to project
that the U.S. will be the “undisputed global gas and oil leader”
for decades. Readers will forgive our irony in noting that this
top official declined to add that a Sanders election victory in
2020 would render his estimates inaccurate. In truth, Sanders’
much touted Green New Deal pledge to allocate
$16.3 trillion over the course of ten years to save the U.S.,
not to mention the earth itself, from climate Armageddon, is
sheer bluster and bluff, unless, of course, he contemplates the
abolition of capitalism itself, a proposition as absurd as the
rest of his “socialist” hoopla.
Much of U.S. warfare and trade policy is dedicated to securing
control of oil in the countries with the largest proven
reserves, such as Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Both
Democrats and Republicans have dutifully refused to commit to
any binding climate goals that might present even the smallest
threat to the mega-profits of the fossil-fuel companies. The
Obama administration ensured that the Paris Climate Agreement
was non-binding and therefore meaningless, while overseeing the
largest growth of fracking in U.S.
history, making the U.S. the world’s greatest fracker. Since the
Paris Climate Accords in 2015,
30 major banks have invested $1.9 trillion in fossil fuel
companies, knowing that their investment was more than safe.
Working-class politics: the only way
Millions of people in the United States are recognizing that
capitalism is at the heart of the problems that they face every
day and see around the world.
They believe that socialism would make things better, but they
aren’t exactly sure what makes socialism different from
capitalism. Some think of it as just a nicer form of capitalism.
The purpose of the Sanders campaign is to bring the confused and
disaffected back into the embrace of the Democratic Party.
Sanders is no socialist. He’s for keeping the ruling class in
power through the Democratic Party and maintaining the means of
production safely in the hands of the capitalists – while
fostering illusions of real change to make the workers feel a
little better about the whole thing in the hopes that they won’t
cause any trouble.
In sharp contrast to Bernie Sanders and the whole range of
today’s posturing Democratic Party contenders, the goals of
socialists and the means to achieve them are fundamentally at
odds with the rapacious capitalist system itself – a system of
war, racism, sexism, LGBTQI discrimination, environmental
destruction, and the ceaseless exploitation of human beings for the
profit of the few.
That is why socialists fight for working-class opposition to and
independence from all the institutional forms of ruling class
rule, beginning with their twin parties. The only way forward to
a just society – a truly socialist society – is to win ownership
and control of society’s wealth by the revolutionary action of
the working class itself. The prerequisite to achieving this is
the construction of a mass revolutionary socialist party fully
inclusive of the best fighters who have won the respect and
confidence of the vast working-class majority.
If working people who consider themselves socialists are
convinced to support Sanders based on the words he utters rather
than the class interests of the party he represents, they will
inevitably be disappointed with the end result – yet another
capitalist politician in power regardless of party, personality,
and populist-sounding rhetoric. On the other hand, if the
present broad interest in socialist ideas finds expression in
serious fighters for a better world, they will in time find their
way to Socialist Action. Join us!
Share:
list of 3 items
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share
on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to email this to a
friend (Opens in new window) list end January 14, 2020
in
Uncategorized.
article end
Related posts
article
05/may-2016-sanders
Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis article end
article 06/june-2016-grumpy-bernie
Bernie Sanders’ demise: What are the lessons?
article end
article
dreamers-of-the-world-unite
Dreamers of the world, unite!
article end
navigation region
Post navigation
← The Trump impeachment charade
navigation region end
main region end
Search for articles
Search
Get Involved!
list of 3 items
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
list end
Social Media
list of 2 items
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter list end
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
04/paper
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives
Select Month
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Create a website or blog at WordPress.com list of 1 items Follow
list end
:)
