Here you go missing the whole point of Marxism again. Of course there
are a lot of things that Marx did not foresee and could not have
foreseen. But, again, Marx never did lay out an unalterable doctrine
that claimed to be absolute truth. Again, a lot of philosophers and
political theoreticians had envisioned what a perfect society would look
like before Marx was ever born. Again, Marx advocated for scientific
method to be used to achieve that kind of society. Scientific method is
also not a religious doctrine that claims to be absolute truth either.
With scientific method if a theory or hypothesis is shown to be wrong it
must be discarded. Marx did study history and observed the patterns in
history and offered that up as a starting point for the scientific
endeavor he proposed. He turned out to be amazingly correct about how
history progresses too because it is still progressing just as he
described it. So what if he didn't know about television and cell phones
and radio and things like that. He did know about how ruling classes
control the mass media. In his time the mass media was newspapers and
publishers. So what if the instruments of dissemination of this mass
media has changed. It is still controlled by the ruling class and it is
controlled in the same way that it was controlled in Marx's time. That
does nothing to change the fact that class contradiction continues to
exist and the class struggle continues to operate. If someone is being
exploited then what difference does it really make that he is hearing
that he is not exploited on a television rather than in a newspaper?
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some
tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes,
whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical,
then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on
the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility
and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot
distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl Sagan
On 4/9/2021 9:46 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
All I meant is that there's very little time and also, that these are things
that Marx could not have foreseen, just like he couldn't have foreseen that
everyone would be carrying mini computers in their pockets by which they
communicate and on which the governments could spy on whatever plans they were
making. He knew about how people could be influenced by the written word, but
he had no idea how powerful TV and the social media are in manipulating
people's behavior.
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, April 8, 2021 9:53 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: today's episode of Economic Update
Miriam wrote: "And in the past, society wasn't on the brink of climate catastrophe
or threatened by nuclear weapons."
I am not sure why you mention that. Do you think that these close at
hand disasters somehow make revolution impossible even though they just
keep happening around the world anyway? Or do you think that being on
the brink of disaster somehow makes socialism undesirable? It looks to
me like it is just the opposite. Marx said that it was a choice between
socialism or barbarism. That was itself an acknowledgement that a
revolution does not make socialism inevitable. It could very well lead
to a regression in social and economic evolution to an earlier state of
existence like barbarism. There are things going on now that Marx did
not foresee, though, and you just pointed them out. It might very well
now be that we face not socialism or barbarism, but socialism or extinction.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some
tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes,
whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical,
then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on
the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility
and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot
distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl Sagan
On 4/8/2021 9:04 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I understand what you are saying and what you've said in the past. But thingsup, but the kind of power that will be used against them is very different now
are very different now than they were. Sure, angry people can rise
than in the past because of advances in technology. The uprisings can be
averted before they even begin. And in the past, society wasn't on the brink of
climate catastrophe or threatened by nuclear weapons. History can tell us about
human behavior but it can't predict outcomes. And in
the past, the organizing was more effective because the population hadn't
been so thoroughly manipulated by the mass media and Big Tech as it is now.
Just look at the numbers that the tiny fragmented socialist parties are
reaching. I understand your loyalty to the ideas. But my pessimism, or
is it realism?, tells me that the outcome for which you hope and that people
are working for, just isn't in the cards.
Miriamof revolutions have happened throughout history. We can look at them and see
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 8:22 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: today's episode of Economic Update
Revolutions are inevitable though. We have the historical record that shows it.
And it is not just that the historical record shows that a bunch
under what circumstances they occurred and what led up to them. We can see that
it is always a matter of a class exploiting another class and as long as that
happens the resentments will build up to make more revolutions happen. So,
again as I have explained so many times, it is not a matter of organizing the
workers to have a socialist revolution. It is a matter of organizing the
workers when there is a revolution to make it a socialist revolution. That is
another lesson we can learn from history. Not
every revolution against capital is a socialist revolution. In order for it to
be a socialist revolution there has to be a movement to make it a socialist
revolution. But the revolution itself is not something that happens at the
direction of anyone. A lot of people have to participate, but it may as well be
regarded as a act of nature in that no one actually wants a revolution and all
the destruction that it entails. They want their rights and then they want to
defend themselves. By the way, you mentioned
that you didn't study Marxist theory in college because of the times when
you attended college. Let me say that I never took a college course that
covered Marxist theory either. That is not to say that I did not study Marxist
theory when I was in college though. I also never took a college class on
evolutionary biology even if evolutionary biology was an underlying assumption
in all my college biology classes. But I still graduated from college knowing
quite a bit about both evolutionary biology and Marxism. Sometimes when they
are not teaching what you want to learn you just have to learn it on your own.
That's what libraries are good for.
new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between
two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are
served up to us and at the same time a great openness
are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is,
you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it
through to you. You never learn anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling theworld. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and
then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark,
valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about
everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be
standing in the way of understanding and progress. On the other hand, if you
are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense
in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ―
Carl Sagan On 4/8/2021 4:44 PM,
Miriam Vieni wrote:
episodes, is worker cooperatives. Now we have a bit of a problem the nameWhat he didn't talk about, is how to get from where we are to what he's
describing. And all he was talking about, and has talked about in other
of which, is reality. We are living in a world ruled by multi national
corporations that control nations which have military power. So talking about
organizing workers in order to have a socialist revolution, does not appear to
me to be realistic. I think it is a beautiful dream, kind of like the kingdom
of heaven.
everyone an employee of the state because it is a long range goal to actuallyMiriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: today's episode of Economic Update
I have not listened to that episode that you refer to, but based on what you
say you have learned from it that is what I have been trying to tell you all
along. For one thing, of course it is not a program for making
abolish the state.
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between
two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if
you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re
in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through
to you. You never learn anything new.
mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skepticalYou become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world.
(There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe
once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the
about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will
be standing in the way of understanding and progress. On the other hand, if you
are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense
in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ―
Carl Sagan On 4/8/2021 1:10 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
about, today.Richard Wolff described his understanding of Marxism in this episode
and I'd suggest that anyone who has read Marx, listen to what he says.
I have not read Marxist theory, or perhaps I read samples of it in
college courses. But given the fact that I attended college from 1955
to 1959 while the cold war was at the center of our country's
consciousness, it's doubtful. As Wolff remarks, he studied Economics
and History at three Ivy League colleges and his highly competent
professors wouldn't touch the subject with a ten foot pole. However,
what I learned today from Wolff is that the theory focuses on the
class conflict that is inherent in the capitalist workplace and the
solution implied, is worker cooperatives rather than
employer/employee arrangements. The theory does not involve state
socialism because if the state is the employer, the same
employer/employee conflict may result. It has nothing to do with government
control or government ownership. That is what Economic Update was
Miriam.