Miriam wrote: "First is, I don't think there is one monolithic ruling
class. I do think there are ruling elites whose interests sometimes
combine and sometimes, don't."
Just how many times have I said that there are factions and varying
interests in the ruling class? Just how many times have I pointed out
that members of the ruling class compete with one another? Under
capitalism that competition is for profits and they will cut each
other's throats for a bigger share of the profits. Never have I said
that a ruling class is monolithic. Honestly, Miriam, if you want to
refute me then at least refute something I actually said rather than
something that has nothing to do with anything I have said.
___
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 5:17 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Interesting. I'm a bit confused. I thought scientific method works mosteffectively within the physical sciences. I know that anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science are categorized as social sciences, but really, they're hardly exact sciences. They are descriptive and helpful, but to me, they seem really different from the physical sciences in their accuracy. But I certainly don't claim expertise. in this. I'm just recounting what I've observed. And as for the ruling class having always functioned in the same manner in relation to the working class, I have issues with that idea. First is, I don't think there is one monolithic ruling class. I do think there are ruling elites whose interests sometimes combine and sometimes, don't. Second, I think that people are divided according to history, culture, and religion so they don't always respond in the same way. But as American commercial culture has begun to be dominant throughout the world, large numbers of poor and working people have been seduced by it. I also think that TV and the internet and the social media platforms have a great deal more power over people than past kinds of mass communication did and I also think that changes in technology, specifically artificial intelligence, gives whoever controls it, much more power than people who used swords or guns to fight wars, had.
But, again, Marx never did lay out an unalterable doctrine that claimed to be
I can see that Marxism provides patterns. So did Freudian theory. If one is an
adherant to either theory, one can see its workings in everyday life. But if
one is a good Christian, Jew, or Muslim, one can also see evidence of one's
beliefs in every day life. One can always see evidence of what one knows to be
true.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 3:53 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: today's episode of Economic Update
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.
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 ifthe 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?
to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if
___
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
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 4/9/2021 9:46 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
catastrophe or threatened by nuclear weapons."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
or barbarism, but socialism or extinction.
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
the population hadn't been so thoroughly manipulated by the mass media and Big
___
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.up, but the kind of power that will be used against them is very
But things are very different now than they were. Sure, angry people
can rise
different now 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
that I did not study Marxist theory when I was in college though. I also neverMiriamof revolutions have happened throughout history. We can look at them
-----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
and see 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
balance___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite
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.between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of allnew ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension.
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness
But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one
4:44 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is rulingworld. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
the
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
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:episodes, is worker cooperatives. Now we have a bit of a problem theWhat 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
name 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___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite
balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny
of all
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.
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 eitherYou 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, 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.
