Miriam wrote: "Sure, angry people can rise up, but the kind of power
that will be used against them is very different now."
It is not a matter of angry people rising up. Again, it is a matter of
taking steps to secure their rights and to defend themselves. Again,
when anyone sees that some people have power and privilege and use that
power to maintain that situation and to manipulate them a certain amount
of resentment builds up and the ones who do not have the power and
privilege will take steps, peaceful steps, to attain justice. Not only
is the effort peaceful, but it is most likely to be perfectly legal
according to the laws of their oppressors. Depending on how many people
are involved and depending on how much pressure is exercised it may even
have some success. In fact, the concessions and the take backs may
happen over a long period of time. But it is when enough success has
been accomplished by the seekers of justice that the people with the
power and privilege see that they are in actual danger of being deposed
that all hell breaks loose. The ones who are fighting for justice do not
want to be shot at. They do not seek to be shot at or to shoot other
people. But they do defend themselves when they are attacked and that is
when a revolution happens. There may be adventurists who try to
circumvent this process, but adventurist movements fail because they do
not have the masses behind them and the rulers can easily squash them.
As for the power that can be used against them, well, look at some of
the places in the world where armed conflict has broken out recently.
The Syrian rulers have some pretty impressive power to use too and they
have been using it, but a civil war still broke out. Of course it is not
and never was a socialist revolution, but, like I said, the revolution
is what is inevitable. It has to be made a socialist revolution if it is
going to be a socialist revolution. Look to Vietnam. Look to Algeria.
Look to Cuba. Look to the Congo. All relatively recent and with a lot of
deadly power to use against any revolution, but that did not stop the
revolution from happening. It is kind of like having a hurricane bearing
down on you. You can't stop it. It is going to be destructive whether
you like it or not. But those who prepare for it fare better than those
who claim that hurricanes are impossible and do nothing about it. And a
hurricane is not an uprising by angry people or angry forces of nature.
___
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 things are very different now than they were. Sure, angry people can riseup, but the kind of power that will be used against them is very 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 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.
of revolutions have happened throughout history. We can look at them 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 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.
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 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
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.
___
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 4/8/2021 4:44 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
episodes, is worker cooperatives. Now we have a bit of a problem the 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.What 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
everyone an employee of the state because it is a long range goal to actually
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 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
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.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
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, 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.
