This is all speculation of course, but I'm not so sure that the capitalists
would destroy each other if state regulation were lacking.
I think what is more likely would be a few monopolies, perhaps by geographic
sector, probably by economic sector. They'd probably collude on prices, and
agree on terms so conflict is kept within reasonable bounds. Perhaps
something like the balance of power agreements before World War I. After
all, who's going to make any money if they destroy each other?
We don't have any economic sectors with no regulation, but we do have some
with little regulation, and you can see what happens. The so-called FAANGs,
FaceBook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. They have very high market
shares in their economic sectors, and they are very lightly regulated. And,
whatever capitalists say about believing in competition when they're small
or have a small market share, they seem to change their minds when they are
on top. Venture capitalists now speak of what they call "kill zones" around
companies like FaceBook and Amazon, where, if a potential competitor does
arise, it's either bought or the big guy copies the idea and then there's no
hope for the upstart. So competition is anulled. Of course, potential
investors, knowing about these "kill zones" are less likely to invest in a
potential competitor to begin with, so competition doesn't even get a chance
to start.
I think what you'd see with no regulation is something like this, even more
so.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: waiting for the Rapture
Libertarian capitalism is a contradiction in terms. A better name is
right-wing libertarians or, even better, right-wing so-called
libertarians. And it is too bad that the right-wingers commandeered the
word libertarians from the anarchists. The word libertarian is a word
traditionally used by the anarchists to describe themselves and I also
think it is too bad that most of the people on this list seem to think
that the word libertarian applies to only the right-wing libertarians as
if the anarchists, the left-wing libertarians don't exist. The word
libertarian was used by the anarchists because they profess to be in
favor of human freedom. Technically speaking I am a libertarian too, but
I rarely use that word to describe myself because it is so associated
with anarchists or with right-wing libertarians. But it is the
anarchists who gave the word the connotation of being against government
because that is exactly what anarchism is all about. They are also
against capitalism, but I think they have gotten the relationship
between capital and the state backward. From the anarchist perspective
the cause of capitalism or any other form of class society is the state
itself. To just the cursory glance it does appear that way. If you are
for freedom the obvious target is the state because that is the
apparatus that makes laws that tell people what they can and cannot do
and it controls the instruments of violence, the police and the
military, that enforce the laws made by the state. The state also has
laws that govern corporations and other capitalist entities and so it
looks like the capitalists are under its control too. Thus, from the
anarchist perspective the abolition of the state would abolish
capitalism at the same time. With no laws or law enforcement everyone
could just organize themselves into a cooperative society and the
capitalists would have no leverage to make the workers subject to them.
This is not entirely incorrect, but there is no abolition of the state
without abolishing capitalism first. It is not the state that engenders
capitalism, but capitalism that engenders the state. The capitalists
need an apparatus to, for one thing, regulate their dealings with each
other. I am getting to the right-wing libertarians, but if they had it
their way and there was no state to regulate the capitalists then the
capitalists would destroy each other by both competition and sabotage.
They claim to love competition, but the competition they would face if
there was no regulatory system would be very dangerous for them. If you
abolish capitalism first, though, there would not be much reason for the
state to continue to exist. Referring back to Lenin, yes, it is
necessary for the state to continue to exist as long as there are
capitalists and others who benefit from capitalism because without a
system to suppress the deposed class the deposed class would just
reestablish itself and reestablish their own state in an instant. But
once capitalism has been done away with and there are no more
capitalists and everyone is working in a mutually beneficial system then
just who is the state going to administer? As Lenin put it, again, the
state would gradually transform into an apparatus that administered
things rather than people and would become pretty much the way the
anarchists wanted it all along. Somehow, though, this anti-state
position was adopted by some people who have no concern for class or
cooperation. These are the right-wing libertarians. They claim that the
relationship between the owners and the workers is a free association.
After all, if a worker is dissatisfied with his employer he can just
quit, can't he? The trouble with this is that if he wants to be
something other than destitute he has to be either an owner or a
producer and if he has no capital of his own at all he has to sell his
own labor in order to make a living. So, yes, he can quit and sell his
labor to another owner, but is a slave really free just because he can
choose a master? The right-wing libertarians want to abolish the state,
or at least minimize it, and if they get what they want they will find
that the big profits they think they will gain will disappear in an
anarchic competitive mess.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10:55 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Greetings All Lovers and Peacemakers,
Actually there was a period of time in my exploratory past, when I
accepted the Word of God, the Holy Bible, a total Truth. And so, I
watched events in the Middle East, waiting for the Bear and the Eagle
to clash and send us into the End Times. At 30 years of age I quit
waiting and watching. I decided to "move on". And here I am!
Sounding somewhat like a blend of Karl Marx and a Birch Bark Canoe.
Someone, Roger I believe, wrote, "capitalism is an exploitative
system by definition". While I go to Webster often, mostly I define
what's going on around me by the end result.
What I see of Libertarian capitalism is the "Safe House" for Greed
unbridled. Most of the self proclaimed Libertarians I know are self
serving Capitalists. In practice, regardless of any claims to the
contrary, manipulating the world to benefit personal goals, is what
it's all about. Donald Trump is a classic example. I wish we could
stop calling Donald Trump a liar. He is a manipulator, and he will
say and do whatever he needs to say or do in order to gain his goal.
As a Libertarian Capitalist, Donald Trump will use the Media to get
out his stories, then damn the Media as Fake News. He can declare
that we must unite as a nation, while he is trashing his opposition,
or declaring that certain groups are being infiltrated by enemy
operatives. He can recount all of his accomplishments while still
failing to force Mexico to build the Wall. On and on, and none of it
bothers Donald Trump, because he is still sitting on the Throne. The
company Donald Trump keeps has not changed since the Civil War. What
has changed is the People's Response. During the late 1800's and
early 1900's, the Working Class understood that there was power in
numbers. Of course the Bosses understood this, too. And so the
struggle to organize began. As Labor Unions gained strength in
numbers, they had a measure of power over the Bosses.
While our history books describe these battles and the Bosses efforts
to undermine the Unions, something else was going on. The American
People were being overwhelmed by the propaganda of the American
Corporate Empire. The American People were being
trained...conditioned to think and act like their Bosses. Our heroes
shifted from Paul Bunyan and Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone and Joe
Hill and Eugene Debs, to J. P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Rockefeller. The
self-made man, as defined by his wealth. From our Public Education to
our "liberal press" the bosses had control. And they have used it to
transform us into little lookalikes.
Too many of us are now, "wannabees".
Along with our impact on our environment, it will be interesting to
see if we have the ability to once again unite and take control of our
lives.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/29/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Libertarian capitalism cannot achieve the goal of maximizing man's power
over nature and minimizing man's power over man simply because
capitalism is an exploitative system by definition. That is like asking
if you can extend someone's life by electrocuting him in an electric
chair. You cannot steal labor value from people and pretend that you are
granting them freedom. Well, on the other hand, I suppose you can
pretend. They pretend it all the time. But it can't be done. But again,
science has nothing to do with whether you should do something or not.
It has to do with facilitating your doing it. If libertarian capitalists
apply scientific method to what they really are doing they are being
scientific. But I happen to think the would also be using science to
accomplish anti-humanist goals.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/28/2018 10:39 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, so if libertarian capitalism were to achieve the goal of
maximizing our power over nature, and minimizing man's power over man,
would that be considered Marxism?
Now we don't currently have anything like libertarian capitalism, but
the version of capitalism we have right now has gone much farther in
increasing our power over nature than any other economic system
previously tried. It would be ironic if the zenith of capitalism
turned out to achieve the goals of Marxism. If he were a real
scientist, then he should have no objection to that.
As for being close to infallible, he thought the revolution would come
in his lifetime. In 1857 in fact.
You should move on. Most of humanity already has.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Marx was most certainly extremely influential. I suppose we will have to
wait a couple thousand years to see if he was as influential as Jesus or
Mohammad. And as anathema as I find religion it is a case of objective
reality that those religious leaders were extremely influential. But
there is no such thing as a secular religion. The phrase is
contradictory. I suppose that there are people who look to Marx as
infallible and so far he has come pretty close to being just that. That
probably has a lot to do with how he became so influential. But if you
regard Marx as infallible then you are not a Marxist. He analyzed
capitalist economics and he made predictions that did come true and
there were some things that he did not foresee and could not have
foreseen that pushed other predictions off to the future and that have
also required further analysis by his successors. But when it comes to
the goals that he set out your demand for prediction does not really
apply. I am not really so sure that it is all that important in any
scientific endeavor. In an investigative science you make hypotheses
which I suppose you can call predictions. Then you test them and show
that they are either true or false. If your hypothesis is false that
does not mean that you were not being scientific. The point of
conducting the experiment is to find out if it was correct or not. Using
scientific method in order to achieve a goal is another matter though.
Anyone can use scientific method for that purpose, even capitalists. The
CEO of a company may set a goal for his company to make X number of
sales in the next quarter. If this goal is approached scientifically
that means that objective reality is recognized and that may mean that
the history of sales under similar conditions may be looked at. The
methods that caused the sale goal to be accomplished in the past may be
considered and when failures have been made that should be considered
too. But it is hardly ever possible to know every possible variable and
so if all the employees act according to the sales theory the goal may
not be accomplished. In that case it is necessary to figure out what
went wrong and incorporate that information into formulating a more
refined sales theory. This process does have its failures, but that does
not invalidate that it was scientific or that it should be thrown out
entirely. Marxism applies the same process to another goal. Now, let me
remind you what that goal is. When Trotsky was asked about it he said
that our goal is the maximization of man's power over nature and the
minimization of man's power over man. Now just how can we tell when that
goal has been reached? Can it ever be reached? Is there ever a time that
we will be able to say that we have manipulated reality to the point
that no further manipulation will bring about any further freedom? That
would mean that we knew everything there is to know about reality and so
far every time we have discovered something about reality that was not
known before that discovery has opened whole new questions about reality
that were not even thought of before. Does that mean that the objective
quest to understand reality is not scientific? Furthermore, is
capitalist economics has been analyzed, even very thoroughly, and there
is more to be investigated does that mean that the original analysis was
not scientific? I think it is important to recognize science as the
objective study of reality by objective methods rather than to repeat
the step by step simplistic algorithm that you are taught in high
school. And, then again, science is as neutral about human endeavor as
it can be. We have to decide what we want to accomplish with the
information we gain with science and use that information to achieve our
goals. Science doesn't care if we do or not. It is our tool to use.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/28/2018 3:38 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Well, I would agree with some of this. I am certainly a humanist, and
indeed, Marxism is a product of humanism.
Also, I am a materialist, and Marxist is assumes materialism.
But there are a couple of problems with the idea that Marxism is
scientific.
Firstly, the followers of Marx didn't treat it as a science. They
treated
Marx as a religious figure. I can't say it any better than Peter
Singer did
in his book, Marx: A Very Short Introduction, so I will quote him:
"Marx's Impact can only be compared with that of religious figures like
Jesus or Muhammad.
For much of the second half of the twentieth century, nearly four out of
every ten
people on earth lived under governments that considered themselves
Marxist
and claimed
- however Implausibly - to use Marxist principles to decide how the
nation
should
be run. In these countries Marx was a kind of secular Jesus; his
writings
were the
ultimate source of truth and authority; his image was everywhere
reverently
displayed.
Does that sound like a scientist?
The second problem is that a real science makes testable predictions,
and if
they are correct, then the scientific theory is valid. So let's say that
Marxism is in fact a scientific theory. And further, let's say that
it makes
testable predictions. When the resentment of the oppressed class
reaches a
sufficient level blah blah.
So how have those predictions turned out? Even you say that there is no
Communism anywhere on Earth. The closest to it is Cuba, which is
socialist.
The Communist manifesto was published 170 years ago. Since Communism has
been tried, or at least those who took power in various nations said
that's
what they believed in, (I have my doubts), but let's grant that they
were
all honest and really wanted to implement Communism. So what
happened? The
scientific theory turned out to be wrong.
So how has it been modified since then? You don't seem to quote anybody
except these old guys, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, who, in the case of
Marx, was
the original creator of the theory, or, in the case of the others, were
part of those failed implementations of the theory.
You have told me to think outside the box. I think you are in a box
that was
created in the 19th century, and has failed to deliver what it
claimed to be
able to deliver. Maybe you should let it go. Few people take it
seriously
anymore.
True, as Singer says, Marxism's impact on humanity is the equal of
that of
the most influential religious leaders. He did indeed have a tremendous
impact on thinking about economics, his ideas brought about modern
sociology. I don't dismiss his influence on many aspects of modern
society.
But that doesn't mean we have to believe everything he said, just as
we do
not have to believe what those religious leaders said either, especially
when it turns out that they were wrong about something, just as Marx
clearly
is about the historical process of the arrival of Communism.
You explain this maximum capacity of production concept as when the
revolution is most likely to break out. You have it exactly wrong, or
rather
Marx does. It is when capitalism is at its booming best that the
revolution
is least likely to occur because people are living as well or better
than
they have before. It is when capitalism is in trouble that people get
restive because their quality of life is threatened. The reason
Communism is
nowhere to be found is because, despite its many imperfections,
capitalism
has delivered more to humanity than Communism. The modern capitalist
system
has given a higher standard of living to more people, billions in
fact, than
any other economic system in all history. That is why few people really
believe in Marxism anymore. Even those regimes, such as China or
Vietnam,
which still use the word "Communism" in their vocabulary don't
believe in it
anymore.
So, I will be generous, for the sake of discussion, and grant that
Marxism
is scientific. However, as you say, a real science must modify its
theories
when the predictions of those theories don't pan out. Marx's predictions
haven't panned out. So where are the modifications?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, first let me explain maximum capacity. Capitalism is subject to a
boom and bust cycle. Because the capitalists are always striving for
maximum profit they try to extract the maximum amount of labor out of
their workers that they can and that tends to result in overproduction.
That is, they make more than they can sell. Then when they can't sell
they scale back. It is when the overproduction is at its height in most
all of the competing businesses and when the capitalists are trying to
expand their markets outside of their own country that maximum
production has been reached. That is an ideal time to transition to
socialism because there is simply plenty of goods to distribute while
the new order is being constructed and transitioned to. Now, simply
claiming that something is pseudoscientific without understanding what
the basis of claiming it to be scientific is rather unscientific itself.
Here is how Marxism is scientific. Before Marx there were many
philosophers who postulated what they thought a perfect society would
look like. Most of them just wrote treatises or novels without making an
effort to bring it about or even formulating a way to bring it about.
Some of them founded utopian communities that most often lasted no
longer than their founders did. Some had a little more staying power and
I am thinking of the Shakers, but they did themselves in by prohibiting
reproduction and relied on recruiting orphans. Foster care really wiped
them out. But it is interesting that most all of these postulated
societies looked a lot alike. They can be lumped together as utopian
socialism. I would suggest the book, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
by Frederik Engels to learn a lot about the difference between
scientific and utopian socialism. The main problem with utopian
socialism, even the varieties that were put in practice was that there
was no program to transform society as a whole. They seemed to think
that they were doing something great by just withdrawing from society
and living a so-called superior lifestyle. Then along came Marx who
founded scientific socialism. The scientific method had been around for
a long time before he came along, so it is a bit surprising that no one
had proposed this before. But the point was to look at the real world as
it really is and that includes the real world as it has been
historically. Then take note of how great social and economic changes
happened before and what they resulted in and why they resulted in what
they resulted in. That is, the first step is to assess objective
reality. It is necessary to realize that the way any of us, individually
or collectively, get what we want is to manipulate reality. Praying
doesn't do it. Incantations don't do it. Magic doesn't do it. It is
reality that must be manipulated. And then every time we manipulate
reality we change reality and have to reassess it. There is also the
problem that it is not possible to know every aspect of reality and so
any manipulation stands the chance of resulting in unexpected
consequences that have to be accounted for in the next assessment. But
the assessment has to be made in the first place. Once the assessment of
reality is made then based on that assessment we then have to make
theories based on reality and apply those theories. Once the theories
have been applied we have to examine the new state of reality and assess
where we went wrong and where we went right and develop new theories
accordingly. The goal is socialism and communism beyond that. That means
that we assess reality insofar as how much progress we have made toward
that goal. You might say that each application of theory is an
experiment and the development of new theories is done according to the
outcome of the experiments. Now, I want to say that even as I was
writing this I understood that I was giving a wrong impression because I
was describing the process linearly. That is because I am a bit
constricted by the language. In practice it is not a simple matter of
step one followed by step two followed by step three and so forth. That
is because reality changes on a minute by minute basis and on a second
by second basis and on a basis of even smaller measures of time. We do
not have the ability to effect change and formulate new theories on such
an incremental scale, but we have to understand that the reality we are
working in and our goals are all moving targets. That means that the
assessments, the reassessments, the theorizing and the actions are all
taking place at the same time. But the important point is to recognize
reality. Science is the study of reality. Reality is too vast and
complex to fathom all at once and so the study of reality is a never
ending process. Science in and of itself is a neutral thing too. It does
not include value judgements like what is the desired kind of society.
That kind of thing has to be arrived at by other philosophical means.
The philosophical basis for Marxism is humanism. If you are a humanist
then you see humanity as the ultimate and you adjust your behavior to
effect whatever is best for humanity and even the word best is subject
to your philosophical foundations. There are a good many subdivisions of
humanism too. Marxism falls into secular humanism. That is, humanity is
considered the ultimate without regard to religious or other idealist
considerations. Secular humanism is also divided into other
subphilosophies too, but there is no point just now to drill down into
exactly which subdivisions Marxism belongs to. But to be scientific it
must be secular and it must be materialist. What the science does,
though is not to determine just why humanity should be the ultimate nor
why any particular action should be moral or immoral. The neutral
science is only used as a tool to get what we want. It helps us to
decide which actions we should take in order to move closer to our
goals. Pseudoscience is a different matter. Pseudoscience is idealist
philosophy dressed up to look like science. Astrology is an example. It
uses lots of charts and lists of data which look like tools that a real
science uses, but it is not the least based on objective observation and
it does not recognize that new things can be found out about the reality
in which it functions and thereby cause the astrological theory to
change. For that matter, it does not even recognize the precession of
the Earth and so the astrological charts are about a couple of thousand
years out of date and as a result the sun sign you may have been taught
that you were born under is about a month off. Alchemy is also a
pseudoscience. It uses reagents and laboratory glassware and so gives
the impression of something like the science of chemistry, but then
relies on the same kind of static assumptions that astrology does.
Marxism is dynamic, though, and recognizes the possibility of being
wrong at every turn and then deals with the objective reality that
results when it does turn out to be wrong. It is not a precise science
like physics or chemistry are though. All science has to deal with
variables because reality is in a constant state of change, but in
something like chemistry you can count on the mixing of certain reagents
to result in the same chemical reaction every time. In Marxism the
experiments are much slower in being made and every time they are made
the conditions change considerably before the next experiment can be
done. Instead of taking a precise action under a precise set of
conditions and observing a precise outcome that can be repeated exactly
the next time it is necessary to take similar actions under similar
conditions and observe the similar results and explain the dissimilar
results. That does not mean that it is a pseudoscience. It just means
that it is a science in which it is a lot harder to get precise answers.
Still, though, the recognition of objective reality, the action on
objective reality and the objective consideration of results is what
makes it a science. Sometimes I think of psychology as a pseudo science.
But it is not really a pseudoscience. I think psychoanalysis is though.
I am inclined to think that talk psychotherapy is a pseudoscience too.
But psychology as a whole is actually scientific. Its problem is that it
is also a science that is not as precise as the so-called hard sciences.
The results are harder to trust and may change under differing
conditions. But that does not mean that psychological researchers do not
recognize reality and investigate it objectively. The same applies to
Marxism.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/27/2018 10:52 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It is scientific to make historical observations, note
commonalities, and then recognize what human behaviors lead to those
commonalities. The corruption of the Soviet revolution may have had
unique conditions, but so does every historical event. I'm sure one
could explain the objective conditions of Mao's corruption of the
Communist revolution in China. But the underlying cause was the
same. Ditto for Pol Pot.
Besides, Marxism isn't even scientific. It is pseudoscientific at
best. Some call it more of a religion with some justification.
Humans are under the control of historical forces rather than being
under the control of a deity, but the underlying mode of thinking is
the same.
Just one example: What is this "maximum capacity of production" you
refer to? Is that the maximum capacity of production on the planet,
the solar system, or the galaxy? Even if you want to restrict this
maximum capacity of production to the planet, how much of the
planet's material would have to be involved before this maximum
capacity has been reached? The entire surface? All the material down
to what depth? There's no such thing as a "maximum capacity of
production". It's not a scientific concept.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:21 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
You might want to consider the objective conditions that lead to the
corruption of a revolutionary state rather than just assume that
corruption is as natural as the sunrise. In the case of the Soviet
Union
I would refer you to a book by Leon Trotsky entitled The Revolution
Betrayed. He offers an analysis of what went wrong. First, Russia was
not the ideal place to have a socialist revolution. Marx himself had
said that it would be better to wait until capitalism had reached a
maximum capacity of production. However, as I have explained, we
just do
not have the fine control to decide when to have a revolution and when
to wait. If we had control of social forces that precise we could just
skip revolution altogether and start building a new socialist society
without it. As I have also explained, that is the way we would really
prefer it. But again, revolution is like a natural disaster. When it
comes we have to deal with it and try to control it as well as possible
in order to get the best outcome that we can. The reason Russia was not
the best place to have a socialist revolution was that it was still
economically backwards. Germany or England would have been much better
choices. Russia had an underdeveloped capitalist economy and was still
largely under the influence of the remnants of feudalism. The serfs had
been freed by an earlier tsar, but without an effort to educate them
and
to relieve them of the effective enslavement they labored under there
was simply no yeomanry to work with. Then, Russia had just been
involved
in the greatest interimperialist war that had ever been fought. It was
such a large conflagration that it had earned a name that had not been
applied to any other war, the world war. This Russian participation in
that war had pretty much devastated the Russian economy by itself and
Russia was far from free of physical destruction. When the bolsheviks
took power they immediately unilaterally withdrew Russia from the war,
but undoing the damage was not so easy. Then tsarist forces and the
white Russians rather objected to the bolshevik government too and
waged
civil war against it. Well, what does more war do after just getting
out
of another war? It causes even more destruction. So we had a new
revolutionary government that was dedicated to equality for all, but
there was not enough to go around for all. If all the consumer goods
and
food that was available was distributed to everyone equally then
everyone would have been destitute and starving. As hard as it was to
make such decisions it was necessary to prioritize distribution and
production too. Then there was the problem of who was going to do the
distributing. If there is not enough to go around for all and you
are in
charge of the distribution then, of course, you are going to include
yourself and your family in a high priority category. This created an
instant privileged layer in the economy. Then along came Stalin. I have
some suspicions about his having been a clinical sociopath and a
solopsist, but whether that is true or not he was a very strong
authoritarian with his own ideas of how the social system should be
arranged and he had no scruples about forcing it no matter what
obstacles were in the way. He tried to rebuild the Russian productive
capacity by brute force without any regard to other things that should
have been taken care of. By decree he rescinded very many gains of the
revolution to suit himself. But on what basis did he rest his power? It
was upon that privileged caste that had been born as the layer who had
been in charge of distribution. They had accrued power and could
lose it
very easily and if they lost it it would not be like just having to get
a new job with lower pay. Stalin rewarded them and severely threatened
them at the same time and so was able to consolidate his own power. By
the way, it did take some consolidation too. Despite the image you have
probably absorbed from capitalist depictions of the Soviet Union he did
not instantly become the absolute dictator. Eventually he did
essentially do that, but for some time his position was pretty
perilous.
I could go on about how he distorted the whole world communist movement
and subordinated it to his theory of socialism in one country and made
foreign communist parties instruments of his own foreign policy. I
could
go on about a lot of nefarious things he did. But suffice it to say
that
the rise of Stalinism was a complete betrayal of the communist
movement.
The task of the uncorrupted communists became examining where the
Russian revolution went wrong and being careful to not repeat the
mistakes that led to Stalinism. This objective examination is all part
of being scientific socialists. Of course it is still necessary to take
whatever revolution you can get, but if you get one in a country
that is
less than ideal it is still well to examine the specifics of what went
wrong in Russia. What you should not do is to ignore the objective
conditions and just make pronouncements like it is just human nature to
be corrupted by power. It is more of a matter that already being
corrupt
makes one strive for personal power. But one really should not just
ignore the objective causes for things going wrong. That falls far
short
of being scientific.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/26/2018 11:30 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, well, the problem arises when those who are running the state
get corrupted by power; and we've seen that that is what happens
more often than not. I'm being generous here. It would be more
accurate to say that that is what happens pretty much all the time.
That being the case, it is hardly a plausible notion that the state
will stop oppressing, as you put it: "When objective conditions
ease to the point that there s is not possibility that these
regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for then the
state can start withering away, ..."
What is overwhelmingly more likely to happen, and which history
will verify ad nauseam is that the state will go on oppressing just
for the sake of oppressing, because the people running it have
gotten corrupted by power. They will invent new class enemies, new
regressive forces, scapegoats for why things haven't turned out as
well as was promised, et cetera, et cetera, and the whole sorry
cycle will repeat itself.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As a matter of fact, upon the completion of a revolution the oppressed
class does become the ruling class. I would recommend that you read
State and Revolution by Vladimir I. Lenin to learn how the dynamics of
this process plays out. That book was written as a polemic against the
anarchists who wanted to just abolish the state by decree upon the
triumph of the revolution and Lenin explained that would be throwing
away the entire revolution and all of its gains. The reason is that
civil war or not and winning the civil war or not it is impossible to
kill each and every person who benefited from the old order. Let's
look
at what the state is. Lenin explained this, but if you read Hobbs you
will see that he was well aware of it too. The state is an
apparatus by
which one class exercises power over another class by means of
violence
or the threat of violence. The armed forces and the police force
are the
instruments of violence that the state uses to wield that violence. If
you don't believe this just try to defy the state. Pick out a minor
crime against bourgeois law. Make sure you are observed violating it
because it is possible to get away with minor crimes if you are
careful.
Try, say, jaywalking in front of a cop. When he tries to give you a
ticket tell him that you do not recognize the authority of his
government nor his authority either. Then when he arrests you
resist the
arrest. Defy the power of the state at every turn. When you are
taken to
court repeat that you do not recognize the court's authority and
try to
walk out. When you are taken to jail do your best to escape.
Continue to
resist and defy at every turn and just see how long it takes for
you to
get shot. Anyway, abolishing the state by decree would mean abolishing
all armed forces and police and to do so right after the
revolution. If
you do that the very next thing that will happen is that the people
who
benefited from the old order will instantly reestablish the state
again
and the revolutionary struggle you just went through will be instantly
defeated and you will be worse off than you were before the revolution
even got started. You will be worse off because you can't really
expect
that your enemies will not want to take some revenge. What happens is
that the class that was formally oppressed forms its own state and
then
proceeds to oppressed the former oppressors. As time passes this can
ease off but as long as there are regressive forces about both
domestic
and foreign who would reestablish their own form of a state as soon as
you abolish yours then you have to maintain the workers state. When
objective conditions ease to the point that there s is not possibility
that these regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for
then
the state can start withering away, as Lenin put it He then said that
the state will gradually cease to administer people and will start
administering things. By things he meant commodities and services that
are necessary to human needs and comfort. When it administers only
things it is no longer a state.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/25/2018 11:54 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, I've heard this scenario before, and just for the sake of
discussion, I'll grant its vallidity.
The problem is what happens after the revolution of the oppressed
class. From the many examples we have seen, what always happens is
that the formerly oppressed class simply becomes the new ruling
class, and the cycle starts all over again. I could go into a long
litany of revolutions, some called themselves Communist, some
called themselves Socialist, where this has been played out, but I
don't think I need to.
When I asked you where this has been tried and how it worked out,
the only example you mentioned was Cuba. And even there, how much
freedom do the people have? When was the last time they were
permitted to choose their leaders? How much criticism of their
government are they permitted?
The reason for this is that dominance hierarchies are wired into
our genetics. You can see it in our chimp relatives and ape
ancestors. It goes back much farther than that into our mammalian
ancestry though. Until or unless humans get a genetic makeover,
the notion of a classless society will always remain a pipe dream.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:58 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, let me explain the inevitability of revolution in more
detail. In
a class society the people who find themselves in the oppressed
classes
will resent this. Despite the fact that ruling class ideology
permeates
society as a whole on an individual level and collectively when the
individuals combine their actions resentment is there and people will
take actions to lessen the disparities that they are subject to.
These
actions may take the form of organizing unions or it may take the
form
of engaging in political action, but the whole point is to make the
social system more fair. During most of the time the organizers of
the
resistance do not even see the necessity of overthrowing the entire
system, but think they can reform it into something that will be more
fair. Because of fluctuations in a class economy these disparities
may
be greater at some times than at other times and the amount of
resistance may be greater than it is at other times. This is all
called
the class struggle. Sometimes the oppressed classes will make
gains and
the rulers have to make concessions to maintain their rule and at
other
times it is the oppressed classes that have to make the
concessions. One
thing the oppressed classes do not want to do is to get involved in a
revolution. Let's face it, revolution is not only to the great
disadvantage of the class that is being deposed, but a lot of workers
die and a lot of infrastructure is destroyed and it is to the great
disadvantage of everyone. However, as the class struggle ebbs and
flows
the point comes that the rulers see that they may be in actual
danger of
being deposed. They will resist that by any means necessary.
Concessions
is one means, but if the push for an equitable system continues other
means are used. That means violence. In every revolution in
history the
violence was initiated by the rulers in an attempt to maintain their
rule. What are the ruled to do? They have to defend themselves. If
they
do not defend themselves they lose every bit of progress they have
made
up until that time and they are likely to lose their lives too. As
they
defend themselves against violence with return violence the violence
escalates. This becomes a process that cannot be stopped by either
side
because each side stands to lose everything if they give up. It is
something like a natural disaster. When a hurricane, for example,
approaches you cannot stop the hurricane no matter what you do.
You can
only deal with it. A lot of planning and preparation make it
easier to
deal with with, but whether you deal with it well or poorly it is
still
going to happen. That is what a revolutionary party is for, to
deal with
the revolution when it happens. That is where the responsibility
comes
in. It is responsible to have a cadre of people who are trained in
how
to deal with revolution and who will step in to guide the revolution
when it comes to make sure that the best outcome is arrived at.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/24/2018 11:03 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sorry, but that sounds like a ducking of responsibility to me.
So Lenin had no choice when he committed his oppression? Was it
all just an inevitable product of ineluctable historical forces?
He was just a tool of history, and had no responsibility for what
he did?
You may consider that too many questions, but they're all
related, so they really boil down to one: Do humans have
responsibility for what they do or not?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As I have said before, you don't get a choice of whether you get a
revolution or not. When Trotsky was asked if all the destruction and
death was worth it he said that the question was teleological. When
class contradictions sharpen to the point that revolution breaks
out the
best you can do is to steer it and guide it into the best outcome
you
can and ameliorate the destruction that occurs along the way.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10/24/2018 9:45 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the only
kind of revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't seem
as if powerful social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy, which
is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues I'm
definitely left of center, but on economic issues I'm in the
center, or maybe even a bit to the right. I support the current
economic system. I defend the "capitalist running dogs" around
here. (Yes, some people actually talked like that in the 20th
century. Fortunately, humanity has moved on since then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about
shortcomings of the current economic model and how to fix them,
but I'm not interested in revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction,
Don'tcha know that you can count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure, you've
come to the right list. We do try hard to stay on target and
not fall into name calling, as happens on the ACB chat list at
times. But a good sense of humor and a moderately thick skin,
and you'll soon be right at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self proclaimed
Progressive, an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I
provide services to older blind and low vision folks on the
Great Olympic Peninsula, through our organization named,
Peninsula Rehabilitation Services. We've been at it almost 24
years and have worked with well over 3,000 clients. I'm totally
blind...for the past 55 years. Cathy and I work as a team since
living here in the deep, dark forest does not allow a blind man
the ability to travel to many of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working, vacationing
and breathing the same air day after day finds us still deeply
in love with one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the vet
and is trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy a
new keyboard today, but it's looking as if I'll have to make do
with these sticky keys for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two new
members
and will, I believe, be acquiring another one. It's an ill wind
that
blows no good, they say. I do believe we can thank Mr. Trump
for the
rejuvenation of this list. At any rate, I'll forward one of the
Real
News Network digests to the list. It's a website which has
excellent
little news videos that you can listen to and also, there's a
text of
each one, I believe. I'll forward one of the digests. You go to
the
heading of the story in which you're interested, which is also
a link,
and then, you move down until you find a play button and press
enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own digests. The
website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes from
Canada,
and it does national, international, and local Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal, Ben
Norton,
Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea until a
friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of the BARD
lists,
where this list was mentioned. I recognize Miriam's name from the
bookshare list of many years ago. We liked lots of the same
books on
political/historical topics. Anyway, I joined out of curiosity
to see what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
