Roger, Miriam and any Revolutionists or Revolutionary Wannabees.
Looks like we might differ here Roger. I see revolution coming over the next hill. It may take a bit to gather enough force to make it a true revolution, but the Empire is doing all it can to hurry it along.
Certainly that is not their intention, but it is what they are doing.
Of course here on the ground it is hard to tell that it is a revolution for sure. So much propaganda and divisiveness pumped into our heads for many years. So much anger. I see my job as that of pointing folks in the right direction. Keep people from attacking one another and turning their wrath on the Ruling Class Robbers.
The revolution will either be a learning experience, bringing folks together to build a better wheel, or it will be a wild mess and lead to some sort of dictatorship. the choice will be up to us.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----From: Roger Loran BaileySent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:49 PMSubject: Re: Undemocratic DemocratsWell, the plan is different depending on the stage of the struggle.
Right now there is no point to organizing a revolution because there is
no revolution to organize. The function of the revolutionary cadre in
these times of a lull in the class struggle is to function as a
propaganda and agitation organization. Running candidates is part of
that. The point is not to get elected even if that would be nice. The
point is to use an election campaign to get the word out. What is the
word? It concerns organizing the workers in their unions to prepare for
bigger struggles. It is in supporting workers in their small struggles
as well as in their big struggles. It is in part a matter of recruiting.
It is a matter of being right there on the ground to support and
participate in strikes right along with our fellow workers. As the
struggle grows it is to steer that struggle toward a goal of the workers
taking power. The trouble is that you can't do everything at once and
you can't do some things until a crisis comes along. You can't make the
crisis either. You have to be ready for it. You must encourage the
workers toward an ultimate insurrection and you have to make the workers
realize that you are one of them and not an outside force that is trying
to manipulate them to some outside ends. That would be sectarianism.
On 5/12/2012 9:32 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
> Roger,
>
> We are undoubtedly having a communications problem. It may be because you
> are using the abstract theory or phrases from it to explain it. I don't want
> to read all those books of Marxist theory as you suggest. And yes, you are
> repeating the explanations over and over and I am apparently not
> understanding what the words mean in practical terms. I understand what you
> are saying on a theoretical basis. But it doesn't have reality for me. You
> said, for example
> Scientific socialism, however, is grounded in the real world. Like I said,
> it is a matter of looking at the real world as it really is and accepting
> that reality and then developing theories of change based on that reality
> and then applying those theories to that reality to effect change and then
> looking at the new reality and proceeding with the process again. How can
> you get more practical and concrete than that?
> So, what's the plan? Is it to run candidates who can't possibly be elected?
> Is it to try to convince enough working people to join the Socialist
> Workers' Party so it can get people on the ballot or get enough money to
> advertise or what? Is it to refuse to participate in the current system and
> watch as more and more people drop into poverty and more and more people are
> disenfranchised because if enough people are hurt by the system, they will
> revolt and then the Socialist Workers will be there to pick up the pieces? I
> do understand all the words you say but I do not see how studying theory and
> quoting Marx and Lenin and the movement's other great thinkers, and having
> meetings of 100 or less people in various locations throughout the U.S. is
> going to accomplish anything. I do see it as a very interesting intellectual
> exercise and a way of relating to other people who see the world in similar
> ways.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
> Bailey
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:41 PM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>
> Practical and concrete is exactly what it is all about though. There have
> been any number of pie in the sky so-called socialists who have posited some
> kind of ideal society and had absolutely no concrete program for achieving
> it. Scientific socialism, however, is grounded in the real world. Like I
> said, it is a matter of looking at the real world as it really is and
> accepting that reality and then developing theories of change based on that
> reality and then applying those theories to that reality to effect change
> and then looking at the new reality and proceeding with the process again.
> How can you get more practical and concrete than that? Dealing with the real
> world rather than with some kind of utopian fantasy is what concrete and
> practical is all about.
> That leaves me exasperated when I clearly explain that and then you say that
> you have a problem with what I am saying because you are more concerned with
> the practical and concrete. It is as if I am saying one thing and you are
> hearing an entirely different person talking to you with an entirely
> different message. As for the people whom a revolution is supposed to help
> being crushed by it, it again seems that you are hearing another person talk
> to you with an entirely different message rather than what I am saying. How
> many times do I have to say that revolution, especially a violent revolution
> is not what I advocate?
> Again, Trotsky was asked if the revolution was worth it considering how many
> people had to suffer because of it. His answer was that the question is
> teleological. The simple fact is that the conflict between classes builds
> toward revolution, or at least to some kind of violent outbreak. The ruling
> classes don't want it to happen. It involves their losing their power and
> privilege at the very least, but they cannot stop it as long as they
> maintain a class society. Even the smallest battles in the class struggle
> like those reformist goals you speak of are part of the process that builds
> toward a spasm in the class struggle. The oppressed classes don't want it
> either, but they have no way to stop it either, except to just lie down and
> be trodden over. That spasm in the class struggle causes a lot of suffering
> for the oppressed classes too.
> However, to stop the direction of the class struggle is like stopping a
> tsunami headed your way. You will not stop it. You have to deal with it the
> best way you can. Recognizing that is a part of recognizing reality and
> dealing with reality. That is recognizing the existence of and direction of
> the class struggle is simply being practical and concrete.
> Dealing with it involves taking control of steering that class struggle and
> that revolution. It is similar to riding down the highway in a car moving at
> 70 mph and the accelerator and the breaks both get stuck. You may not be
> able to stop it, but you can still take hold of the steering wheel and steer
> it. To do otherwise is not being practical and concrete.
> Now how is it that I am explaining this so that you seem to be hearing the
> explanations of a utopian socialist instead? Please, read Socialism,
> Scientific and Utopian by Frederik Engels to learn the difference if I am
> not getting across the difference.
>
> On 5/12/2012 3:54 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>> The reason that you need to keep explaining that to me is that I tend
>> to be practical and concrete. That ultimate goal sounds lovely,
>> theoretically, but is meaningless to me in practical terms. I have
>> been reading the May 14th edition of The Nation today, which I
>> downloaded from BARD. This week, their large articles focus on the
>> poor. As I read it, I thought about the debate you and I have been
>> having and I thought about my daughter saying that she thought I would
>> be interested in attending a senior citizens' center if I could have
>> political discussions there. And I realized that I don't care about
>> having political discussions and that to me, politics is just a means
>> to what I'm concerned about, and that is real live people and what is
>> happening to them right now and what may happen to them tomorrow. Why
>> do I resist embracing revolution? Because a lot of the people whom
>> that revolution is ostensibly supposed to help, will be crushed by it.
>> Somewhere I read a quote to the effect that if you want to make an
>> omlet, you need to break eggs. Well, given the fact that the goal you
>> posit may never be attained, I'm one of those people whom
>> revolutionaries despise, who want to make things better and who are
>> willing to use lots of bandaids rather than actively tearing down the
>> system. Now if the system crumbles, which it may very well do, so be it.
> Then I hope that the leaders who take power, care about the people whom they
> are leading.
>> Miriam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>> Loran Bailey
>> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 1:26 PM
>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>
>> Ah, but it does get tiresome to explain the same thing over and
>> over, but here I go again. How can you say that something is
>> unattainable when the goal is so open ended? What is the goal that
>> you think is being striven for and how will you know that it is
>> attained if it is ever attained? Let me explain the ultimate goal
>> again. As Trotsky put it, our goal is to maximize humanity's power over
> nature and to minimize humanity's power over humanity.
>> How will you ever be able to tell when the ultimate maximization and
>> minimization is achieved and can it ever be achieved? I have used
>> examples before like the ability to teleport myself to the Andromeda
>> galaxy. No matter how much I might want to do that I cannot do it. It
>> is a failing I have in increasing my power over nature. At the same
>> time, though, I do not discount the possibility that it can ever be
>> done. Perhaps at a future date when more has been learned about the
>> reality in which we are imbedded we will learn to manipulate that
>> reality to the point that it can be done. For the foreseeable future,
>> though, it cannot be done. Similarly, the ultimate decrease of humanity's
> power over humanity cannot be done just yet either.
>> The problem is that when a person wants to do anything he or she wants
>> to do and takes action to accomplish those wishes it tends to step on
>> other people's toes. That is, it tends to limit the ability of other
>> people to do what they want to do. There are also entirely too many
>> variables to consider. The study of these variables is called chaos
>> science. But the point is that no matter what you do you end up doing
>> things that you did not intend to do. No action you take as an
>> individual ever turns out exactly the way you want it to and nothing
>> we do collectively turns out exactly the way we collectively want it
>> to turn out, let alone the way certain individuals want it to turn out.
>> There is no revolution that turns out exactly the way we want it to
>> and there will never be a revolution that will turn out exactly the
>> way we want it to. The point of applying science to revolution is to
>> get it as close as we can and it is a very long-term prospect too. The
>> scientific approach is to try to determine how things really are as
>> closely as we can and then to apply actions to those things to make
>> them become closer to the way we want them to be. Every time we do
>> that we will have certain successes and certain failures. Our job is
>> then to look at the results and determine what we did right and what
>> we did wrong and then to develop theories that can be applied the next
>> time and then to do the same kind of assessment and action that next
>> time. However, by using the phrase next time I am afraid that I may be
>> giving a false impression of one action that ends and then another
>> action that starts and comes to an end too. Actually it is a
>> continuous process, a continuous process in which we are constantly
>> learning and developing
>>
>> On 5/12/2012 12:15 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>> I'm having difficulty equating Marxist theory with scientific theory.
>>> With science, there's a theory, and then scientists go about finding
>>> evidence which will prove or disprove the theory. But although I can
>>> certainly accept that there is evidence that Capitalism does not work
>>> for the majority of people and tends to implode when left to its own
>>> devices, I haven't seen evidence in history that marxist theory works
>>> as it is supposed to. Perhaps you will say that this is because other
>>> forces get in the way. But that is precisely my point. The other
>>> forces are human frailty. I said you have faith because you adhere to
>>> a theory which is beautiful as you conceptualize it, but, like
>>> heaven, appears to be a future goal toward which some dedicated
>>> people are constantly working but which, so far, has been
>>> unattainable. And as I watch events proceed each day, it seems less
>>> and less attainable. I note
>> that even Cuba has begun to do a bit of privatization.
>>> So, although I have respect for you and for the goal toward which you
>>> work, I can't help but see Marxist theory as just one more way of
>>> seeing human behavior through a system of thought which has only some
>>> connection with the real world.
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>> Loran Bailey
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:18 AM
>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>
>>> Of course, a revolutionary is just as human as any other human. So
>>> what does that have to do with it? Scientific method is not human. It
>>> is dependent on the fabric of the universe itself. It is how we
>>> determine the character of the universe and it is how we determine
>>> how to best manipulate the universe to get it to do what we want. If
>>> humans who are subject to all the failings of humans apply scientific
>>> method to manipulating the universe -- in this case the specific
>>> manipulations that will steer revolution -- then the outcome will be
>>> more likely to be to the benefit of all of us. I mean, really, if you
>>> see a bull elephant charging you then do you just sit there and do
>>> nothing because you are a mere human and might make a mistake? I
>>> would hope that you would do your best to determine which way was the
>>> safest to run and then run in that direction. If the building you
>>> live in is on fire do you just sit there because you are a fallible
>>> human being and just might make a mistake in trying to escape? You
>>> most certainly might, but is it not a pretty severe mistake to just
>>> sit there and burn up too? Now, thinking about this I remember
>>> earlier in this thread that you accused me of having faith in the way
>>> history works. I find it interesting that after you had decried the
>>> ignorance of a lot of people concerning things like Barack Obama's
>>> birthplace you started to tell me that I was under the burden of
>>> faith even after I had explained on numerous occasions that I have a
>>> scientific view of history and had explained how it was scientific.
>>> It seems that you are still having a difficult time grasping what is
>>> meant by scientific. An example of faith would be to just proclaim
>>> that the burning building around you is not burning and to really
>>> believe that as it incinerates you. Or, if you accepted that the
>>> building was burning you might pray that you would be saved while the
>>> fire consumed you. A scientific way of approaching the matter,
>>> though, would be to acknowledge the reality
>> that you were in a burning building and assess what you can do about
>> it. You might look for escape routes.
>>> You might determine that you can extinguish the fire. The point is
>>> that you will accept reality for being the reality that it is and
>>> then do your best to manipulate that reality to your advantage. Along
>>> the way you just might make mistakes that will be to your great
> disadvantage.
>>> Along the way you might find that your assessment was wrong and pay
>>> the price because, for example, you just might assess that a certain
>>> stair well was not on fire and enter it only to find out too late
>>> that it was on fire anyway. Well, there is no way that a mere human
>>> being can assess reality to the ultimate precision. That does not
>>> mean that you will not stand a better chance of surviving by
>>> approaching reality as reality than approaching it with faith that it is
> a way that it is not.
>>> Similarly, if you study human history you will find a constant class
>>> struggle that builds up until it breaks out into armed conflict or
>>> something else drastic. When there is a leadership that has a goal
>>> and applies a full recognition of reality to the situation then
>>> something advantageous comes out of the conflict. When there is no
>>> one facing reality and making plans accordingly there is a strong
>>> tendency to social collapse. The danger exists that the collapse will
>>> happen anyway because those leaders are, as you pointed out, merely
> human.
>>> However, they do not say that just because they are merely human they
>>> will do nothing and just let the collapse overcome them.
>>> On 5/12/2012 9:57 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>> OK. My problem with this theory is that the members of this trained
>>>> revolutionary leadership are prone to the same human weaknesses as
>>>> everyone else. The fact that they adhere to a particular
>>>> philosophical revolutionary theory doesn't make them immune to human
>>>> foibles such as greed, jealousy, unreasoning anger, etc. There are,
>>>> in theory, good and bad systems and institutions but these are all
>>>> dependent on the strengths and weaknesses of the people who run them.
>>>> The smaller the entity, the better the chance is that we, as
>>>> individuals,
>>> can influence it.
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>> Loran Bailey
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:31 PM
>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>
>>>> No, that socialist society will prevail only if a revolutionary
>>>> leadership exists to guide and nurture it. Whether there is a
>>>> revolutionary leadership that has been trained in revolutionary
>>>> tactics or not, though, it still remains that as class
>>>> contradictions build up a drastic clash will eventually occur. If
>>>> there is no one to lead us into some kind of organized response then
>>>> that clash will be very detrimental for everyone. You had better
>>>> hope that a cadre of trained revolutionaries exists when the shit
>>>> hits the fan. Better yet, join the embryo of that cadre of
>>>> revolutionaries now. If you cannot join it -- I do keep in mind your
>>>> physical restrictions
>>>> -- then urge others to do so and learn the arguments that you have
>>>> to make to convince them to do so.
>>>> It is far from a matter of having faith. Those who have faith that
>>>> something will happen almost always fail to realize what they are
>>>> having
>>> faith in.
>>>> Those who go about analyzing the real situation and on that basis
>>>> planning and acting on a scientific course of action may also fail,
>>>> but they have a much greater chance of achieving what they want than
>>>> those who just sit back and say I know it will be all for the best.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2012 10:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a man who demonstrates more faith than my friend, the nun,
>>>>> who returned to the Dominicans. You believe that we should watch
>>>>> our society crumble, or even help it do so, and that ultimately,
>>>>> good will prevail. The resulting chaos will be relatively short
>>>>> lived and whatever pain is suffered by folks will be worth it
>>>>> because the end justifies the means. Revolutionary leaders with the
>>>>> best interests of the workers in mind, will emerge and the workers,
>>>>> basically all cooperative people with no malice toward anyone, will
>>>>> then have a chance to develop a system that benefits everyone.
>>>>> Negative qualities like selfishness, anger, and the need to control
>>>>> others, are all just products of the capitalist system, not part of
>>>>> human nature, and if the
>>>> system is overthrown, good and truth will prevail.
>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>>> Loran Bailey
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:44 PM
>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we do not have a majority of incompetents in congress. They are
>>>>> quite competent in looking out for the ones they are charged with
>>>>> looking
>>>> out for.
>>>>> As for being gleeful about societal breakdown, it is inevitable
>>>>> anyway and it is necessary for revolution to happen. In and of
>>>>> itself it is certainly not desirable and our job is to shorten it
>>>>> when it does happen and to lead the way forward when it does happen.
>>>>> There are, of course, dangers inherent in that road, but it is the
>>>>> avoidance of those dangers that revolutionary leadership will help
>>>>> us overcome. For right now our job is to give the system a few
>>>>> kicks and to prepare for when the shit hits the fan.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/11/2012 3:40 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>>> We already have a majority of incompetents who have been elected
>>>>>> to the House of Representatives and the system goes on rewarding
>>>>>> the wealthy and screwing over the rest of us, but it is in no
>>>>>> danger of being overthrown. It isn't breaking down either. Or if
>>>>>> it is, what we are seeing is the poor, the old, the disabled and
>>>>>> the rest of the most vulnerable population being threatened. I
>>>>>> really don't understand how anyone can sound gleeful about
>>>>>> societal breakdown just because there is a dim hope that in the
>>>>>> far flung future, a socialist society might conceivably be formed.
>>>>>> There's an equally good chance that after the suffering of
>>>>>> millions of people and the breakdown of society, we'll end up
>>>>> with a fascist state.
>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>>>> Loran Bailey
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:34 PM
>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I would rather see incompetent candidates elected. The
>>>>>> ones who do fill these positions may be competent, but look at
>>>>>> what they are competent at doing. They are competent at screwing
>>>>>> over the vast majority for the benefit of their masters. Oh, they
>>>>>> certainly have their safeguards to ensure that those competent
>>>>>> toadies keep being elected, but if we could get a few incompetents
>>>>>> in then it would be a wedge to encourage the collapse of their
>>>>>> system. I would, of course, prefer to see competent candidates
>>>>>> elected who would work for all of us, but if not that, I'll take
>>>>>> the incompetent ones over a competent
>>>>> enemy.
>>>>>> On 5/11/2012 1:47 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>>>> But if Caroline had won, that would not have been a plus for true
>>>>>> democracy.
>>>>>>> In fact, it could have been used as an argument against it.
>>>>>>> Whether or not the lawyer who won had functioned, at least he was
>>>>>>> nominally competent to function. I have recently come across a
>>>>>>> number of examples of how incredibly stupid and unthinking a lot
>>>>>>> of people appear to be. If people haven't been properly educated,
>>>>>>> if they're not truly literate, and if they are not provided with
>>>>>>> accurate information by the media, the will of the majority can
>>>>>>> be a nightmare. The vote for Keith Judd in West Virginia is an
>>>>>>> example, if those people voted for a white criminal because they
>>>>>>> don't like having an African American
>>>>>> president.
>>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>>>>> Loran Bailey
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:54 PM
>>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, speaking of so-called "responsible" candidates, I
>>>>>>> just thought of something. One time something happened -- I don't
>>>>>>> remember exactly what
>>>>>>> -- that made an unexpired term for prosecutor to be up for election.
>>>>>>> The entire term that was left was less than two months, but the
>>>>>>> laws demanded that someone be elected to fill it and none of the
>>>>>>> usual lawyers wanted the job for such a short time. The filing
>>>>>>> deadline passed
>>>>>> and no one had filed.
>>>>>>> The spot on the ballot had absolutely no name. A friend of mine
>>>>>>> named Caroline jokingly decided to run. By the way, I have told
>>>>>>> you guys something about her before. She was the college student
>>>>>>> I knew whose room mate called me the lurker of the hallway.
>>>>>>> Anyway, she was still a college student when she started her
>>>>>>> campaign. It was just a joke campaign. She had no expectation of
>>>>>>> actually winning and she did not file and her campaign consisted
>>>>>>> of just asking her friends to write in her name. They all agreed
>>>>>>> to do so too and I, for one, did write in her name. Well, just
>>>>>>> before the election there was a certain lawyer who announced that
>>>>>>> he would reluctantly run as a write in candidate just to ensure
>>>>>>> that someone responsible would be there to fill the unexpired term.
>>>>>>> After the election it was announced that he did win and the
>>>>>>> number of write in votes he got was
>>>> also announced.
>>>>>>> It was a very low number of votes. It was obvious that the vast
>>>>>>> majority of voters
>>>>>> just skipped voting for anyone for that office.
>>>>>>> The write in votes for anyone else was not announced at all and
>>>>>>> the impression that was given by the news media was that no one
>>>>>>> else had gotten any votes. Caroline, however, counted up the
>>>>>>> votes that her friends assured her that they had cast for her and
>>>>>>> you know
>> what?
>>>>>>> She had lost to that lawyer by only about five votes. If that
>>>>>>> lawyer had not taken on the candidacy she would have won. She
>>>>>>> would have been completely incompetent as a prosecutor, of
>>>>>>> course, but I don't think it
>>>>>> would have made a difference.
>>>>>>> The guy who did take the job did nothing in his less than two months.
>>>>>>> He did not prosecute anyone. He was only a seat warmer until the
>>>>>>> next prosecutor took over. Damn! I wish Caroline had won. I love
>>>>>>> to see bourgeois politicians shaken up by things like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/11/2012 11:29 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>>>>> But didn't Keith Judd run on the Democratic ticket in the
>>>>>>>> Democratic primary? Or did he run as a third party candidate? If
>>>>>>>> it was the Democratic primary, I wonder how they could stop
>>>>>>>> other people from running in it. Do you remember a few years ago
>>>>>>>> in one of the southern states when someone ran as a Democrat
>>>>>>>> whom no one knew, including the Democratic party apparatus? No
>>>>>>>> one knew how it happened and there were suggestions that the
>>>>>>>> Republicans somehow engineered it so that their candidate could
>>>>>>>> win with no real
>>>> opposition.
>>>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>> Roger Loran Bailey
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:09 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, the coal companies keep up a constant barrage of propagandizing.
>>>>>>>> However, like I said before, I am a lifelong West Virginian
>>>>>>>> right here on the ground in West Virginia and it is very clear
>>>>>>>> to me that the news media, including NPR, are avoiding even
>>>>>>>> mentioning
>>> something.
>>>>>>>> That is that if Barack Obama had been a white democrat then
>>>>>>>> Keith Judd would have never gotten the vote he did. It is clear,
>>>>>>>> though, that no matter what the specific reasons, it was a vote
>>>>>>>> against Obama rather than a vote for Judd. I am something of a
>>>>>>>> political wonk and I am especially interested in alternative
>> candidates.
>>>>>>>> Yet, I knew nothing at all about Keith Judd before the election.
>>>>>>>> I had never heard of him and knew nothing about his background.
>>>>>>>> I have yet to hear any statement he has made on any issues and
>>>>>>>> do not know how he characterizes himself politically. If I don't
>>>>>>>> know any of that then I think it is a pretty good bet that the
>>>>>>>> vast majority of people who voted for him didn't know anything
>>>>>>>> about him
>>> either.
>>>>>>>> There were just two names on the ballot for president in the
>>>>>>>> Democrat primary and one of
>>>>>>> them was not named Obama.
>>>>>>>> That means that a vote for Judd was a vote against Obama. Yes, I
>>>>>>>> do strongly suspect that most of the vote against Obama was
>>>>>>>> racially motivated, but that should not be a basis on which to
>>>>>>>> deprive the voters of a choice. These Democrat politicians are
>>>>>>>> talking about doing just that. They see a vote for anyone but
>>>>>>>> their own candidates as completely unacceptable. I do not see it
>>>>>>>> as unlikely that in the next session of the legislature the
>>>>>>>> ballot access laws will be changed again to keep alternative
>>>>>>>> candidates such as the Mountain Party off the ballot. It took
>>>>>>>> most of the twentieth century for anyone but a republicrat to
>>>>>>>> get on the ballot in all of the
>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> Finally in 1968 George Wallace did it with his American Party.
>>>>>>>> It is a pity that the first to do it was such a right-wing party.
>>>>>>>> Then it was not done again for at least a couple more decades
>>>>>>>> when, finally, the restrictions were lifted a bit. I remember
>>>>>>>> petitioning for ballot access for the Socialist Workers Party
>>>>>>>> and successfully getting it on the
>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>> More recently the Mountain Party was formed and Denise Giardina
>>>>>>>> ran for governor. By the way, she is the author of a book called
>>>>>>>> Storming Heaven, a novel about the mine wars of 1920. The new
>>>>>>>> ballot laws said that if a candidate for governor got at least
>>>>>>>> one percent of the vote then the party of that candidate would
>>>>>>>> get automatic ballot access until there was a gubernatorial
>>>>>>>> election in which they failed to get that percentage. The
>>>>>>>> Mountain Party has been on the ballot
>>>>> ever since.
>>>>>>>> When it was first formed it was formed to provide Denise
>>>>>>>> Giardina a party platform to run on her main issue of opposition
>>>>>>>> to mountaintop removal mining, a really environmentally
>>>>>>>> devastating kind
>>>> of mining.
>>>>>>>> Since then it has been pretty much taken over by Green Party
>>>>>>>> advocates so
>>>>>>> that it is now the West Virginia incarnation of the Green Party.
>>>>>>> I expect that Jill Stein will be on the top spot of the Mountain
>>>>>>> Party ballot line this fall.
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, whenever the Republicrat politicians even mention
>>>>>>>> the Mountain Party they do so with a derisive laugh or a sneer
>>>>>>>> and often complain about how they just make the ballot too
>>>>>>>> complicated and draw attention away from "serious" and "responsible"
>>>>>>>> candidates. I fully expect that the strong showing of Keith Judd
>>>>>>>> will be used as an excuse to try to exclude the Mountain Party
>>>>>>>> and all other alternative parties from the ballot in the future.
>>>>>>>> That is exactly what happened when Eugene Debs nearly carried
>>>>>>>> the state in the early twentieth century. The election laws are
>>>>>>>> made by Republicrats to ensure that only Republicrats get
>>>>>>>> elected and this is an example of just
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> Think about it. Even when when a large proportion of the voters
>>>>>>>> vote for an alternative candidate they feel perfectly
>>>>>>>> comfortable in openly calling for measures to prevent that from
>>>>>>>> ever happening again. They completely dismiss the fact that an
>>>>>>>> alternative candidate got a significant portion of the vote and
>>>>>>>> openly discuss how to keep people from voting for one again. Not
>>>>>>>> only is that undemocratic, but it is utterly arrogantly
>>>>>>>> undemocratic. If they are not going to allow the voters a choice
>>>>>>>> and if they are not going to take the vote of the voters
>>>>>>>> seriously then why even have an election at all? I think they
>>>>>>>> would really prefer to not have elections, but they cannot do it
>>>>>>>> and still maintain the illusion of democracy. This is further
>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>> though, that bourgeois elections are a farce. They rig it so that
>>>>>>> they cannot lose.
>>>>>>>> When they feel safe they will loosen the rigging so that it will
>>>>>>>> look more democratic, but as soon as they see that the people
>>>>>>>> might not be in a mood to go along with them the rerig it again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2012 10:14 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The story on NPR was quite objective. But it did make clear
>>>>>>>>> that the vote was basically an anti-Obama vote rather than a
>>>>>>>>> vote for Keith Judd who is in jail and, if I remember correctly, a
> felon.
>>>>>>>>> The Democrats may be undemocratic, but what does the vote show
>>>>>>>>> about the electorate who certainly didn't vote against obama
>>>>>>>>> because he has been too friendly to the banks or has continued
>>>>>>>>> the war in Afghanistan. The NPR story mentioned people's anger
>>>>>>>>> at him because they feel he isn't friendly enough to the coal
>> industry.
>>>>>>>>> They think his policies will remove all of their jobs. It also
>>>>>>>>> mentioned that the coal companies have been doing a good deal
>>>>>>>>> of propagandizing among
>>>>>>> the people.
>>>>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>> Roger Loran Bailey
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:35 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Undemocratic Democrats
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You will recall that a couple of days ago I was discussing how
>>>>>>>>> that when Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party nearly beat
>>>>>>>>> Woodrow Wilson in West Virginia the state legislature promptly
>>>>>>>>> passed very stringent election laws that made it virtually
>>>>>>>>> impossible for anyone but a Republicrat to get on the West
>>>>>>>>> Virginia ballot for nearly the rest of the twentieth century.
>>>>>>>>> Well, it is happening again. I just got through watching the
>>>>>>>>> eleven o'clock news and democrat politicians are in a tizzy
>>>>>>>>> over Keith Judd's
>>>>>>>>> 41 percent of the primary vote this past Tuesday. They are
>>>>>>>>> especially upset that in five counties he actually won
>>>>>>>> by wide margins.
>>>>>>>>> They are talking about how the next session of the legislature
>>>>>>>>> has to tighten the ballot access laws so that this can never
>>>>>>>>> happen
>>> again.
>>>>>>>>> In the meantime they are looking at how they can tighten up the
>>>>>>>>> ballot access from within the Democrat party itself. The
>>>>>>>>> reporter who interviewed them was obviously in full agreement
>>>>>>>>> with them, using words like responsible. I could not help but
>>>>>>>>> think that if I had been that reporter I would have asked this
>>>>>>>>> question. Since you are so anxious to subvert the will of the
>>>>>>>>> voters then isn't it about time to change the name of the
>>>>>>>>> Democrat party to something
>>> else?
>>>>>>>>> After all, you
>>>>>>>> Democrats are obviously not in favor of democracy.
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment