Re: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist

In religion we begin with an absolute. The Great Pooh Pah
The Great Pooh Paw has laid it on our hearts, or on lost clay/golden
tablets, His Absolute Word. From there we build outward, proving over
and over His Greatness through His very own Word. And for many of us,
that is enough.
But others of us are curious by Nature. We begin with a known, like
why does the tide rise and fall. We set aside all preconceived
notions, such as our belief that it is due to the Great Pooh Paw.
Through trial and error we finally prove beyond any serious doubt,
that the tides are reacting to the movement of the Moon. And through
this trial and error method we learned that our Earth was not the
center of the universe. We proved that huge distances exist between
the billions of Suns. We built up a vast warehouse of information
from which we could draw in our further explorations. All of this was
due to our open-minded approach. But of course we are mere Mortals.
We began to understand that this gathered knowledge could be very
useful in controlling other people. From our dabbling, we learned
that figures may not lie, but liars sure can figure...and manipulate
figures.
Because we have come to Worship the Almighty Dollar over Human Needs,
we can buy any scientific conclusion we want.
If we were able to stay true to our approach we would challenge all
conclusions, demanding step by step proof of their validity.
However, since we have been conditioned over thousands of years to
accept absolutes, like the existence of the Great Pooh Paw, we simply
accept the word from some Mighty Authority, and turn our attention to
defending it rather than giving it a close examination.
If we could step back and apply scientific methodology to any of our
religions, or if we did so to our wonderful Corporate Capitalism, we
would soon begin to unravel the fundamental lie in both.
But we will only be objective to that with which we disagree, choosing
to defend our own beliefs. And in that, we are doomed.

Carl Jarvis







On 9/23/15, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> When theories in these cases are not supported they are dropped too.
> There is a difference from the hard sciences though. In cases like
> astronomy, physics, chemistry or biology. the point of the science is to
> determine what is true, that is, the nature of the universe. Applying
> the discoveries that are arrived at by this scientific method is usually
> called technology. In scientific socialism it works a bit differently,
> but it is still a matter of applying scientific method. You might say
> that the science and the technology are combined. The main difference is
> that a purpose is explicated. In the other sciences there is purpose to
> the investigations too, but it is not necessarily explicit. The purpose
> of investigations in chemistry, for example, are usually the profit of
> chemical companies or pharmaceutical companies or something similar. In
> scientific socialism the purpose is to bring about a world in which
> humanity can relate to each other as equals who collectively determine
> their future for the collective good of all, a world society where
> everyone is free as possible by being collectively free. The process of
> achieving this is scientific in that it requires recognition of the real
> world and the real situation at all times. It requires a study of
> history and an examination of how historical social and economic systems
> arose and how they fell. It requires examination of the current
> situation and how it relates to historical situations that were similar.
> By considering the real world, both historically and current, theories
> are developed about how to change the current situation into a more
> favorable situation. Then the theory is applied and in part it is likely
> to be successful and in part it is likely to fail. But then it becomes a
> part of the history that must be studied. Again, there are just too many
> variables to get the theory exactly right before applying it. That is,
> no action is going to turn out exactly the way we want it to turn out.
> If it did then we could accomplish our ultimate goal instantly. But
> since it doesn't we have to examine where we went wrong and apply the
> lessons we learn to future actions. Now, that is not even the slightest
> bit like a religious cult. In a religious cult the nature of reality is
> irrelevant. All proclamations are claimed to be revealed truth rather
> than something that has to be found out by observation.
>
> On 9/23/2015 9:47 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>> I do understand your explanations. It isn't that I don't understand what
>> you're describing. It's that I don't think that it's the only, nor the
>> most
>> realistic way to conceptualize the proper political response for us in
>> this
>> time and place. I know that you see the theory as being science. But it
>> isn't like the physical sciences. Physical science is exact. Theorems are
>> tested and when they're not supported by data, they're dropped. But in
>> the
>> case of the social sciences, people follow a variety of theories and they
>> adhere to them regardless of the data. They explain why the theories are
>> correct and why they seem not to apply, but that the theories actdually
>> do
>> apply. Each of the socialist and communist groups seem to me, like
>> religious
>> cults. I realize that this idea horrifies you. But the slavish adherence
>> to
>> a set of beliefs and the faith that things will work as outlined by those
>> beliefs, and that there is absolutely no compromise, is like religion.
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
>> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:41 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
>>
>> Ah, the frustration of having to explain the same thing over and over
>> again!
>> It is not a matter of manipulating the workers. It is a matter of
>> providing
>> leadership when the revolution comes. As I have explained before, social
>> and
>> economic forces lead to periodic crises that are usually called
>> revolution.
>> That happens whether we like it or not and it does not always result in
>> an
>> advantage for the working class. There is a necessity to join with the
>> working class to manipulate the revolution to try to ensure that it
>> results
>> in the best deal for the majority of humanity as possible. Again, it is
>> like
>> being behind the wheel of a car hurtling down the highway when the brakes
>> completely fail. You can either sit back and let whatever will happen to
>> just happen or you can steer. Steering will not necessarily get you the
>> exact results you want, but I would suggest steering anyway. And no, it
>> doesn't work like clockwork. As I have explained over and over there are
>> just too many variables to keep track of. Approaching the matter with a
>> scientific perspective does help steer the calamity in the direction that
>> is
>> desired, but it is not guaranteed that you will get exactly what you
>> want.
>> If you do not apply scientific principles, though, and if you do not work
>> hard to steer it is pretty much guaranteed that you will end up in
>> disaster.
>> And again, what happened to the Russian revolution has been analyzed and
>> I
>> have explained that over and over too. In order to get socialism out of
>> capitalism when capitalism collapses capitalism really should have
>> reached
>> its productive limits. In 1917 Russia was not the preferred place to have
>> a
>> socialist revolution. Germany or England would have been better. In
>> Russia
>> capitalism was still rather primitive and a lot of feudal relations
>> still
>> existed in full force. But, again, we do not get to choose where a
>> revolution breaks out. We have to take it wherever it happens. One did
>> break
>> out in Russia and a vanguard party did exist to take advantage of that
>> revolution. The trouble is that with a less than fully developed
>> productive
>> capacity and what with an ensuing civil war there were severe shortages
>> of
>> material goods to be distributed. Someone has to do the distribution.
>> When
>> there are shortages of everything, of course, the ones in charge of
>> distribution are going to ensure that they get enough of what they are
>> distributing.
>> That is what allowed for the establishment of a privileged bureaucracy.
>> It was also responsible for the NEP which was a significant step
>> backward.
>> It was a necessary evil, but it was still an evil. All of this set the
>> stage
>> for a takeover by Stalin. In the future if a revolution breaks out in an
>> economic situation like that one then steps can be taken to avoid a new
>> Stalin coming to power. Whatever the economic situation, though, we will
>> still have no power to determine where there will be a revolution nor
>> when.
>> Despite your claims that I am proposing that we have such fine control
>> over
>> these things we simply do not. If we could actually account for all the
>> variables such that it could work as a clockwork process that was
>> completely
>> predictable then certainly we could bypass revolution altogether.
>> Revolution
>> results in destruction and in people getting killed and in suffering. If
>> we
>> could avoid that and still liberate humanity then we most certainly
>> would,
>> but we just do not have that kind of fine control. Trotsky was once asked
>> if
>> all the death and destruction was really worth it for what he was
>> participating in building. He answered that the question was
>> teleological.
>> Back when I first read that I did not understand what this had to do with
>> teleology.
>> Now I understand completely. His point was that the death and destruction
>> was going to happen anyway with or without him and his political
>> movement.
>> It was his political movement that played a big part in ameliorating it.
>> But
>> to bring it back to the question of whether the workers should support a
>> bourgeois party, that is class collaboration and it does not ameliorate
>> suffering. It just perpetuates it and when the shit hits the fan it will
>> lead to a revolutionary defeat of the working class.
>>
>> On 9/22/2015 9:59 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>> OK. Now that you've explained the "outside the box", I believe I
>>> understand and it scares the hell out of me. You're talking about
>>> training an elite cadre who will then go out and propagandize and
>>> manipulate the masses, for their own good, of course, so that
>>> hopefully, when the time is right and there is what the elite cadre
>>> defines as a real revolution, the masses will be properly trained as
>>> to how to behave. And the assumption is that these people who have
>>> become the elite, have studied, and are now a ruling class, will be a
>>> ruling class only so long as their expertise is needed. They won't use
>>> their power and knowledge on their own behalf. They will be altruistic
>>> and true socialists, and they will work solely for the common good.
>>> And all this working for candidates in the meantime, putting them on
>>> the ballot and voting for them is just sort of a game, a warm up for
>>> real life when the revolution really comes. And this is all very
>>> scientific. If we follow the steps as outlined by Marx or Engels or
>> whoever, it will all work like clockwork. Only, so far in real life, it
>> hasn't worked out that way, has it?
>>> The revolutions in Russia and China somehow became corrupted by real
>>> human beings and outside forces and greed and people's lust for
>>> power,etc. Given the nature of America, its history, its racism, the
>>> religiosity of its people, its military might, the influence of
>>> corporate powerand the degredation of the environment, I have grave
>>> doubts that the theory you propound will play itsself out as you
>>> describe. I know that you think that if I truly understood what you
>>> are telling me, I would, of course, see the truth of it. I can see that
>>> it
>> is a beautiful, internally consistent theory.
>>> But so far, the data don't always support it because human behavior
>>> can't be analyzed in the same ways that the physical world can be.
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
>>> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:44 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
>>>
>>> Miriam, you don't sound harsh. You sound clueless. There are crises
>>> and there are crises. The kind of crisis I am talking about is a
>>> revolutionary situation. What you describe as a crisis - and I don't
>>> really deny that it is some kind of crisis - is the kind of economic
>>> situation that pushes social forces towards a revolutionary situation.
>>> It is not a smooth and direct process though. If it was we could
>>> predict with some precision exactly when the revolution would occur
>>> and possibly even bypass revolution at all. The false solutions that
>>> many people are arriving at that you describe are examples of what I
>>> have explained before as the dangers of fascism in an approaching
>>> revolutionary situation. That danger is especially a possibility when
>>> there is not a revolutionary vanguard that has successfully prepared.
>>> Again, the apparent quiescent phases of the class struggle are times
>>> in which a revolutionary party has three main jobs. The two that are
>>> most frequently stated publicly are propaganda and agitation. The
>>> other is internal and so does not get that much attention on the
>>> outside. That internal task is the training of a revolutionary
>>> leadership. Yes, when you join the party you do find yourself
>>> attending classes. The classes are for inculcating a good theoretical
>>> foundation though. Theory must be combined with practice and so the
>>> party member also participates in workers struggles on picket lines,
>>> in marches and demonstrations and in organizing. In external relations
>>> the party engages in propaganda and that is mostly designed to
>>> recruit. Agitation is to encourage workers to be militant and to fight
>>> back against the assaults they must endure. It may take only one spark
>>> to start a prairie fire, but it is hard to tell which spark it will
>>> be. You can walk through a prairie waving your sparkler and not start
>>> a fire, but if you keep it up then eventually you will have a
>>> conflagration. It is necessary to use theory to determine which
>>> struggles are the most likely to be the spark and to deploy forces to
>>> take advantage of that situation and to encourage and to help
>>> organize. If you read the party press and take note of which struggles
>>> are being covered it is those that are being concentrated on at any
>>> given time. Now, despite that I have repeatedly explained, you still
>>> do not understand the point in running candidates who will not win.
>>> Let me go through this again. The point of fielding a candidate is not
>>> to get elected even though under other conditions that might be a
>>> goal. The point is to use the election campaign as another vehicle for
>>> propaganda and agitation. An electoral campaign tends to get broader
>> attention and so it leans more toward propagandizing than toward
>> agitation,
>> but any opportunities it presents for both should be taken advantage of.
>>> Furthermore, if our candidates do happen to get elected that comrade's
>>> job would not then be to administer the bourgeois state. That is the
>>> trap the social democrats fell into. That is, those who work within
>>> the system to change the system are doomed to be changed by the system
>>> instead. The social democrats have been changed by it so much that
>>> they are, for the most part, socialist only in name. It is more
>>> accurate to call them bourgeois liberals who think they can reform
>> capitalism to make it some how a nicer capitalism.
>>> There are few social democrats who still have the perspective of
>>> putting an end to capitalism. When the revolutionary socialist is
>>> elected to a post in the bourgeois state his or her job is to decline
>>> to administer that state, but instead to use the post to conduct more
>>> agitation. If any revolutionary socialist does get elected that means
>>> that there is a revolutionary or pretty near revolutionary situation
>>> anyway. Of course, if a revolutionary socialist was actually elected
>>> to, say, the presidency he or she would likely be impeached in short
>>> order, but that itself would be a really big agitational opportunity.
>>> So when you say that we have had no success in the past fifty years or
>>> more you mean no effect in the bourgeois reformist sense. As I have
>>> said before, you have been imprisoned in that bourgeois liberal box
>>> for so long that not only do you not think outside the box, but you
>>> can't quite understand that there is an outside to the box to think
>>> outside of. Consider this though. If we have never had an effect then
>>> how
>> do you explain Cuba?
>>> On 9/22/2015 4:40 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>> OK. So a lot of industrial workers are aware of the party. But we're
>>>> in a crisis now! Working and poor people have been especially feeling
>>>> that crisis since 2008 and it's getting worse. People don't have
>>>> places to live and they don't have enough to eat. And a lot of those
>>>> people think that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton is the
>>>> answer. A lot of those people don't think that there's a political
>>>> solution, but they think that getting rid of immigrants and all
>>>> Muslims might help them out. The SWP is quietly, slowly working away,
>>>> and there is a select few that know about them and understand their
>>>> program. In the meantime, the TPPP is about to come into being with
>>>> even more jobs gone and more regulations gone and higher medication
>>>> prices on the way and more desperate people joining the armed
>>>> services in order to earn a salary and more killing going on. What
>>>> kind of a crisis do you have in mind? Sorry, I don't mean to sound so
>>>> harsh, but this talk of how the people who truly understand are
>>>> preparing for the
>>> real crisis and the real revolution, distresses me.
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>> Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:18 PM
>>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
>>>>
>>>> No, if your only source of information is the bourgeois and liberal
>>>> news outlets then, indeed, you don't know it exists, but if you keep
>>>> abreast of the left press and if you are an industrial worker it is
>>>> kind of hard to miss it. It is true that a lot of industrial workers
>>>> have a hard time sorting out the various left tendencies - it was
>>>> always frustrating for me when the coal miners I was reaching out to
>>>> confused the SWP with the Revolutionary Communist Party or the
>>>> Communist Labor Party - but they are well aware of the SWP anyway.
>>>> And, again, if you think the party is accomplishing nothing you are
>>>> still unaware of what it is trying to accomplish. The real test of
>>>> what is being accomplished will only be realized when a major crisis
>>>> of capitalism is in progress. In the meantime the task of the party
>>>> is to
>>> prepare for that event.
>>>> On 9/22/2015 3:02 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>> I figured it was older than 50 years. But it proves my point. It
>>>>> runs candidates that don't even get on the ballots of many states.
>>>>> It has conferences and it organizes, and it has publications, and
>>>>> its candidates and positions are unknown and unappreciated by a
>>>>> majority of people. Hardly anyone, except a tiny minority of
>>>>> adherents, knows it exists. So while it can feel very satisfying to
>>>>> be part of it and work for its goals, it isn't reaching enough people
>>>>> to
>> make real change.
>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>>>> Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:20 PM
>>>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
>>>>>
>>>>> The Socialist Workers Party was founded in 1938 when the Left
>>>>> Opposition in the Socialist Party - which had entered some years
>>>>> before with the dissolution of the Communist League of America into
>>>>> the Socialist Party
>>>>> - fused with the Workers Party. It has been running candidates ever
>>>>> since that 1938 founding.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/22/2015 9:40 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they're both right. I think that Hedges is right ethically
>>>>>> and, perhaps, in the long run. But in practical terms, in this real
>>>>>> world, I think Kaufman is right. The fact is that thousands and
>>>>>> thousands of people are listening to Sanders. That's why I
>>>>>> contributed money to his campaign, because I wanted his message to
>>>>>> be heard and it will only be heard if he works through one of the
>>>>>> two corporate parties. Chris Hedges, on the other hand, gave that
>>>>>> speech to the Green Party. I am contributing a little money each
>>>>>> month to the Green Party because I would like them to be able to
>>>>>> attract more people. But Chris Hedges speaks only to the Left. And
>>>>>> Green Party candidates do not have audiences of thousands and
>>>>>> thousands of people
>>>> hearing them.
>>>>>> The Socialist Workers' Party has been quietly organizing and having
>>>>>> candidates forever, at least for the past 50 years which is all I
>>>>>> know about, but longer than that, and they don't even get on the
>> ballot.
>>>>>> Ask anyone in the street who Jill Stein is and they'll look at you
>>>>>> blankly. I don't care how correct one's political theory is or how
>>>>>> true his message, if it doesn't reach masses of people and isn't
>>>>>> embraced
>>>>> by them, it means nothing at all in terms of real change.
>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>>>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob
>>>>>> Hachey
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:09 AM
>>>>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>>>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Miriam,
>>>>>> Wise words here from Mr. Hedges.
>>>>>> I am wrestling in my mind. In this corner we have Chris Hedges and
>>>>>> his definition of a socialist. He argues that Sanders is not a good
>>>>>> choice for a leader because he enables the military industrial
>>>>>> complex and other corporates.
>>>>>> In the opposing corner, we have William Kaufman arguing that the
>>>>>> left needs to relax and support Bernie Sanders.
>>>>>> Seems I'm waffling back and forth between those two sides. No doubt
>>>>>> that sanders had done a good job identifying the scourge of income
>>>>>> inequality and that he has pulled Clinton slightly to the left.
>>>>>> AT this point in time, I'd say my heart is with Hedges and my head
>>>>>> is sort of with Kaufman. My heart is more committed to Hedges than
>>>>>> my head is to Kaufman.
>>>>>> IS that trying to have it both ways? If so, then you may lable me
>>>>>> guilty as charged.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>