Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders's Speech Presents a Conundrum for New Left's Socialist Strategy

From the very inception of this Great Experiment, the United States of
America, the Working Class, those people left out of the Constitution,
were sold a Fairy Tale about the "Rugged Individual", the ability to
pull oneself up by their own boot straps, the self made man...notice
in all of this sales pitch that women were not included? It was not
"Lady-like" for women to stand alone on their own two feet.
We are even fed Fairy Tales about "self made millionaires".
Yet, do we ever look closely at our Great American Oligarchy? Its
members, while always bickering among themselves, always come together
to protect their right to rule. And that Right is given to them by
the very Constitution they drafted.
You and I are told that "Real Men" take care of their own. They can
"take it on the chin". They jeer those who join together in unions,
shouting that these yellow bellied wimps are acting like babies...like
girls!
But the Oligarchy has no such confusion when its members are
threatened. They call out the police and the National Guard. Their
daily newspapers call out for courts to punish these unAmerican
rioters who threaten our democracy. And the White lackey preachers
spring to their pulpits, calling on God Almighty to strike down these
Devil Spawn.

And far too many of our Working Class brothers and sisters buy into
this false reality. The roads are strewn with the maimed, crushed and
disfigured bodies of those brave Souls who believed that crawling into
the bosses coal mine, or climbing the girders of the bosses new tower,
or striding into the forest alone, when there should have been a team.
And the bosses? Like today's generals, they never leave the comfort
of their secure quarters to lead their people. In their private,
secluded clubs they cackle and sneer at the foolishness of the people
they send out to do their work.

And over and over they tell us that our dream is to be rich, like
them. The real truth, that which they hide from us, is that wealth
can be Hoovered up and taken back by those who "hand it out". Riches
are only temporary. What is the real mark of success is Power.
Control. And the Ruling Class has that well under control. They own
the factories, the railroads, the shipping lines, the airlines, the
high rise buildings, the Land on which those buildings stand, and the
vast Lands we call America. Maybe there are instances where the
little guy won out over the big guys, the churches love the story of
David and his little sling. But the very fact that it is a story told
over and over simply points to the fact that David was the exception
to the rule.
What ever happened to the old saying, "There is strength in numbers"?
Or, "United we stand, divided, we fall"?

Carl Jarvis



On 7/1/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> And we have American culture which includes The American Dream. The goal is
> to have material success and become wealthy. It is not for everyone in
> America to have a comfortable home, nutritious food, and to have their
> medical needs met. It is not for everyone to have an opportunity to do
> meaningful work and earn a living wage. It is for you, one person, to work
> hard enough so that you will become rich and can retire early, if you so
> choose.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 9:36 PM
> To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
> Cc: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders's Speech Presents a Conundrum for New
> Left's Socialist Strategy
>
> As I see it, there are many Americans who do not trust their own judgement.
> They assume that if they can't trust themselves then they kcan't trust those
> people around them. This leaves the very wealthy.
> They are considered to be successful because we have been conditioned to
> believe that Wealth means Success. And the more that the Wealthy are
> empowered, the more they appear to be successful, and thus, qualified for
> leadership.
> It's a vicious circle.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 6/30/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>> The only reason I see that it is so difficult to understand is that so
>> many people do not understand what socialism is. That is largely due
>> to deliberate right-wing distortions. But how about this? If you ever
>> use Wikipedia you will know that any user can edit each article. There
>> is also a discussion page for each article and that discussion page is
>> for discussing proposed edits for improving the article. Well, on the
>> discussion page for an article on the Freedom Socialist Party someone
>> apparently misunderstood the purpose of the discussion page while at
>> the same time misunderstanding what socialism is. She wanted to start
>> a discussion on why would anyone use the words freedom and socialism
>> in the name of one party. She seemed to think that was a complete
>> contradiction in terms.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Carl Sagan
>> ??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
>> ??? Carl Sagan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/29/2019 9:07 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>> Capitalism and Socialism cannot coexist.
>>> Socialism and democracy can coexist.
>>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>> On 6/29/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>>> The answer to your question is that you just go ahead and organize
>>>> that socialist party outside of the existing power structure. The
>>>> question, however, seems to be assuming an incorrect idea of what
>>>> should be done with that socialist party organized outside the
>>>> capitalist electoral system. First, running socialists inside a
>>>> capitalist party defeats the whole idea of socialism. How is it
>>>> going to bring about socialism to work for and ensure that a
>>>> capitalist party continues in power? Then, since the electoral
>>>> system is rigged to ensure that only capitalist parties ever get
>>>> elected then what is the point of running candidates who will
>>>> compete for votes with the capitalist parties? If a socialist party,
>>>> socialist in reality and not just in name, runs candidates the whole
>>>> point in running them is to get a platform to get out socialist
>>>> ideas. That is, take advantage of those cracks in the system to turn
>>>> it against itself. The main goal of a real socialist party, though,
>>>> is to encourage and help organize strikes, marches, demonstrations
>>>> and other forms of mass action. Again, when you try to change the
>>>> system from within the system you are the one who gets changed, not
>>>> the system. That has been proven over and over so many times that it
>>>> is amazing that anyone still tries to change the system from within it.
>>>> But people still do and they just keep failing.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Carl Sagan
>>>> ??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
>>>> ??? Carl Sagan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2019 9:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>>>> This article makes Roger's case for him. There are some problems
>>>>> like, in America, how could you convince people to vote for open
>>>>> borders and, given our election laws, how do you actually construct
>>>>> a powerful working socialist party outside of the existing
>>>>> structure?
>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders's Speech Presents a Conundrum for New Left's Socialist
>>>>> Strategy
>>>>>
>>>>> Sen. Bernie Sanders delivers remarks at a campaign function at
>>>>> George Washington University Democratic presidential candidate Sen.
>>>>> Bernie Sanders delivers remarks at a campaign function in the
>>>>> Marvin Center at George Washington University on June 12, 2019, in
>>>>> Washington, D.C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah Silbiger / Getty Images
>>>>>
>>>>> By Ashley Smith, Truthout Published June 25, 2019
>>>>>
>>>>> In the U.S., the failures of capitalism are being refracted in the
>>>>> race for the White House, just as they were in 2016. On one side,
>>>>> President Trump is rallying his predominantly middle-class voters
>>>>> to re-elect him based on his program of economic nationalism and
>>>>> bigotry that has wreaked havoc at home and abroad.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other side, Democrats are in a battle for their party's
>>>>> presidential nomination to challenge the bigot billionaire in 2020.
>>>>> Predictably, the party has banded together, at least for now,
>>>>> around the establishment's favored candidate, Joe Biden, who
>>>>> defends the existing capitalist order, albeit with minor reforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> His challengers, however, have moved to the left, adopting (however
>>>>> honestly or dishonestly) much of the program Sen. Bernie Sanders
>>>>> put forward in 2016, while at the same time, rejecting Sanders's
>>>>> self-proclaimed democratic socialism. They all know, including Sen.
>>>>> Elizabeth Warren, that to win the party's support if Biden
>>>>> stumbles, they must toe its pro-capitalist line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Worried about Sanders and the growing popularity of socialism,
>>>>> Trump and bottom-dwellers for the Democratic nomination like
>>>>> Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper have red-baited Sanders, trying to
>>>>> discredit his politics by associating him with Stalinist regimes.
>>>>> Recently, Sanders took his detractors head-on in a landmark speech
>>>>> at George Washington University.
>>>>>
>>>>> He argued that the threat from authoritarian oligarchs like Trump
>>>>> cannot be defeated by centrist neoliberals like Biden and
>>>>> Hickenlooper, but only by democratic socialism. He defined that as
>>>>> an extension of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal through a new
>>>>> economic bill of rights that would include a right to a decent job,
>>>>> health care and secure retirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders also integrated the fight against climate change and all
>>>>> forms of bigotry as essential parts of the struggle for socialism.
>>>>> He underscored that he could not win any of this on his own but
>>>>> only as part of a political revolution in which millions of people
>>>>> join the political process, take over the Democratic Party and win
>>>>> control of the government to transform the priorities of U.S.
>>>>> society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Predictably, the establishment in the media and both parties
>>>>> brushed off the speech. The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson
>>>>> called Sanders a "refugee from the 1930s." Senator Warren - who
>>>>> recently proclaimed she's "capitalist to my bones," perhaps an
>>>>> electorally foolish mistake that may alienate Sanders's supporters
>>>>> - reacted with laughter when asked about his speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some on the left have also dismissed the speech as merely Sanders's
>>>>> attempt to woo radicals back into the Democratic Party. Others
>>>>> breathlessly celebrated it as the most profound and transformative
>>>>> speech since those delivered by Martin Luther King Jr. and rejected
>>>>> criticisms of Sanders as missing the forest for the trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> The left should not reduce its role to cheerleading Sanders's
>>>>> speech and gloss over its weaknesses, because what's at stake is
>>>>> the politics, aims and strategy of the new socialist movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> But these responses on the left fail to grasp the contradictory
>>>>> nature of the Sanders campaign, his electoral strategy in the
>>>>> Democratic Party, and his conception of democratic socialism. In
>>>>> contrast to Sanders's ultra-left detractors, radicals must
>>>>> appreciate that, for the second consecutive presidential primary,
>>>>> an open advocate of socialism is in the running for the Democratic
>>>>> nomination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, those who credit Sanders for creating the new socialist
>>>>> movement are exaggerating his impact; his popularity was made
>>>>> possible by the Great Recession, the capitalist parties' bailout of
>>>>> banks, and the popular resistance to austerity and scapegoating.
>>>>> Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that Sanders has
>>>>> encouraged this resistance and given a name to its politics -
>>>>> socialism - and helped fuel the rise of the Democratic Socialists
>>>>> of America (DSA).
>>>>>
>>>>> We should celebrate his attacks on "unfettered capitalism," the
>>>>> oligarchic billionaire class, authoritarians and fascists, as well
>>>>> as his full-throated defense of socialism as means to achieve
>>>>> freedom for workers and oppressed people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, Sanders's proposed economic bill of rights raises the
>>>>> stakes for all of us to fight for an agenda that puts people before
>>>>> profit. That a mainstream candidate is putting forth such demands
>>>>> should be grasped as an opportunity and used to advance social and
>>>>> class struggle in order to achieve them.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the same time, though, the left should not reduce its role to
>>>>> cheerleading Sanders's speech and gloss over its weaknesses,
>>>>> because what's at stake is not Sanders per se, but the politics,
>>>>> aims and strategy of the new socialist movement. His speech exposed
>>>>> three key problems we must overcome in order to win the systemic
>>>>> change we so desperately need.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democratic Party: The Graveyard of the Left
>>>>>
>>>>> First, Sanders's strategy of pursuing a political revolution
>>>>> through the Democratic Party, however much it may raise the profile
>>>>> of socialism, is a trap. As everyone from House Speaker Nancy
>>>>> Pelosi to many (if not most) members of DSA recognize, the
>>>>> Democratic Party is a capitalist and imperialist party, not a labor
>>>>> party rooted in unions like that led by Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democratic Party is a capitalist and imperialist party, not a
>>>>> labor party rooted in unions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is tightly controlled by a bureaucracy and elected officials,
>>>>> both of which depend on the bosses for funding. That does not mean
>>>>> it is no different than the Republican Party, which has
>>>>> historically been the capitalists' "A Team" that openly serves
>>>>> their interests and espouses conservatism.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats are the ruling class's liberal "B Team" that appeals
>>>>> to workers and oppressed groups by promising change within the system.
>>>>> Capitalists send them onto the field only when the "A Team" has
>>>>> played badly and are in danger of losing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats' function in the political game is two-fold: to
>>>>> co-opt the left and prevent it from building a workers' party; and
>>>>> to confine class and social struggle to tinkering with capitalism
>>>>> instead of replacing it with socialism. That's why Marxists have
>>>>> always called the Democratic Party the graveyard of social
>>>>> movements and the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every attempt to use the capitalist's "B Team" has backfired, from
>>>>> the Communist Party's popular front during the Great Depression, to
>>>>> Michael Harrington's realignment strategy that tried to turn it
>>>>> into a labor party in the 1960s and 1970s, to the Maoists' similar
>>>>> effort in Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition during the 1980s. Each
>>>>> time the left was co-opted, movements demobilized in support of a
>>>>> party that then took them for granted and moved to the right,
>>>>> betraying their promises in the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, the Democrats are in a stronger position to co-opt the new
>>>>> socialist left. As Kim Moody documents,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The party has become a well-funded, professionalized, multitiered
>>>>> hierarchy capable of intervening in elections at just about every
>>>>> level. It selects candidates, provides funding, furnishes
>>>>> endorsements, offers media relations, and supplies computer and
>>>>> digital campaign and get-out-the-vote services. In Congress and
>>>>> most state legislatures, its leaders impose a high level of party
>>>>> discipline, such that for the last two decades 90 percent of floor
>>>>> votes in both houses have been along strict party lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders's run in 2016 exemplifies the ruling class's stranglehold
>>>>> on the party. Although he electrified a new generation with his
>>>>> call for socialism and did better than he or anyone expected, he
>>>>> was, in the end, stymied by the bureaucracy, elected officials and
>>>>> capitalist funders. While they treated him politely in public, they
>>>>> ensured that their anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the
>>>>> nomination.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democratic establishment is even more prepared to neutralize
>>>>> Sanders this time. Now backing Biden, it has encouraged a host of
>>>>> pro-capitalist progressives to split Sanders's vote and greenlit
>>>>> Hickenlooper and others'
>>>>> redbaiting. The party will try to persuade voters desperate to kick
>>>>> Trump out of office to play it safe, take no risks on Sanders's
>>>>> socialism, and vote for Biden or some other "electable" candidate
>>>>> who is moderate enough to win over conservative voters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Anita Hill, who suffered the worst sexist discrimination from
>>>>> Biden and has every reason to oppose him, has accepted this logic,
>>>>> telling reporters, "Of course, I could" vote for him. These tactics
>>>>> have successfully driven down Sanders's poll numbers over the last
>>>>> couple of months with Warren in particular gaining at his expense,
>>>>> proving yet again the difficulty of advancing socialism in a
>>>>> capitalist party.
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialists, regardless of their position on Sanders's campaign,
>>>>> must unite to organize an exit from the Democratic Party and build
>>>>> a new independent socialist party.
>>>>>
>>>>> While DSA has endorsed Sanders, its left wing understands that the
>>>>> Democratic Party cannot be taken over, but rather must be replaced.
>>>>> Instead
>>>>> of backing third parties now, though, one of its most prominent
>>>>> caucuses, Bread and Roses, supports a dirty break strategy of using
>>>>> the Democrats'
>>>>> ballot line to run socialist candidates, project its program,
>>>>> encourage class struggle, win office and build an organization
>>>>> within the Democrats to eventually split off and set up a new
>>>>> workers' party.
>>>>>
>>>>> While this strategy has led to some stunning breakthroughs, like
>>>>> the election of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, as well
>>>>> as candidates for state and city council offices, Sanders does not
>>>>> support it.
>>>>> Instead
>>>>> of
>>>>> advocating taking over the party, he has already promised that if
>>>>> he loses, he will campaign for whichever Democrat wins the
>>>>> nomination in the general election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The left must challenge his argument, especially because he has the
>>>>> greatest influence over the trajectory of our new movement. To
>>>>> avoid the fate of our left-wing predecessors, socialists,
>>>>> regardless of their position on Sanders's campaign, must unite to
>>>>> organize an exit from the Democratic Party and build a new
>>>>> independent socialist party.
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialism Not Liberalism
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, as part of his accommodation to the Democratic Party,
>>>>> Sanders - who used to extol Eugene Debs's Socialist Party as his
>>>>> model - now explicitly associates socialism with Franklin Delano
>>>>> Roosevelt's New Deal. While he may do that to reach a popular
>>>>> audience, as some on the left have argued, it both sows illusions
>>>>> about Roosevelt's program and limits the horizons of socialism to,
>>>>> at best, reformist management of capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's be clear: Roosevelt was, as he declared, "the best friend the
>>>>> profit system ever had" and the "savior" of "the system of private
>>>>> profit and free enterprise." FDR's aim was not to institute
>>>>> socialism through the New Deal, but use government programs to
>>>>> revive the system, stabilize it through social reform, and co-opt a
>>>>> workers' movement that threatened to break with the two-party
>>>>> system and challenge capitalist rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as Sanders raises expectations for social reform, he
>>>>> narrows the vision of democratic socialism below even that of
>>>>> social democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even FDR's call for an economic bill of rights, which Sanders
>>>>> resuscitates, never threatened to nationalize capitalism's means of
>>>>> production.
>>>>> That's
>>>>> why
>>>>> 169 capitalist countries - including Germany, Australia and France
>>>>> - ratified the U.N. version of it called "The International
>>>>> Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's where many on the left are mistaken, confusing liberal
>>>>> tinkering with actual socialism. Norman Thomas, the longtime leader
>>>>> of the reformist Socialist Party, was right when he wrote, "What
>>>>> Mr. Roosevelt has given us is State capitalism: that is to say, a
>>>>> system under which the State steps in to regulate and in many cases
>>>>> to own, not for the purpose of establishing production for use but
>>>>> rather for the purpose of maintaining in so far as may be possible
>>>>> the profit system with its immense rewards of private ownership and
>>>>> its grossly unfair division of the national income."
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, as much as Sanders raises expectations for social reform, he
>>>>> narrows the vision of democratic socialism below even that of
>>>>> social democracy to New Deal liberalism. Classic social democracy,
>>>>> whatever its weaknesses, at least promised to use nationalization
>>>>> to socialize and democratize control of the economy, whereas
>>>>> liberalism merely promises adjustments to capitalism, not its
>>>>> transformation into workers' democratic control of society, which
>>>>> is the goal of socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compromising Socialist Internationalism
>>>>>
>>>>> Third, Sanders's speech failed to uphold socialist internationalism
>>>>> on today's central questions of immigration and U.S. imperialism.
>>>>> This failure flows from his collaboration with an imperialist
>>>>> party, as well as the nationalist logic of social democracy, which
>>>>> has always put use of the state for domestic reform for workers at
>>>>> home above international solidarity.
>>>>> It
>>>>> was thus not an accident that he delivered the speech before a sea
>>>>> of U.S.
>>>>> flags.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Sanders rightly denounces Trump's attacks on immigrants.
>>>>> But he opposes open borders as an idea hatched by the Koch
>>>>> brothers, and instead supports the Democrats' preferred "solution"
>>>>> to the "problem" of undocumented immigrants - Comprehensive
>>>>> Immigration Reform (CIR). At best, this is a lesser evil; it
>>>>> includes increased policing of the border to stop further
>>>>> immigration, onerous conditions for legalization, and pro-corporate
>>>>> guest worker programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Lucy Herschel argues, in practice, this policy was responsible
>>>>> for "a reign of terror on immigrant communities that former
>>>>> President Obama himself elevated to a high art during his eight
>>>>> years in office. For the past decade, CIR has required the
>>>>> deportation of more than 100,000 people a year, the detention of
>>>>> hundreds of thousands more in inhuman conditions and the
>>>>> terrorization of millions of families - all in exchange for
>>>>> comprehensive legislation that never came and now seems further
>>>>> away than ever."
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialists should reject CIR and instead demand amnesty for all
>>>>> undocumented immigrants and open borders. Our slogans should be
>>>>> those Jesse Myerson
>>>>> advocates: "No penalties, no electric fences, no drone
>>>>> surveillance, no papers, no fear. Instead, universal human rights,
>>>>> consecrated in struggle, enforced by solidarity. The unification of
>>>>> the world's workers demands this."
>>>>>
>>>>> Such internationalism also requires opposition to imperialism -
>>>>> something Sanders strangely left out of his speech. Socialists must
>>>>> remember that the U.S. is not just any other state. It runs an
>>>>> informal empire that reproduces and enforces global capitalism; it
>>>>> is in competition with other imperialist powers, especially China;
>>>>> and it oppresses weaker nations throughout the world. Under the
>>>>> misnomer "national defense," Washington's war machine gobbles up
>>>>> hundreds of billions of dollars a year on conventional and nuclear
>>>>> weapons, troops, and over 800 military bases around the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Sanders has rightly opposed George W. Bush's occupation
>>>>> of Iraq, Saudi Arabia's U.S.-backed war in Yemen, and Trump's
>>>>> threat of war on Iran.
>>>>> But he voted for the war in Afghanistan and war budgets that funded
>>>>> the occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Underlying this mixed record is his mistaken belief that the U.S.,
>>>>> under progressive leadership, could play a positive role in the
>>>>> world, especially in forging what he calls an international
>>>>> alliance in defense of democracy against authoritarian rulers like
>>>>> China's Xi Jinping, who he explicitly singles out in his speech.
>>>>> Such a position risks giving left-wing cover for Washington's
>>>>> confrontation with Beijing, an inter-imperial rivalry driven not by
>>>>> the politics of either regime, but their capitalist economies'
>>>>> competition for domination over the world market.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new socialist movement should instead follow the lead of Martin
>>>>> Luther King, Jr. who viewed the U.S. state not as a potentially
>>>>> benign force, but "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world
>>>>> today." King further called attention to how the massive
>>>>> expenditure on the war machine killing people abroad drains funds
>>>>> and resources that could otherwise go to workers and the oppressed
>>>>> at home.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why he spoke out against the Vietnam War and argued that the
>>>>> poor people's movement he initiated near the end of his life had to
>>>>> oppose what he called the "triple evils of racism, economic
>>>>> exploitation, and militarism." The new left should heed this call
>>>>> and build an independent mass movement to confront all of the
>>>>> system's inequalities at home and abroad.
>>>>>
>>>>> To win that struggle, we must build a new party of our own, uphold
>>>>> fierce internationalist opposition to all imperialisms, organize
>>>>> international solidarity from below, and challenge both parties of
>>>>> capital not only in the ballot box, but more importantly, in the
>>>>> streets and in workplaces where we have the power not only to win a
>>>>> political and social revolution for socialist democracy in the
>>>>> U.S., but throughout the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have much time left.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>