Okay, I suppose you can admire someone without trying to emulate him,
but if you do not try to emulate him at least a little bit you ad better
be prepared for people doubting the sincerity of your admiration. As for
Chavez, I am willing to count him as a socialist because he did say that
socialist property relations were his long term goal. I don't think he
was taking a path that would be very likely to achieve it and the points
you make about him tend to emphasize that. He was, to put it simply,
administering a capitalist state and making not even the slightest
effort to expropriate the capitalists. He seemed to think that gradual
incremental reforms would someday achieve socialism and that the
capitalists would not resist the inevitable. One would think that the
resistance from the capitalists he was getting over his timid reforms
would have given him a clue that this might not work, but that is the
way even the most left-wing social democrats think. Sanders, on the
other hand, has not indicated that he wants to do anything more than
just adjust capitalism a little bit and then be satisfied with
capitalism. That is, he just wants to make some liberal reforms. Now
really, you said that you become angry when a right-wing Republican
calls bourgeois liberalism socialism, but when Sanders calls the same
thing socialism it is perfectly alright. As for me, I don't think it is
alright for either of them to call it socialism. You don't have to be a
revolutionary socialist to be a socialist. You don't even have to be a
Marxist to be a socialist. There were numerous utopian socialist
tendencies already in existence when Marx came along and there are some
remnants of them even now. But you do have to be a socialist to be a
socialist and Obama is not a socialist; William Clinton is not a
socialist; Hillary Clinton is not a socialist and Bernard Sanders is not
a socialist. If he was not calling himself a socialist you can be sure
that these right-wing republicans would be calling him one and they
would be wrong. By calling himself a socialist he is just backing them up.
On 10/30/2015 10:39 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
People aren't saying that the US isn't Capitalist because of some
regulations. They are saying that it is not Capitalist because it doesn't
meet the requirements of Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith and other
classical economists. They call it a Corporate autocracy or other such
phrases or "capitalism run amuch".
What is wrong with Sanders saying that he admires Debs? Does one have to be
a socialist in order to admire him? One can admire someone without wanting
to emulate him in every possible aspect. And, I'm not so sure about Chavez
being a socialist in the terms you require. Why do you think Chavez met the
minimum requirements for being socialist? He wasn't running a socialist
state and he was, in fact, benefiting from the extraction of oil which isn't
a very socialist and cooperative thing to do in a world that is burning up
because of greenhouse gases. The fact is, Chavez had his good side, as does
Sanders, as did Fidele. And not everything that Castro did was wonderful
although much was very good. I want to emphasize whatever good I can find
and support it and accept the fact that no person and no system is going to
be pure. If Hillary gets the nomination, I can vote for Jill Stein who says
all the things I agree with, or some other candidate who says everything I
agree with, and I can feel ethical and pure and unsullied by supporting a
rotten system, and the rotten system will go on existing and being rottten.
If we're unlucky, someone worse than Hillary will win the Presidency like
Ted Cruz or Marc Orubio, and with a Republican congress and the supreme
court we have, things will become much worse on a daily basis for you and me
and most folks whom we know. And I can then be philosophical and say that
things have to get worse before the proletariat rise up and throw off their
chains. But I don't have that kind of personality. I don't want to sit back
and wait while things get worse because maybe, someday, the proletariat will
throw off their chains. I'll be dead by then.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 7:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
If Sanders is not trying to mislead people he is doing it anyway. For one
thing, he says he admires Eugene Debs. Just how similar was Debs to what
Sanders is now? About as similar as Debs was to his jailers. Then, is
Sanders really even a social democrat. Hugo Chavez called himself a social
democrat too. In Chavez's case I can count him as a socialist. I think his
strategy and tactics for achieving socialism while administering a
capitalist state were a dead end, but at least Chavez met the minimum
qualifications for socialist. Just how close does Sanders come to Chavez? As
for the United States not being capitalist, that comes from the same
perspective that tries so hard to misrepresent socialism. Just because there
are some regulations on business and some social welfare programs those
pundits declare that the United States is not really capitalist.
On 10/30/2015 5:22 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I have to admit that I get really angry when a right wing person callson line to which I was listening.
Liberals, Socialists. They even call Centrists, like Obama,
Socialists. I don't think Sanders is a Liberal. I don't think he's a
real Socialist either. I think he's a Social Democrat, sort of. But I
have to also admit, that I don't get angry at him when he misuses the
word, Socialist. Why don't I get angry? Because I don't think his
motives are to mislead or to cheat people, or to steal from them. When
people far to the right miseuse the term, I think their motives are
purely malevolent. And by the way, I've heard a few discussions
lately and also read a few articles which indicate that what we have
now isn't real capitalism, that the word, "capitalism" is being
misused as a description for our current economic system. If my memory
were better, I'd remember who said this just the other day in a discussion
Miriamfalsehoods.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate
I am not ignoring the fact that he calls himself a social democrat.let me ask you this. Does it bother you when one of those right wing
Don't you remember that a long time ago, before Sanders was even in
the conversation, I said that it is really hard to distinguish a
social democrat from a liberal? Actually, there is a difference even
if it is slight, but the social democrats have moved so far to the
right that the right wing of the social democrats cannot be classified
as socialists anymore at all. A socialist is a person who is opposed
to capitalism and is in favor of the social ownership and control of
the means of production by the people of a society. I was not born
when that definition was assigned to that word and you were not born
when that word was assigned to that definition and when that word and
that definition were assigned to each other social democrats were not
yet in existence. If they have moved so far to the right that they are
no longer socialists it is unfortunate that they still call themselves
socialists, but they are still not socialists. As for the word
progressive, that one is pretty vague in the first place. Remember,
the more things a word means the vaguer it is and progressive in a
political sense has never been a precise term anyway. However, it is
kind of hard for me to think of Hillary Clinton as very progressive. Now
Republicans call any liberal a socialist?
It bothers me. It bothers me because they are not socialists and byto embrace it.
calling them socialists a flat out lie is being promulgated. But when
a liberal calls himself a socialist and misuses the word socialism in
the very same way as those right-wing Republicans misuse it you are ready
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just stopped lying and if they don'tpeople.
stop lying then shouldn't they be called out on it when they do? By
the way, that pot of cigars I am cooking sure do smell good.
On 10/30/2015 3:57 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You're ignoring that he calls himself a Social Democrat. However, youthe social welfare state that we had and although it certainly didn't
can complain about how words are misused and how their misuse,
misleads people, and I can agree that it's wrong. But in the big
picture, it's a minor sin, given the big purposeful lies that are
being told every day and again, I think you need to look at the
people who are misusing the words and their motives. Why are you not
disturbed at the way the word, progressive, is being misused? Have
you noticed that everyone who isn't a right wing member of the
Republican Party is called a Progressive? Hillary Clinton is called a
Progressive. The Center on American Progress is considered to be a
Progressive organization, even though it's run by two lobbyists and
has just invited Netenyahu to speak. And actually, didn't people
start using the word, progressive, when the word, liberal, became
unacceptable? And why is being liberal unacceptable? Because, to the
Hard Left, it isn't real Socialism, and to the Right, it's soft on
poor people and criminals. So while you object to how words are being
misused, I object to hair splitting and to the fact that people are
so busy arguing about which is the absolutely correct way to view
society and solve problems, that the intellectdualization and theory
takes precedence over what is happening in real life on a day to day
basis to real people. I'm upset that when some folks become involved
in union organizing, their goal isn't to actually organize the union
to fix a problem in the present, but to organize so that the union
will be ready in the future when and if people are ready to rise up
and change our basic economic structures. So that effort has been
going on in the US for how long now? And we're no closer to changing
our basic economic structures in the direction of socialism. In
fact, we've lost
solve all our problems, it made life a whole lot better for a whole lot of
falsehoods.And that's what Bernie Sanders is trying to get people to see and tofalsehoods.
work toward. And it's much more likely that they'll work toward that,
however inadequate it may be compared to the ideal of pure socialism
and however poorly he labels it, then they would be to work for the
state ownership of the means of production. If he made public
speeches supporting that goal, he'd be booed off the stage.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate
It is not a matter of using definitions that are acceptable to meradiation.
personally. It is a matter of not being misleading and obscurantist.
Honestly, the word socialism means something. Take any word at all
and then decide that it means everything. A word that comes to mind
right now is keyboard because it is right in front of me. Suppose I
said that the central galactic keyboard causes an environment of high
Then you said, what does that have to do with a keyboard? And Ivague it is.
answered that keyboard means black hole. Then I said that I had
keyboard for breakfast this morning and you asked how I could eat a
keyboard and I said that keyboard also means oatmeal. Just how good a
job of communication would I be doing. Again, if a word means
everything it means nothing and the more things a word means the more
When you use the word socialist to mean liberal that is just plainreally good with cornbread. Yes, a bowl of cigars and cornbread make a
wrong. It does not mean liberal whether Ted Cruz is using it that way
or bernie Sanders is using it that way. If you use it to mean liberal
you are misleading people whether it is out of your own ignorance or
whether it is a deliberate lie. If you use the word keyboard to mean
grapefruit and you make speeches in which you explain to your
audiences that grapefruits and keyboards are the same thing you are
misleading anyone who is gullible or ignorant enough to believe you
and there can only be two explanations of why you are misleading them.
Either you have some reason to lie to them in order to deceive them
into thinking that keyboards and grapefruits are the same thing or
else you are ignorant of the difference between grapefruits and
keyboards yourself. If someone was actually making such a speech and
I pointed out that keyboards and grapefruits are not the same thing
would you insist that I am only demanding that other people use my
own personal definitions? If you did then you would be wrong about
that too. I did not make up these definitions. These definitions were
assigned their meanings and their words long before I ever came along.
I am sorry, but I had nothing to do with deciding that grapefruit
refers to a citrus fruit and that keyboard refers to a device used
for typing. I also had nothing to do with deciding that socialist
refers to a person who opposes capitalism and advocates the social
ownership of the means of production. But I have learned what a whole
lot of words mean and when I find someone misusing them I can
diagnose either lying or ignorance. Now, I think I will check on the
cigar that I am cooking for dinner. You do know that a cigar is what
some people call a pot of beans, don't you. Of course, if you say
that I should call it a pot of beans myself then you are insisting on
my using your personal definition of cigar, whatever that may be.
Well, I will ignore whatever your personal definition is and I will
tell you that cigars taste
fine dinner.
On 10/30/2015 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
He sees himself as a Social Democrat. You insist that people be veryacceptable to you.
precise in their language and that they use definitions that are
For example, you don't like the way in which the term, politicallyto say it.
correct, is used because from what you know about the history of its
useage, people are using it incorrectly. But people just don't
conform to our personal requirements for them and language is not
static. It is ever changing. I think it is a waste of time and
energy to focus on all the misuse of language that goes on
continually. It's more helpful to try to figure out what people are
trying to say and why they're trying
Miriamfalsehoods.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 11:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate
I am not even suggesting that he use traditional socialist language
or that he even promote socialism. That is, I am not suggesting that
he do that unless he becomes a socialist. I am only suggesting that
he be honest and stop calling himself a socialist. That would meet
his audiences where they are a lot better. As much as I would like
for him to be a socialist he is not one. He may as well admit that
he is a liberal and stop misleading people.
On 10/29/2015 9:34 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I certainly can't support someone saying that a policesocialist language to make these points. He uses language to which
department is socialism, and I have to take the word of the author
that Sanders actually said that since I didn't hear the speech. But
if he did, it's an example of imprecise language. I assume that if
he said it, he was attempting to point out that there are several
government programs which exist to benefit society as a whole. If I
remember correctly, the article said that he also mentioned social
security as another example. I'm sure that he is aware that these
are not examples of socialism. I am equally sure that he was
attempting to get his audience to consider that programs which are
run by the government are not, by definition, bad. There's an old
social work concept which, I'm sure is used in community
organizing, as well as in casework. It is, Start where the client
is. Bernie is talking to audiences who have been told for years,
often by Democrats like Bill Clinton, that big government is bad.
If you want to be elected, you don't talk socialist theory to
people who think that private enterprise does everything better
than government. I posted a separate article which you may have
noticed by now, in which Sanders uses the statement of a Muslim
student at George Mason University as a starting point to begin to
explain how the ruling class uses race, religion, and sexual
orientation to separate the workers so that the workers will be
distracted from organizing. But he doesn't use traditional
he thinks the audience can relate.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate
steroids.I remember watching a gubernatorial candidates debate on televisionsocialism.
for an earlier election. The three candidates on stage were
Republican John Raese, Democrat Joe Manchin - now U.S. senator from
West Virginia
- and Mountain Party candidate Jessie Johnson. The question of
Obamacare came up and John Raese sneeringly denounced it because it
was
Manchin did not respond. It may have been tacitly, but he
effectively endorsed Raese's position. Jessie Johnson, on the other
hand, said that it seemed to him that a law that mandated that
people buy insurance from private insurance companies was
capitalism on
to you.I moaned at him because he just stopped and left it at that. Oh how
I wished that I had been on that stage. I would have gone on to say
the following. Not only is Obamacare capitalism on steroids, but
anyone who tries to tell you that it is socialism either does not
have the slightest idea of what socialism is or else is flat out
lying
socialism.Which are you, Mr. Raese, an ignoramus or a liar? Alas, I was not
there and Jessie Johnson did not have the nerve to break with his
oh so polite attitude to call out the right-wing jerk. Raese was
allowed to continue with his superior attitude. Anyway, though,
when Bernard Sanders tells you that the police force is an example
of socialism just how is that so different from calling Obamacare
Either way you are hearing someone who either does not have thewhat socialism is or else is lying to you. So is Sanders an
slightest idea of
ignoramus or a liar?
Either way, whether it is John Raese or Bernard Sanders, they are
both attacking socialism.