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 calls
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
on line to which I was listening.
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 4:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Both Bernie and Johnny promulgate falsehoods.
I am not ignoring the fact that he calls himself a social democrat.
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 let me ask you this. Does it bother
you when one of those right wing Republicans call any liberal a socialist?
It bothers me. It bothers me because they are not socialists and by 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 to embrace it.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just stopped lying and if they don't 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 solve
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
all our problems, it made life a whole lot better for a whole lot of people.
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 fine
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
dinner.
On 10/30/2015 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:steroids.
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 he
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
thinks the audience can relate.
Miriamsocialism.
-----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 falsehoods.
I remember watching a gubernatorial candidates debate on television
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 ignoramus
slightest idea of
or a liar?
Either way, whether it is John Raese or Bernard Sanders, they are
both attacking socialism.