This conversation was excellent all the way through. A lot of the common people who spoke at Bernie meetings were drowning in medical debt, choosing not to treat terminal illnesses for financial reasons, or something similar. Other than Bernie himself, I don't think I ever saw any straight, white, cisgendered intellectual give any opening talk or preamble. It was mostly people belonging to one or more marginalized identity groups. My point is this—I don't think anyone not preoccupied with matters of immediate survival or seduced by some promise of future visibility would have fallen for it. Personally, I had been in a group reading Alain Badiou's *Theory of the Subject* before volunteering for Bernie. We would read only a few paragraphs at the time and drill down on something that was beautifully written but made no sense. Maybe I use the wrong terminology to describe the mental process, but it seemed like the only way to be able to produce a description or summary was to dissociate and then rationalize. No one present ever explicitly associated the text with anything bad or controversial. No one seemed to have read the whole thing, no one explained the historical context. It was never said that the tragic hero being described in the beautiful passages was a victim of the advocated ideology. I remembered those passages for years. One of them even reminded me of "The Comprachicos," but to find it compelling in that case was to grant credibility to Badiou.
The same thing Democrats and most Republicans, including Trump want.
Increased centralized government power, and massive entitlement spending.
It’s “what the people want” except it isn’t. It’s what unthinking people gall for when subjected. to the sales pitches of those who sell it. These are
A. Those who still don’t understand the perils of collectivism and
B. Those who want the power that flows to them in these top down systems.
The Ayn Rand cult’s propaganda for indoctrination. Enjoy
This conversation was excellent all the way through. A lot of the common people who spoke at Bernie meetings were drowning in medical debt, choosing not to treat terminal illnesses for financial reasons, or something similar. Other than Bernie himself, I don't think I ever saw any straight, white, cisgendered intellectual give any opening talk or preamble. It was mostly people belonging to one or more marginalized identity groups. My point is this—I don't think anyone not preoccupied with matters of immediate survival or seduced by some promise of future visibility would have fallen for it. Personally, I had been in a group reading Alain Badiou's *Theory of the Subject* before volunteering for Bernie. We would read only a few paragraphs at the time and drill down on something that was beautifully written but made no sense. Maybe I use the wrong terminology to describe the mental process, but it seemed like the only way to be able to produce a description or summary was to dissociate and then rationalize. No one present ever explicitly associated the text with anything bad or controversial. No one seemed to have read the whole thing, no one explained the historical context. It was never said that the tragic hero being described in the beautiful passages was a victim of the advocated ideology. I remembered those passages for years. One of them even reminded me of "The Comprachicos," but to find it compelling in that case was to grant credibility to Badiou.
Remember that these people believe that “democracy” MEANS Socialism. They actually believe that the majority of people want Socialism.